Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Education: Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research (Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship series) 1788972295, 9781788972291

Entrepreneurship education is an area of growing importance within entrepreneurship research. This book critically discu

258 121 4MB

English Pages 224 [225] Year 2018

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Education: Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research (Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship series)
 1788972295, 9781788972291

Citation preview

Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Education

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 1

22/08/2018 10:08

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 2

22/08/2018 10:08

Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Education

Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research

Edited by

Ulla Hytti Research Director, University of Turku, Finland

Robert Blackburn Professor, Kingston University, UK

Eddy Laveren Professor, University of Antwerp and Antwerp Management School, Belgium IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE ECSB

Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 3

22/08/2018 10:08

© Ulla Hytti, Robert Blackburn and Eddy Laveren 2018 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited The Lypiatts 15 Lansdown Road Cheltenham Glos GL50 2JA UK Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. William Pratt House 9 Dewey Court Northampton Massachusetts 01060 USA

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2018944052 This book is available electronically in the Business subject collection DOI 10.4337/9781788972307

ISBN 978 1 78897 229 1 (cased) ISBN 978 1 78897 230 7 (eBook)

02

Typeset by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 4

22/08/2018 10:08

Contents List of figures and tablesvii List of contributorsix Foreword by Silke Tegtmeierxi Acknowledgementsxiii   1 Introduction: innovation and education matters in European entrepreneurship research Ulla Hytti, Robert Blackburn and Eddy Laveren

1

  2 Innovation in family firms and SMEs: distinctive features and research challenges Alfredo De Massis and Paola Rovelli

7

  3 Speed of innovation and proximity in a rural context: the case of a manufacturing SME Eva J.B. Jørgensen and Line Mathisen

24

  4 Micro firm learning communities in rural tourism: a multi-case study41 David Aylward, Leana Reinl and Felicity Kelliher   5 The relations between social capital and growth of innovative early stage firms: a contextual approach Valérie François, Christophe Lafaye and Matthieu Belarouci

60

  6 Internationalized SMEs: the impact of market orientation and marketing capability on business performance Sanna Joensuu-Salo, Kirsti Sorama and Salla Kettunen

84

  7 Systematising higher education: a typology of entrepreneurship education103 Torgeir Aadland and Lise Aaboen   8 Entrepreneurship in teacher education: conceptualisation and tensions 123 Karin Axelsson and Mats Westerberg

v

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 5

22/08/2018 10:08

vi

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

  9 ‘We’re the biggest student movement in Finland since the 1970s!’: a practice-based study of student Entrepreneurship Societies146 Piritta Parkkari and Krista Kohtakangas 10 Narrating entrepreneurial identities: how achievement motivation influences restaurateurs’ identity construction Magdalena Markowska and Friederike Welter

165

Index189

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 6

22/08/2018 10:08

Figures and tables FIGURES   4.1 Micro firm learning community model 55   6.1 Empirical model for internationalized firms 92   6.2 Empirical model for firms operating only in domestic markets93   7.1 Examples of courses or programmes inserted in the typology 116   8.1 Teaching model framework for entrepreneurship education (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008) 129 10.1 Example of coding and transforming data from first-order codes to second-order themes to theoretical dimensions 173

TABLES   3.1 Operationalization of proximity 31   3.2 Innovation phases, proximity and effect on speed of innovation36   4.1 Participant and observation details 47   5.1 Definitions of variables 69   5.2 Descriptive statistics (N = 104) 70   5.3 Composition of internal and external social capital 71   5.4 Matrix of simple correlations 72   5.5 Variance inflation factors (VIF) tests 73   5.6 Estimates of the relationship between growth and social capital74   6.1 Estimates and standardized regression weights of the model (internationalized firms) 93   6.2 Estimates and standardized regression weights of the model (firms operating in domestic markets) 93   7.1 Comparison of articles on entrepreneurship education from literature review 110   8.1 The research material 130

vii

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 7

22/08/2018 10:08

viii

  9.1 10.1 10.2 10.3

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Empirical material Overview of case entrepreneurs Types of identity narratives used to explain career choice Initial choice of narrative and motivation

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 8

150 171 175 180

22/08/2018 10:08

Contributors Lise Aaboen, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Torgeir Aadland, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Karin Axelsson, Mälardalen University, Sweden David Aylward, Cork Institute of Technology, Republic of Ireland Matthieu Belarouci, University of Rennes 1, France Robert Blackburn, Kingston University, United Kingdom Alfredo De Massis, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy and Lancaster University, United Kingdom Valérie François, University of Lille, France Ulla Hytti, University of Turku, Finland Sanna Joensuu-Salo, Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences, Finland Eva J.B. Jørgensen, UiT The Arctic University of Norway Felicity Kelliher, Waterford Institute of Technology, Republic of Ireland Salla Kettunen, Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences, Finland Krista Kohtakangas, University of Lapland, Finland Christophe Lafaye, University of Valenciennes, France Eddy Laveren, University of Antwerp and Antwerp Management School, Belgium Magdalena Markowska, Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping University, Sweden Line Mathisen, UiT The Arctic University of Norway Piritta Parkkari, University of Lapland, Finland Leana Reinl, Waterford Institute of Technology, Republic of Ireland

ix

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 9

22/08/2018 10:08

x

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Paola Rovelli, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy Kirsti Sorama, Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences, Finland Friederike Welter, University of Siegen and IfM Bonn, Germany Mats Westerberg, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 10

22/08/2018 10:08

Foreword As President of the European Council for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (ECSB), it is my pleasure to introduce the 13th volume in the Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research series. This book is an exclusive platform aimed at creating value for all members of the ECSB as well as scholars in entrepreneurship and small business all over the world. The ECSB is a non-profit organization whose main objective is to advance the understanding of entrepreneurship and to improve the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Europe. The organization has around 400 members and a growing network of about 2000 friends from nearly all European countries. Thus, ECSB is the largest European association of researchers, educators and practitioners in entrepreneurship. For more than 30 years, it has been our continuous objective to provide our community with top class offers that allow for a better understanding of entrepreneurship and SMEs. With an excellent community of researchers and teachers throughout Europe, we are a network of junior and senior scholars that aims to include all voices to be responsive to the demands in our societies. ECSB allows for a passionate and lively discourse which everyone is kindly invited to be part of. The ECSB aims at offering benefits that are characterized by high quality, relevance and impact. It invites disciplinary as well as interdisciplinary work while being distinctive in its focus at the same time. With a heritage of more than 30 years, the RENT Conference, jointly organized by ECSB and EIASM (The European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management), is the flagship offer to our community to meet up yearly to present and discuss cutting-edge research. This two-day event has the privilege of travelling around Europe with excellent venues in a different European city every year. Since 2013, the 3E – ECSB Entrepreneurship Education Conference – has become our second signature event, dedicated to research on entrepreneurship education. Spread over the year, we host smaller events across Europe that allow for different local communities to attend as well. We offer a doctoral consortium and a post doc writing workshop as well as a policy forum and a set of professional development workshops. xi

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 11

22/08/2018 10:08

xii

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

We supplement our offers by providing our early and mid-career scholars with a career mentoring programme. And we also promote creating and spreading knowledge via our webinar series. All chapters selected and revised for this book have previously been presented at the ECSB’s flagship event, the RENT Research in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Conference in Antwerp 2016. RENT is among the premier entrepreneurship conferences in the world. It attracts more than 200 entrepreneurship scholars every year and only its best papers are invited to become part of this anthology. Research-informed knowledge and expertise are needed to guide entrepreneurs and SMEs through current political, technological and economical changes on the global markets. On behalf of the ECSB, I am very honoured about these excellent contributions from the researchers that have contributed to this book. The papers, pre-selected by the Scientific Committee and the reviewers, go through a developmental review process of a minimum two stages to allow for the high-quality standard the ECSB is striving for with this anthology. I thank all authors and reviewers who have contributed to this volume. In sum, the Frontiers series offers a selection of the latest, cuttingedge research in entrepreneurship and small business in Europe. It has become a key resource for researchers, educators, entrepreneurs and policy makers interested in understanding entrepreneurship and the prosperity of SMEs. I hope you enjoy the read and I kindly invite you to enter the discourse with the ECSB community. Please, visit our website for the most up-todate developments and initiatives from the ECSB, www.ecsb.org. On behalf of the ECSB, I am looking forward to your engagement with us! Silke Tegtmeier President of the ECSB 2018

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 12

22/08/2018 10:08

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Edward Elgar Publishing for their encouragement and support in the development of this book. We are also grateful for the reviewers listed below who helped in the selection and development of the chapters: Gry Agnete Alsos, Nord University, Norway Anders Billström, Nord University, Norway Jean-Marie Courrent, University of Montpellier, France Helena Forsman, Finland Frank Janssen, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium Päivi Karhunen, Aalto University, Finland Eva Kašperová, Kingston University, UK Raija Komppula, University of Eastern Finland, Finland Tom Lahti, Hanken School of Economics, Finland Arja Lemmetyinen, University of Turku, Finland Tõnis Mets, Tartu University, Estonia Konstantinos Pitsakis, Kingston University, UK Sarah Robinson, Aarhus University, Denmark Elena Ruskovaara, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland Päivi Siivonen, University of Eastern Finland, Finland Pia Ulvenblad, Halmstad University, Sweden Anita Van Gils, Maastricht University School of Business and Economics, the Netherlands Lex Van Teeffelen, HU Business School Utrecht, the Netherlands Karen Verduijn, Free University Amsterdam, the Netherlands Karen Williams Middleton, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

xiii

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 13

22/08/2018 10:08

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 14

22/08/2018 10:08

1. Introduction: innovation and education matters in European entrepreneurship research Ulla Hytti, Robert Blackburn and Eddy Laveren INTRODUCING THE CHAPTERS The title of our introductory chapter to this volume in the Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research series can be interpreted in two ways. First, it illustrates that the volume pays attention to two enduring areas in entrepreneurship research – innovation and education. Second, it highlights the importance of both innovation and education for future economic and societal development. In contemporary societies and economies, it is important to focus research on innovation and education, as these activities matter as significant factors in economic and social development. Innovation is acknowledged as a major factor contributing to the performance, growth and competitiveness of firms and economies. Yet, research on innovation at the firm level has been either focused on a very narrow section of new and small ventures – high-technology firms (Gabrielsson et al., 2014) – or been studied in the context of large and listed firms. De Massis and Rovelli have, therefore, an important ambition in extending the field to studying innovation also in the context of family firms and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Chapter 2. They base their argument on the fact that family firms and SMEs are the most diffused organizational forms around the world, as well as the view that family firms and SMEs have their own distinctive characteristics. Our understanding of innovation may be limited and incomplete if our research is not extended to also cover family firms and SMEs. If family firms and SMEs increasingly participate in innovation activities, their economic and social impact will be important. In their chapter the authors highlight relevant research avenues and develop several research questions that will help to call and pave the way for future research on innovation in family and SMEs. 1

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 1

22/08/2018 10:08

2

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

In Chapter 3, Jørgensen and Mathisen address this call by investigating the innovation process in a manufacturing SME. Besides this they focus on another neglected element in innovation research, that of the rural context. The authors argue that speed of innovation (elapsed time between an initial discovery and its commercialization) is important for rural SMEs that cannot draw competitive advantages from economies of scale or competing on price. Being innovative and able to launch their new products or services on the market quickly is often the only way to create competitive advantage. The authors use a qualitative single-case study to study the speed in the development phase and the launching phase through retrospective informant stories. The main findings highlight that dimensions, degree and dynamics of proximity in relationships to external actors influence speed of innovation. For SMEs in rural contexts, geographical proximity varies across the different phases and actors, and is a foundation for the development of social and cognitive proximity. For example, geographical proximity is found crucial in the idea generation phase, to speed up the innovation process, whereas institutional and/or cognitive proximity enabled good knowledge interactions with universities and researchers. The authors find that social proximity (trust and good relations) is important to implement the opportunity potential in terms of cognitive proximity (mutual understanding and knowledge base that facilitates communications). Rural context is also highlighted in Chapter 4 by Aylward, Reinl and Kelliher. The chapter investigates micro firm community learning in a rural tourism context. Micro firms are a predominant form of business activity in rural contexts but they often suffer from lack of resources, isolation issues and market challenges. However, the authors argue that learning with others can assist them to remain competitive and to overcome sizespecific resource constraints, isolation and market challenges. The chapter identifies three key influences on sustained learning community activity using a multi-case study methodology. The first reflects the requirement for a balanced and regularly replenished broker to promote autonomy in this environment. The second emphasizes a need for progressive strategies tailored to the life cycle of the learning community. Finally, the case findings illustrate how boundary interactions influence knowledge flows and competence development in support of learning community goals. The authors acknowledge that more research is needed on the support actors as to their value for learning communities. Competent brokerage is not yet fully understood by community stakeholders. European entrepreneurship research is all about context (Hytti et al., 2018) and, as well being exemplified in Chapters 3 and 4, is illuminated further in Chapter 5. In this chapter, François, Lafaye and Belarouci

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 2

22/08/2018 10:08



Introduction ­3

adopt a contextual approach to social capital in a study focusing on innovative firms and antecedents of business performance. The authors investigate 104 founder–owner entrepreneurs from innovative SMEs that have received public support and examine the role of social capital in the growth of innovative firms in their first years of development. During the early years young ventures seem to benefit from external social capital as opposed to internal social capital. This is explained by the young age and small number of employees in these firms but the impact of internal social capital increases once the firms reach a certain size threshold. Moreover, while belonging to a cluster (or ‘pôle de compétitivité’) impacts on growth, the study finds no significant impact of clusters on the link between social capital relations and growth. Interestingly, the analysis does not support the notion that firms which have passed through an incubator have a greater level of external social capital, subsequently ensuring better growth. The authors call for additional research measuring the effects of public support. In Chapter 6, Joensuu-Salo, Sorama and Kettunen contribute to research on antecedents to business performance and success by focusing on market orientation (i.e. how to acquire and use knowledge and understanding of customers and competitors); and marketing capability (i.e. skills and knowledge to create solid relationships with customers, distributors and suppliers). The chapter analyses the impact of market orientation and marketing capability on business performance in SMEs in the forest industry, including if the impact is different in domestic and international SMEs. By drawing on survey data from 504 SMEs in Finland, the analysis suggests that both market orientation and marketing capability have an impact on business performance of Finnish SMEs but this impact is more pronounced in firms operating in international markets than those operating only in domestic markets. The findings also suggest that market orientation has an impact on marketing capabilities and, indirectly, on business performance. The authors thus suggest it is important for SMEs to develop their market orientation which in turn develops their marketing capabilities to increase firm’s success. The second main theme in this volume is education. Entrepreneurship education is seen as a key ingredient in developing entrepreneurial potential among students (Guerrero and Urbano, 2015; Varamäki et al., 2016). However, an important discussion in entrepreneurship education research is what and how to teach entrepreneurship. It is acknowledged that there is no simple, or single, solution but various approaches are linked to the different aims of entrepreneurship education. Aadland and Aaboen contribute to this discourse in Chapter 7 by developing a new typology for entrepreneurship education based on a structured review of the literature

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 3

22/08/2018 10:08

4

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

in the field. Their typology comprises six different approaches to entrepreneurship education, consisting of the objectives and learning activities. They separate the learning approaches into three different categories of student involvement: passive (lectures), participative (input/output focused) and self-driving focus on methods used. Furthermore, the authors separate the objectives into ‘student-centred impact’ and ‘contextual impact’, based on the influence from the education on external stakeholders. Compared with previous typologies, their new typology allows for a more nuanced distinction based on the students’ learning activity and the educational impact in terms of time and external contact and influence. The typology moves the focus from teacher-centred to student-centred understanding. The chapter has the ambition of enabling cumulative research in the growing field of entrepreneurship education. The bulk of entrepreneurship education research has focused on students, which neglects any understanding of entrepreneurship education from the teacher’s perspective or in the teacher’s education. This is surprising given the importance of teachers in educational contexts where they have an important role in facilitating and influencing knowledge creation of learners. Axelsson and Westerberg address this gap in Chapter 8 where they study how entrepreneurship is conceptualized and designed in teacher education programmes. The chapter is informed by a qualitative case study of a Swedish teacher education entrepreneurship module, for elementary and secondary teachers, applying inquiries and group interviews with students and semi-structured interviews with teachers. The chapter makes use of Fayolle and Gailly’s (2008) teaching model framework as an analytic lens to provide necessary understanding in relation to the pedagogical and didactic questions. The analysis shows how entrepreneurship education in teacher education is riddled with tensions relating to overall mission, target groups, pedagogy, content and assessments. However, there are paths forward that might mitigate these tensions and provide a better opportunity for entrepreneurship education development within the realm of teacher education. The chapter gives new insights on how entrepreneurship can be included in a teacher education programme and address potential tensions. The chapter also highlights the need to understand both the teacher education students and their future pupils, as the target groups in entrepreneurship education development, and allow the teacher education students to search for their role and to create their own knowledge base in entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship education research has also been dominated by investigation into formal education and, consequently, ample knowledge is derived from different types of modules or pedagogies in entrepreneurship education. However, since different kinds of student societies play an

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 4

22/08/2018 10:08



Introduction ­5

important role as the informal learning arenas for university students – and in entrepreneurship in particular – it is more than welcome that Parkkari and Kohtakangas investigate student Entrepreneurship Societies in Chapter 9. The chapter aims to develop a better understanding of student entrepreneurship society organizations. Using ethnography, the chapter shows how these organizations were constructed as a student movement, aiming to awaken students’ entrepreneurial latencies through practices enacted during a weekend-long get-together event of 40 participants. The observed practices included little space for negotiating the meaning of entrepreneurship or why it is promoted. Multiple ideals emerged, such as valuing the practices of ‘doing’, while aiming to stay clear of ‘politics’. The findings indicate that the phenomenon of Entrepreneurship Societies reflects the dispersion and power of entrepreneurship discourse and ideology. The chapter contributes to the new, emerging research area of entrepreneurship-as-practice. Finally, in Chapter 10, Markowska and Welter focus on identity construction which may also be seen as highly applicable to entrepreneurship education practices. They understand entrepreneurial identities as emergent and developed through interaction with various actors, and are interested in their changing motivations and goals upon maturing. The authors analyse seven high-profile restaurateurs’ business lives and show how their stories have been reinvented over time. Three different narratives are employed to illustrate the entrepreneurs’ original career choices: dream follower, serendipitous craftsman and forced opportunist. By demonstrating how achievement motivation affects restaurateurs’ need to either belong or be distinct, and thus their construction of their narrative entrepreneurial identity, the research enhances existing work on identity construction by highlighting the close relationship between restaurateurs’ career stage and their emphasis on either the need for belonging or the need for distinctiveness. The authors extend our understanding of the entrepreneurial identity construction process, by linking motivation and identity and by showing how this relationship evolves over time. To be more precise, the research finds that while restaurateurs’ early identities centre on presenting themselves as chefs, their subsequent narrations are wrapped up in their social identity in a broader sense and not limiting them to a particular role.

OUTLOOK Overall, this anthology offers varied and novel insights on our understanding of innovation in different contexts and entrepreneurship education.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 5

22/08/2018 10:08

6

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

More particularly, the chapters contribute to highlighting the need for research in innovation and learning in family firms, micro firms, and in rural and network contexts. In addition, the chapters offer new insights into the antecedents of business performance in SMEs, especially in the form of social capital and marketing capabilities. The chapters also offer new insights, conceptual and empirical, of entrepreneurship education research: an area of growing importance within entrepreneurship research more broadly. Hence, the chapters offer a new typology for analysing entrepreneurship education programmes, discussing opportunities for embedding entrepreneurship in teacher education and exploring entrepreneurship in the informal learning arenas in universities. Finally, by focusing on identity construction new insight is developed on the motivations of the individual in the entrepreneurship process. Collectively, the chapters illustrate the contextual embeddedness, methodological diversity and prevalent distinctive clusters that we have come to associate with European entrepreneurship research (Hytti et al., 2018).

REFERENCES Fayolle A. and B. Gailly (2008), ‘From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 32 (7), 569–93. Gabrielsson, J., D. Politis and A. Lindholm Dahlstrand (2014), ‘Entrepreneurship and technological innovation: The influence of uncertainty and entrepreneurial ability on innovation speed in new technology start-ups’, in R. Blackburn, F. Delmar, A. Fayolle and F. Welter (eds), Entrepreneurship, People and Organisations: Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 116–35. Guerrero, M. and D. Urbano (2015), ‘The effect of university and social environments on graduates’ start-up intentions: An exploratory study in Iberoamerica’, in R. Blackburn, U. Hytti and F. Welter (eds), Context, Process and Gender in Entrepreneurship: Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 55–86. Hytti, U., R. Blackburn and S. Tegtmeier (2018) ‘Introduction: Establishing new frontiers for European entrepreneurship research’, in U. Hytti, R. Blackburn and S. Tegtmeier (eds), The Dynamics of Entrepreneurial Contexts, Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 1–21. Varamäki, E., S. Joensuu-Salo and A. Viljamaa (2016), ‘The intention–behavior link of higher education graduates’, in U. Hytti, R. Blackburn, D. Fletcher and F. Welter (eds), Entrepreneurship, Universities & Resources: Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 146–67.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 6

22/08/2018 10:08

2. Innovation in family firms and SMEs: distinctive features and research challenges Alfredo De Massis* and Paola Rovelli INTRODUCTION Innovation is “the set of activities through which a firm conceives, designs, manufactures and introduces a new product, technology, system or technique” (Freeman, 1976). Widely acknowledged as a key asset for any firm, innovation positively affects performance, growth, long-term value creation, and competitive advantage (Blundell et al., 1999; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990; Greve, 2009; Shepherd and Katz, 2004; Zahra et al., 1999). While numerous scholars have investigated innovation from different perspectives, two particular types of firms remain understudied: family firms and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Theoretical and empirical literature on family firm and SME innovation is still relatively limited and significant gaps remain. Indeed, innovation scholars traditionally focus on large and listed firms (e.g., Eveleens, 2010). Nevertheless, family firms and SMEs are the most diffused organizational forms around the world (e.g., La Porta et al., 1999) and not taking them into account when studying innovation may give rise to misleading results. This is even more the case when considering that both family firms and SMEs have their own distinctive features that clearly distinguish them from non-family and large firms. It thus follows that theories, frameworks, and findings developed with reference to these latter types of firms may not necessarily be generalized to family firms and SMEs, thus calling for more work on innovation in family firms and SMEs. In this chapter, we aim to highlight relevant research avenues and unaddressed questions worth investigating in this research field. In so doing, we draw on some of our previously published studies and hope to offer scholars interesting insights to design their future research agendas. The chapter is organized in two sections, the first dedicated to innovation in 7

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 7

22/08/2018 10:08

8

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

family firms and the second to innovation in SMEs. In both cases, we suggest some promising directions for future research.

INNOVATION IN FAMILY FIRMS Family firms are organizations “governed and/or managed with the intention to shape and pursue the vision of the business held by a dominant coalition controlled by members of the same family or a small number of families in a manner that is potentially sustainable across generations” (Chua et al., 1999: 25). Family firms are the most widespread organizational form in the world (Astrachan and Shanker, 2003; La Porta et al., 1999; Villalonga and Amit, 2008) and due to their ubiquity and economic relevance are of increasing interest to scholars (Schulze and Gedajlovic, 2010). Research on family firms has thus far focused on, amongst others, their goals and objectives, strategy formulation and implementation, ownership, governance, and management (for a comprehensive review, see De Massis et al., 2012). However, research on innovation in family firms is still limited (De Massis et al., 2016b; Wright and Kellermanns, 2011), even if it has recently become a topic of interest in management research (De Massis et al., 2012). To date, scholars interested in understanding family firm innovation have mainly investigated the effects of family involvement on the four building blocks of the innovation process (De Massis et al., 2013), namely, the inputs (e.g., Block, 2012; Chen and Hsu, 2009; Chrisman and Patel, 2012; Kotlar et al., 2014; Munari et al., 2010; Muñoz-Bullón and Sanchez-Bueno, 2011; Sirmon et al., 2008), activities (e.g., Cassia et al., 2012; Craig and Dibrell, 2006; De Massis et al., 2015b; Hsu and Chang, 2011; Kotlar et al., 2013), outputs (e.g., Chin et al., 2009; Czarnitzki and Kraft, 2009; Llach and Nordqvist, 2010; Mazzelli et al., 2018), and the activities–­outputs relation (e.g., Cassia et al., 2011; Craig and Moores, 2006; McCann et al., 2001). Despite these studies, additional work is needed to fully understand innovation in family firms, especially considering that their innovation activities may be very distant from those of firms with different governance and ownership structures. As mentioned above, family firms are typically characterized by distinctive traits, for instance, the influence of family ownership on the firm’s goals (Chrisman et al., 2012; Kotlar et al., 2018; Zellweger et al., 2013), their human and social capital, and emotional commitment (Arregle et al., 2007; Sirmon and Hitt, 2003), different risk-taking propensities (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Zahra, 2005) and investment horizons (Lumpkin and Brigham, 2011; Zellweger, 2007), which may in

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 8

22/08/2018 10:08



Innovation in family firms and SMEs ­9

turn have consequences on innovation. For instance, family firms are likely to differ from their non-family counterparts in the way they collaborate to innovate (Casprini et al., 2017; Feranita et al., 2017). In the following, we suggest three apparent gaps that we consider interesting avenues for future research: (i) the relation between family firm tradition and innovation, (ii) the temporal evolution of innovation in family firms, and (iii) the need to solve the family firms’ innovation paradox. Family Firm Tradition and Innovation Tradition is a distinctive and unique resource of family firms and consists in the knowledge, competences, materials, manufacturing processes, signs, values, and beliefs pertaining to the past (Messeni Petruzzelli and Albino, 2014). Typically, the values and beliefs of the founding family are handed down from generation to generation, while organizational culture and identity are the result of the way in which the firm has operated in the past (Gagné et al., 2014; Le Breton-Miller and Miller, 2006; Tàpies and Ward, 2008). Family history pervades business practices and shapes the identity of the individuals, organizations, and territories. As a result, it creates a close link between the family’s and the firm’s traditions (Zellweger et al., 2012). Despite the established importance of tradition in family firms, conventional wisdom on innovation considers old knowledge as obsolete for current needs and expectations. Innovation scholars see the past as a cause of path-dependence, core rigidity, liability of senescence, inertia, and inflexibility (Sydow et al., 2009), as well as a source of resistance to change, and thus an organizational excuse to perpetuate the status quo (Strebel, 1996). Consequently, to foster innovation, managers are typically advised to dismiss the old and make way for the new (e.g., Miller and Wedell-Wedellsborg, 2013). However, this approach may be inadequate or counterproductive in family firms. Instead, tradition and past knowledge may be a source of competitive advantage, allowing family firms to create and capture value. On the one hand, tradition elicits strong and positive feelings within and outside the firm, thus increasing the legitimacy and reliability of innovative products (Ryder, 2014). On the other hand, due to its nature, tradition cannot be easily replicated by others (Kanter, 1995), thus offering the possibility to develop unique innovations that are key to appropriating innovation rents (Di Minin and Faems, 2013; Teece, 2006). According to De Massis et al. (2016a) and their innovation through tradition model, family firms may benefit from the knowledge rooted in the firm’s or the territory’s past and leverage tradition to develop successful new products.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 9

22/08/2018 10:08

10

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Nevertheless, knowledge in this realm is still incomplete and we advocate more work to fully understand the role of family firm tradition in fostering innovation. The following unaddressed questions may be a good starting point: ●● ●●

●●

●●

●● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Do other sources of past knowledge exist in addition to the firm’s and the territory’s traditions? How does tradition emerge? How do the experiences, heuristics, and routines embedded in an industry contribute to creating and changing the firm’s and the territory’s traditions? How do national, regional, and organizational cultures influence the existence and types of traditions? Do family and non-family firms contribute differently to these processes? Are there mutual relationships between the firm’s tradition and the territory’s tradition? Does the presence of a controlling family facilitate these links? When and under what circumstances do firms rely more on the firm’s or the territory’s tradition? To what extent should firms search knowledge in the past? Is there a “too-much-of-a-good-thing” effect? To what extent does this potentially optimal level differ between family and non-family firms? How do firms store and retrieve past knowledge? At what levels (e.g., individual, group, intergroup, organization) do different forms of past knowledge exist? How are different forms of past knowledge translated and used across different levels? How does the use of past knowledge affect the introduction of new products and the returns from innovations? Do innovations in functionality and meaning have different implications for innovation performance? Does innovation through tradition benefit service, process, organizational, and business model innovation? How do the challenges of innovation through tradition differ across these different forms of innovation? Do family and non-family firms differ in this respect? How is past knowledge handed down in multigenerational family firms? What are the managerial practices for enabling innovation through tradition? Which managerial practices do non-family firms apply for innovation through tradition?

Temporal Evolution of Innovation in Family Firms Beyond tradition, the temporal dynamics of family firms may play an important role in their innovation performance. Indeed, both the family

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 10

22/08/2018 10:08



Innovation in family firms and SMEs ­11

and the business systems evolve over time (Gersick et al., 1997). A case in point is succession, which challenges the family firms’ beliefs, structures, and attitudes (Gersick et al., 1997), increases conflicts (Kellermanns et al., 2008), but also brings new information, opportunities, and goals (e.g., Hauck and Prügl, 2015; Kotlar and De Massis, 2013; Salvato, 2004). Specifically, intra-family succession is considered a catalyst of revolutionary change and innovation (Kotlar and De Massis, 2013). While scholars have emphasized the time-variant nature of family involvement and its broad organizational consequences (e.g., Gersick et al., 1997; Kotlar and De Massis, 2013; Zellweger et al., 2012), family firm innovation has thus far been largely studied statically while neglecting the temporal perspective of the influence of family involvement on innovation (Sharma et al., 2014). To our knowledge, research on how innovation in family firms evolves over time is scarce. One of the first attempts is that of De Massis et al. (2014a) demonstrating that firm proactiveness, a feature very close to innovation, follows a horizontal-S pattern in family firms over time. Therefore, we deem the following questions fruitful to advancing research in this realm: ●● ●●

●● ●●

●● ●●

●●

●● ●●

How does innovation change over time in a family firm? How does succession affect innovation? Is there any difference between ownership and leadership succession? Between external and internal succession? Does the duration of family ownership affect innovation? How do other temporal factors, such as generation (e.g., founderled, sibling partnership, cousin consortium) influence innovation over time? Does family firm innovation capacity decrease as a result of learning and succession? In what ways, when, and why? Is there a cyclical pattern in innovation (e.g., absorptive capacity, R&D investments) marked by the duration of family ownership and succession events? How do family owners’ emotional attachment and power change over time? Do they affect the way a family firm acquires and uses internal and external knowledge to innovate? What happens to innovation if family ownership is diluted through an equity sale or new equity issuance? How does the chrono-context (e.g., global and national crises, stages of economic development) influence family firm innovation?

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 11

22/08/2018 10:08

12

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Solving the Family Firm Innovation Paradox The third aspect worth investigating is the family firm innovation paradox. Several paradoxes have been identified in literature. First, despite that family firms typically possess a greater ability1 to pursue innovation compared to non-family firms, they do not produce higher innovation as they may lack the willingness2 to innovate (Chrisman et al., 2015), which depends on their risk aversion and parsimony in using existing resources to achieve uncertain results, typical of innovation. Second, family firms invest less in R&D than non-family firms, but start investing more aggressively when performance declines (Kotlar et al., 2014). Third, family firm R&D expenditure is related to the proportion of family wealth invested in the firm: when overlapping with the firm’s equity, R&D expenditure is limited, while increasing when the proportion of invested family wealth is low (Sciascia et al., 2015). De Massis et al. (2015a) propose the so-called family-driven innovation perspective to overcome the innovation paradox, which in their view requires consistency between the family firm’s innovation decisions and approaches and the idiosyncratic characteristics of the family firm itself. In detail, a good fit is needed between the key drivers of family firm heterogeneity (i.e., willingness, ability as discretion, and ability as resources) and those capturing the heterogeneity of innovation decisions (i.e., locus of innovation search, approaches used to manage the innovation process, and types of innovation). To further understand and overcome the family firm innovation paradox, we propose scholars address the following research questions: ●●

●●

●●

How do family firms differ in terms of their ownership, board, management and legal (group) configurations, goals, structures, and processes? To what extent are these differences the result of innovation activity or its facilitator? For instance, Arzubiaga et al. (2018) have recently found that board composition and board functioning play an important role in enabling family SMEs’ innovation. Which types of family firms experience greater, lesser, or no paradox? To what extent does the paradox differ between family firms across and within different industries, institutional contexts, and spatial contexts? What role do family-centered non-economic goals play in family firm innovation? How do different socioemotional wealth (SEW) dimensions affect family firm innovation differently? How do the five SEW components affect each other? For example: (a) does social status add to social capital and vice versa? (b) does identification

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 12

22/08/2018 10:08



Innovation in family firms and SMEs ­13

●●

●●

●●

with the firm make the family assign a higher subjective preference value to renewal of family bonds through dynastic succession, and (c) vice versa? To better predict family firm innovation behavior, is it more appropriate to treat SEW as: (a) a collective whole, (b) five independent components, or (c) five interdependent components? Are the different SEW components of equal value to all family firms? If not, what causes the differences in value determination? Are combined effects additive, conjunctive, or disjunctive in forming SEW stocks? How do different types of family firms resolve the paradox in different aspects of the innovation process? Who takes the initiative in resolving this paradox (founder, board, family council, etc.)?

INNOVATION IN SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES SMEs are seen as agents of change underpinning the adaptation of our economies and societies to new challenges. Notwithstanding this, not all SMEs are equal as regards innovation, despite that they share specific and severe obstacles (Blackburn et al., 2017; Kleinknecht, 1989). Indeed, due to their liability of smallness (Freeman et al., 1983), SMEs typically lack the resources needed to pursue innovation and are financially constrained (Carpenter and Petersen, 2002). Moreover, in their early stages of development, they are not particularly attractive for external investors as they fail to signal their quality (Connelly et al., 2011). All this limits their ability to invest in R&D (Himmelberg and Petersen, 1994). Even when they decide to innovate, they may fail to attract and recruit high-skilled employees (Freel, 2000), and lack the innovation management capacity and complementary assets needed to commercialize the innovative products they develop (Gans and Stern, 2003; Teece, 1986). As a result, SMEs’ innovation performance is often poor (Rosenbusch et al., 2011). Academic research on SME innovation activities also has its own limitations. Specifically, this research stream has mostly been developed in an economic (i.e., industrial economics) perspective and we are still quite distant from a complete understanding of the distinctive traits of managing innovation in SMEs. Moreover, the majority of studies are based on cross-sectional survey data or on deductive, interview-based, qualitative analyses. All this opens up several unexplored questions, which should also be addressed through longitudinal studies and rigorous, in-depth, and

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 13

22/08/2018 10:08

14

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

inductive qualitative inquiry. Here we propose three possible directions for future research that may allow scholars to provide useful practice-oriented implications to help SMEs fostering innovation: (i) the possibility of innovating despite the lack of resources, (ii) the types of innovation possible for SMEs, and (iii) open innovation as a way of overcoming their challenges. Innovation with Limited Resources As previously mentioned, SMEs usually lack the resources (e.g., physical, human, organizational, and financial assets, Wernerfelt, 1984) needed to invest in R&D (e.g., Carpenter and Petersen, 2002; Freel, 2000; Freeman et al., 1983; Himmelberg and Petersen, 1994), resulting in poor innovation performance (Rosenbusch et al., 2011). Despite some exceptions, such as the German Mittelstand case (De Massis et al., 2018), knowledge on how SMEs may efficiently manage their limited resources to innovate, and thus compete in today’s global markets, is still scant. The following research questions may thus serve as the starting point for future theoretical and empirical studies aimed at understanding how SMEs can innovate irrespective of their lack of resources. ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

How can competitive advantage be achieved despite the lack of important resources? What are the implications for entrepreneurship theories (e.g., effectuation, entrepreneurial bricolage, resource orchestration)? When and under what circumstances (e.g., different stages of the innovation process) do SMEs leverage some types of resources more than others? Are some of the different (lacking) resources more important than others? What is the optimal weight of the different resources to maximize innovation performance? What are the mutual relationships between human, financial, social, and physical capital in SMEs? Can some of these resources be substitutes or complements for innovation? How do SMEs retain skilled employees and the tacit knowledge needed for innovation? Do SMEs adopt specific human resource management practices (e.g., personal relationships, enhanced training, high involvement of employees in decision-making, flat hierarchies)? Do these practices lead to advantages or disadvantages for innovation? How can SMEs that lack the willingness and ability to access the public equity market overcome their finance-related resource constraints to innovate (e.g., through self-financing)?

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 14

22/08/2018 10:08



Innovation in family firms and SMEs ­15 ●●

●●

What organizations are best suited to provide the resources – especially financial resources – that SMEs lack? Should resources be provided by public or non-public organizations and what are the advantages and disadvantages of the different options? What are the resource-based determinants of cluster/district formation among SMEs? Is there only one “optimum” resource configuration or does the ecosystem comprise multiple equilibria?

Types of Innovation Lack of resources may not only affect the capacity to innovate, but also the type of innovations that SMEs embark on. Indeed, the latter may depend on the particular traits of SMEs compared to large firms, as well as the industry in which they operate or the general trends they face, such as globalization and digitalization. This provides opportunities for future research aimed at studying the antecedents and consequences of SME innovation type. In so doing, the following questions need to be addressed not only from an economic but also from a management perspective. ●● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Do SMEs diversify less than larger firms (niche focus)? Does the SME approach to innovation with limited resources benefit service, process, organizational, and/or business model innovation? What is the role played by different types of innovation? How do the challenges of SMEs vs larger firms differ for different types of innovation? Do SMEs and larger firms differ in the way they address these challenges? Does the lack of resources mainly result in incremental innovation in SMEs? How does innovating with limited resources relate to different types of innovation (e.g., incremental/radical, continuous/­ discontinuous, supportive/disruptive, flexible/inflexible innovations)? Do SMEs’ advantages in mitigating the lack of resources apply differently to different types of innovations? How will current trends such as globalization and digitalization interact with the lack of resources and flexible decision-making that characterize SMEs? Does SMEs’ preference for non-monetary activities (e.g., networking and informal knowledge sourcing) over pecuniary mechanisms affect the way innovation projects are managed and organized? Is innovation success among SMEs more viable in certain industries, and if so, why?

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 15

22/08/2018 10:08

16

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Open Innovation One possibility for SMEs to overcome their innovation challenges (e.g., lack of resources and adequate skills) is to call on alliances with third parties (e.g., Baum et al., 2000; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1996; Flatten et al., 2011; Miles et al., 1999; Nieto and Santamaría, 2010). Alternatively, networks and open innovation3 (OI) may allow them to reach critical mass and build bridges to new markets and innovation sources (Hite and Hesterly, 2001). Although the OI paradigm has sparked increasing scholarly interest (Dahlander and Gann, 2010; Enkel et al., 2009; West and Bogers, 2014), it is largely studied from the perspective of large, technology-based multinational companies (for exceptions, see Freel and Robson, 2017; Lee et al., 2010; Parida et al., 2012), while knowledge in the SME context is still fragmented. Therefore, more fine-grained understanding of the potential of OI practices for SMEs (Spithoven et al., 2013) is greatly needed. To bridge this gap, the following research questions may be of help. ●● ●● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

In which phases of the OI process do SMEs face the most challenges? How do external search depth and breadth change in SMEs? Networking may divert resources and management time from the firm’s core business, generate unintended knowledge leakages to network partners, require (excessively) heavy investments in absorptive capacity, or increase turnover. How should SMEs organize to limit the negative effects of networking and increase its benefits? Do they need different processes in terms of responsibilities, control, communication flows, delegation, task sequencing? What are the distinctive advantages and disadvantages of SMEs compared to larger firms in outside-in (e.g., organizational complexity) and inside-out OI (e.g., intellectual property (IP) management, lack of employee commitment)? What are the distinctive ­governance/ organizational structures/practices? Does the flexible and fast decision-making of SMEs affect the OI speed and the way in which OI is undertaken (e.g., favoring faster outside-in OI through acquisition, Mawson and Brown, 2017)? Do SMEs achieve greater benefits from OI than larger firms, e.g., because they are less bureaucratic and more agile in reacting to changing environments? How do SMEs benefit from OI (e.g., measurable vs non-measurable, monetary vs non-monetary benefits)? Do the best practices recommended by traditional OI literature/ handbooks hold for SMEs?

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 16

22/08/2018 10:08



Innovation in family firms and SMEs ­17

CONCLUSION In this chapter, we have proposed a research agenda that we hope can inspire scholars to advance knowledge on innovation in the context of family firms and SMEs. As a start, family firms possess particular traits (e.g., Arregle et al., 2007; Chrisman et al., 2012; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Zellweger, 2007) that lead to unique challenges in innovation. It would therefore be interesting to understand more deeply: (i) the role of tradition and past knowledge in family firm innovation, (ii) whether and how innovation behavior changes as the family firm evolves over time, and (iii) the means that help to solve the family firm’s innovation paradox. At the same time, SMEs have their own particular characteristics, which distinguish them from larger firms. In this case, research on innovation has been mostly developed from an economic perspective and we are still quite distant from a fine-grained understanding of what is distinctive about managing innovation in SMEs. This opens up several unexplored questions pertaining to three main directions: (i) how to innovate with limited resources, (ii) what types of innovation SMEs may undertake notwithstanding their contingencies, and (iii) the use of open innovation. We believe that by designing theoretical and empirical studies to address the unanswered questions highlighted in this chapter, scholars may be able to improve our understanding of family firm and SME innovation, contributing to both academic and practice-oriented conversations and develop good practices for the benefit of family firm and SME innovation performance and success. We call for pluralism in terms of methodologies, theoretical perspectives, and interdisciplinarity to accomplish the ambitious task of answering these important research questions.

NOTES * Alfredo De Massis delivered the keynote speech at the RENT XXX conference held in Antwerp, Belgium, on 16–18 November 2016. 1. Ability is “[. . .] the discretion of the family to direct, allocate, add to, or dispose of a firm’s resources” (De Massis et al., 2014b: 345). 2. Willingness is the “[. . .] favorable disposition of the involved family to engage in distinctive behavior” (De Massis et al., 2014b: 346). 3. Open innovation is “a distributed innovation process based on purposively managed knowledge flows across organisational boundaries, using pecuniary and non-pecuniary mechanisms in line with the organisation’s business model” (Chesbrough and Bogers, 2014: 8).

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 17

22/08/2018 10:08

18

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

REFERENCES Arregle, J.L., M.A. Hitt, D.G. Sirmon and P. Very (2007), ‘The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms’, Journal of Management Studies, 44 (1), 73–95. Arzubiaga, U., J. Kotlar, A. De Massis, A. Maseda and T. Iturralde (2018), ‘Entrepreneurial orientation and innovation in family SMEs: Unveiling the (actual) impact of the Board of Directors’, Journal of Business Venturing, 33 (4), 455–69. Astrachan, J.H. and M.C. Shanker (2003), ‘Family businesses’ contribution to the US economy: A closer look’, Family Business Review, 16 (3), 211–19. Baum, J.A., T. Calabrese and B.S. Silverman (2000), ‘Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology’, Strategic Management Journal, 21 (3), 267–94. Blackburn, R., D. De Clercq, J. Heinonen and Z. Wang (2017), The SAGE Handbook of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, London: SAGE. Block, J.H. (2012), ‘R&D investments in family and founder firms: An agency perspective’, Journal of Business Venturing, 27 (2), 248–65. Blundell, R., R. Griffith and J. Van Reenen (1999), ‘Market share, market value and innovation in a panel of British manufacturing firms’, Review of Economic Studies, 66 (3), 529–54. Carpenter, R.E. and B.C. Petersen (2002), ‘Capital market imperfections, high-tech investment, and new equity financing’, Economic Journal, 112 (477), F54–F72. Casprini, E., A. De Massis, A. Di Minin, F. Frattini and A. Piccaluga (2017), ‘How family firms execute open innovation strategies: The Loccioni case’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 21 (6), 1459–85. Cassia, L., A. De Massis and E. Pizzurno (2011), ‘An exploratory investigation on NPD in small family businesses from Northern Italy’, International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, 2 (2), 1–14. Cassia, L., A. De Massis and E. Pizzurno (2012), ‘Strategic innovation and new product development in family firms: An empirically grounded theoretical framework’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 18 (2), 198–232. Chen, H.L. and W.T. Hsu (2009), ‘Family ownership, board independence, and R&D investment’, Family Business Review, 22 (4), 347–62. Chesbrough, H.W. and M. Bogers (2014), ‘Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation’, in H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke and J. West (eds), New Frontiers in Open Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chin, C.L., Y.J. Chen, G. Kleinman and P. Lee (2009), ‘Corporate ownership structure and innovation: Evidence from Taiwan’s electronics industry’, Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 24 (1), 145–75. Chrisman, J.J., J.H. Chua, A. De Massis, F. Frattini and M. Wright (2015), ‘The ability and willingness paradox in family firm innovation’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32 (3), 310–18. Chrisman, J.J., J.H. Chua, A.W. Pearson and T. Barnett (2012), ‘Family involvement, family influence, and family-centered non-economic goals in small firms’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36 (2), 267–93. Chrisman, J.J. and P.C. Patel (2012), ‘Variations in R&D investments of family

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 18

22/08/2018 10:08



Innovation in family firms and SMEs ­19

and nonfamily firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives’, Academy of Management Journal, 55 (4), 976–97. Chua, J.H., J.J. Chrisman and P. Sharma (1999), ‘Defining the family business by behavior’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39. Connelly, B.L., S.T. Certo, R.D. Ireland and C.R. Reutzel (2011), ‘Signaling theory: A review and assessment’, Journal of Management, 37 (1), 39–67. Craig, J. and C. Dibrell (2006), ‘The natural environment, innovation, and firm performance: A comparative study’, Family Business Review, 19 (4), 275–88. Craig, J.B. and K. Moores (2006), ‘A 10-year longitudinal investigation of strategy, systems, and environment on innovation in family firms’, Family Business Review, 19 (1), 1–10. Czarnitzki, D. and K. Kraft (2009), ‘Capital control, debt financing and innovative activity’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 71 (2), 372–83. Dahlander, L. and D.M. Gann (2010), ‘How open is innovation?’, Research Policy, 39 (6), 699–709. De Massis, A., D. Audretsch, L. Uhlaner and N. Kammerlander (2018), ‘Innovation with limited resources: Management lessons from the German Mittelstand’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35 (1), 125–46. De Massis, A., F. Chirico, J. Kotlar and L. Naldi (2014a), ‘The temporal evolution of proactiveness in family firms: The horizontal S-curve hypothesis’, Family Business Review, 27 (1), 35–50. De Massis, A., J. Kotlar, J.H. Chua and J.J. Chrisman (2014b), ‘Ability and willingness as sufficiency conditions for family-oriented particularistic behavior: Implications for theory and empirical studies’, Journal of Small Business Management, 52 (2), 344–64. De Massis, A., A. Di Minin and F. Frattini (2015a), ‘Family-driven innovation’, California Management Review, 58 (1), 5–19. De Massis, A., F. Frattini, E. Pizzurno and L. Cassia (2015b), ‘Product innovation in family versus nonfamily firms: An exploratory analysis’, Journal of Small Business Management, 53 (1), 1–36. De Massis, A., F. Frattini, J. Kotlar, A.M. Petruzzelli and M. Wright (2016a), ‘Innovation through tradition: Lessons from innovative family businesses and directions for future research’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 30 (1), 93–116. De Massis, A., J. Kotlar, F. Frattini, J. Chrisman and M. Nordqvist (2016b), ‘Family governance at work: Organizing for new product development in family SMEs’, Family Business Review, 29 (2), 189–213. De Massis, A., F. Frattini and U. Lichtenthaler (2013), ‘Research on technological innovation in family firms: Present debates and future directions’, Family Business Review, 26 (1), 10–31. De Massis, A., P. Sharma, J.H. Chua and J.J. Chrisman (2012), Family Business Studies: An Annotated Bibliography, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Di Minin, A. and D. Faems (2013), ‘Building appropriation advantage’, California Management Review, 55 (4), 7–14. Eisenhardt, K.M. and C.B. Schoonhoven (1990), ‘Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among US semiconductor ventures, 1978–1988’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (3), 504–29. Eisenhardt, K.M. and C.B. Schoonhoven (1996), ‘Resource-based view of

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 19

22/08/2018 10:08

20

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

s­ trategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms’, Organization Science, 7 (2), 136–50. Enkel, E., O. Gassmann and H. Chesbrough (2009), ‘Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon’, R&D Management, 39 (4), 311–16. Eveleens, C. (2010). ‘Innovation management; a literature review of innovation process models and their implications’, Science, 800 (2010), 900. Feranita, F., J. Kotlar and A. De Massis (2017), ‘Collaborative innovation in family firms: Past research, current debates and agenda for future research’, Journal of Family Business Strategy, 137–56. Flatten, T.C., G.I. Greve and M. Brettel (2011), ‘Absorptive capacity and firm performance in SMEs: The mediating influence of strategic alliances’, European Management Review, 8 (3), 137–52. Freel, M.S. (2000), ‘Barriers to product innovation in small manufacturing firms’, International Small Business Journal, 18 (2), 60–80. Freel, M. and P.J. Robson (2017), ‘Appropriation strategies and open innovation in SMEs’, International Small Business Journal, 35 (5), 578–96. Freeman, C. (1976), Economics of Industrial Innovation, London: Pinter. Freeman, J., G.R. Carroll and M.T. Hannan (1983), ‘The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates’, American Sociological Review, 48 (5), 692–710. Gagné, M., P. Sharma and A. De Massis (2014), ‘The study of organizational behaviour in family business’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23 (5), 643–56. Gans, J.S. and S. Stern (2003), ‘The product market and the market for “ideas”: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs’, Research Policy, 32 (2), 333–50. Gersick, K.E., J.A. Davis, M.M. Hampton and I. Lansberg (1997), Generation to Generation: Life Cycles of the Family Business, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Gómez-Mejía, L.R., K.T. Haynes, M.Núñez-Nickel, K.J. Jacobson and J. MoyanoFuentes (2007), ‘Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 52 (1), 106–37. Greve, H.R. (2009), ‘Bigger and safer: The diffusion of competitive advantage’, Strategic Management Journal, 30 (1), 1–23. Hauck, J.R. and Prügl (2015), ‘Innovation activities during intra-family leadership succession in family firms: An empirical study from a socioemotional wealth perspective’, Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6 (2), 104–18. Himmelberg, C.P. and B.C. Petersen (1994), ‘R&D and internal finance: A panel study of small firms in high-tech industries’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 76 (1), 38–51. Hite, J.M. and W.S. Hesterly (2001), ‘The evolution of firm networks: From emergence to early growth of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 22 (3), 275–86. Hsu, L.C. and H.C. Chang (2011), ‘The role of behavioral strategic controls in family firm innovation’, Industry and Innovation, 18 (7), 709–27. Kanter, R.M. (1995), ‘Thriving locally in the global economy’, Long Range Planning, 28 (6), 130–38. Kellermanns, F.W., K.A. Eddleston, T. Barnett and A. Pearson (2008), ‘An exploratory study of family member characteristics and involvement: Effects on entrepreneurial behavior in the family firm’, Family Business Review, 21 (1), 1–14.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 20

22/08/2018 10:08



Innovation in family firms and SMEs ­21

Kleinknecht, A. (1989), ‘Firm size and innovation’, Small Business Economics, 1 (3), 215–22. Kotlar, J. and A. De Massis (2013), ‘Goal setting in family firms: Goal diversity, social interactions, and collective commitment to family-centered goals’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37 (6), 1263–88. Kotlar J., A. De Massis, F. Frattini, M. Bianchi and H. Fang (2013), ‘Technology acquisition in family and nonfamily firms: A longitudinal analysis of Spanish manufacturing firms’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30 (6), 1073–88. Kotlar, J., H. Fang, A. De Massis and F. Frattini (2014), ‘Profitability goals, control goals, and the R&D investment decisions of family and nonfamily firms’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31 (6), 1128–45. Kotlar, J., A. Signori, A. De Massis and S. Vismara (2018), ‘Financial wealth, socioemotional wealth and IPO underpricing in family firms: A two-stage ­ gamble model’, Academy of Management Journal, 61 (3), 1073–99, DOI: 10.5465/amj.2016.0256. La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes and A. Shleifer (1999), ‘Corporate ownership around the world’, Journal of Finance, 54 (2), 471–517. Le Breton-Miller, L. and D. Miller (2006), ‘Why do some family businesses out-compete? Governance, long-term orientations, and sustainable capability’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30 (6), 731–46. Lee, S., G. Park, B. Yoon and J. Park (2010), ‘Open innovation in SMEs – An intermediated network model’, Research Policy, 39 (2), 290–300. Llach, J. and M. Nordqvist (2010), ‘Innovation in family and non-family businesses: A resource perspective’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 2 (3–4), 381–99. Lumpkin, G.T. and K.H. Brigham (2011), ‘Long-term orientation and intertemporal choice in family firms’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35 (6), 1149–69. Mawson, S. and R. Brown (2017), ‘Entrepreneurial acquisitions, open innovation and UK high growth SMEs’, Industry and Innovation, 24 (4), 382–402. Mazzelli, A., J. Kotlar and A. De Massis (2018), ‘Blending in while standing out: Selective conformity and new product introduction in family firms’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, forthcoming. McCann III, J.E., A.Y. Leon-Guerrero and J.D. Haley Jr (2001), ‘Strategic goals and practices of innovative family businesses’, Journal of Small Business Management, 39 (1), 50–59. Messeni Petruzzelli, A. and V. Albino (2014), When Tradition Turns into Innovation: How Firms Can Create and Appropriate Value through Tradition, Witney: Chandos Publishing. Miles, G., S.B. Preece and M.C. Baetz (1999), ‘Dangers of dependence: The impact of strategic alliance use by small technology-based firms’, Journal of Small Business Management, 37 (2), 20. Miller, P. and T. Wedell-Wedellsborg (2013), Innovation as Usual: How to Help your People Bring Great Ideas to Life, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Munari, F., R. Oriani and M. Sobrero (2010), ‘The effects of owner identity and external governance systems on R&D investments: A study of Western European firms’, Research Policy, 39 (8), 1093–1104. Muñoz-Bullón, F. and M.J. Sanchez-Bueno (2011), ‘The impact of family ­involvement on the R&D intensity of publicly traded firms, Family Business Review, 24 (1), 62–70.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 21

22/08/2018 10:08

22

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Nieto, M.J. and L. Santamaría (2010), ‘Technological collaboration: Bridging the innovation gap between small and large firms’, Journal of Small Business Management, 48 (1), 44–69. Parida, V., M. Westerberg and J. Frishammar (2012), ‘Inbound open innovation activities in high-tech SMEs: The impact on innovation performance’, Journal of Small Business Management, 50 (2), 283–309. Rosenbusch, N., J. Brinckmann and A. Bausch (2011), ‘Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs’, Journal of Business Venturing, 26 (4), 441–57. Ryder, B. (2014), ‘Second wind: Some traditional businesses are thriving in an age of disruptive innovation’, Economist, 13 June, accessed 12 April 2018 at www. economist.com/news/business/21604156-some-traditional-businesses-are-th​riv​ ing-age-disruptive-innovation-second-wind. Salvato, C. (2004), ‘Predictors of entrepreneurship in family firms’, Journal of Private Equity, 7 (3), 68–76. Schulze, W.S. and E.R. Gedajlovic (2010), ‘Whither family business?’, Journal of Management Studies, 47 (2), 191–204. Sciascia, S., M. Nordqvist, P. Mazzola and A. De Massis (2015), ‘Family ­ownership and R&D intensity in small- and medium-sized firms, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32 (3), 349–60. Sharma, P., C. Salvato and T. Reay (2014), ‘Temporal dimensions of family enterprise research’, Family Business Review, 27 (1), 10–19. Shepherd, D.A. and J.A. Katz (2004), ‘Innovation and corporate entrepreneurship’, in D.A. Shepherd and J.A. Katz (eds), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 1–6. Sirmon, D.G., J.L. Arregle, M.A. Hitt and Webb, J.W. (2008), ‘The role of family influence in firms’ strategic responses to threat of imitation’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32 (6), 979–98. Sirmon, D.G. and M.A. Hitt (2003), ‘Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27 (4), 339–58. Spithoven, A., W. Vanhaverbeke and N. Roijakkers (2013), ‘Open innovation practices in SMEs and large enterprises’, Small Business Economics, 41 (3), 537–62. Strebel, P. (1996), ‘Why do employees resist change?’, Harvard Business Review, 74 (3), 86. Sydow, J., G. Schreyögg and J. Koch (2009), ‘Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box’, Academy of Management Review, 34 (4), 689–709. Tàpies, J. and J. Ward (2008), Family Values and Value Creation: The Fostering of Enduring Values within Family-Owned Businesses, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Teece, D.J. (1986), ‘Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy’, Research Policy, 15 (6), 285–305. Teece, D.J. (2006), ‘Reflections on “profiting from innovation”’, Research Policy, 35 (8), 1131–46. Villalonga, B. and R. Amit (2008), ‘How are US family firms controlled?’, Review of Financial Studies, 22 (8), 3047–91. Wernerfelt, B. (1984), ‘A resource-based view of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 5 (2), 171–80.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 22

22/08/2018 10:08



Innovation in family firms and SMEs ­23

West, J. and M. Bogers (2014), ‘Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31 (4), 814–31. Wright, M. and F.W. Kellermanns (2011), ‘Family firms: A research agenda and publication guide’, Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2 (4), 187–98. Zahra, S.A. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurial risk taking in family firms’, Family Business Review, 18 (1), 23–40. Zahra, S.A., A.P. Nielsen and W.C. Bogner (1999), ‘Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and competence development’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23 (3), 169–89. Zellweger, T. (2007), ‘Time horizon, costs of equity capital, and generic investment strategies of firms’, Family Business Review, 20 (1), 1–15. Zellweger, T.M., R.S. Nason and M. Nordqvist (2012), ‘From longevity of firms to transgenerational entrepreneurship of families: Introducing family entrepreneurial orientation’, Family Business Review, 25 (2), 136–55. Zellweger, T.M., R.S. Nason, M. Nordqvist and C.G. Brush (2013), ‘Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37 (2), 229–48.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 23

22/08/2018 10:08

3. Speed of innovation and proximity in a rural context: the case of a manufacturing SME Eva J.B. Jørgensen and Line Mathisen INTRODUCTION In this chapter, we try to understand more about the importance of speed of innovation in a rural context. This is essential because companies not only have to develop new products to stay competitive, but also have to do it as quickly as possible (Kessler and Chakrabarti, 1996). In the last few decades, therefore, the importance of innovation speed has emerged in the literature (see, for instance, Kessler and Bierly, 2002; Markman et al., 2005; Moreno-Moya and Munuera-Aleman, 2016; Shan et al., 2016). In this literature, speed of innovation is broadly defined as the time elapsed between an initial discovery of an opportunity and its commercialization (Kessler and Chakrabarti, 1996). Speed of innovation has in recent years been studied in different settings such as product development in large US-based companies (Kessler and Bierly, 2002; Kessler et al., 2000), technology commercialization at universities (Markman et al., 2005), customer involvement in new service development (Carbonell et al., 2009), and entrepreneurial orientation in new ventures (Shan et al., 2016). However, in these studies, the specific external context is often unclear and a more explicit understanding of innovation speed in various contexts is still limited. Our intention is therefore to contextualize insight on speed of innovation to a rural context. The focus on speed of innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in rural contexts is important because time-based competition is often the only way for these firms to create competitive advantages. SMEs located in rural contexts have restricted competitive advantages, for example, their size limits economies of scale and their location far from markets and other actors influences price. Being innovative and able to launch their new product on the market very quickly is often the only way to oust competitors and create some first-mover advantages that help them to survive. 24

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 24

22/08/2018 10:08



Speed of innovation and proximity in a rural context ­25

We perceive the context as the local environment external to the firm (Welter, 2011). By a rural context, we mean a local environment with a population of fewer than 50 000 inhabitants and that is not situated within commuting distance of major cities (Freire-Gibb and Nielsen, 2014). Earlier research suggests that context matters for the innovation process and an often-used differentiation in terms of innovation is to adopt a rural–urban typology (Naldi et al., 2015). Such a divide is often linked to advantages characterizing innovation in urban contexts, for example, geographical proximity to knowledge variety through networks, clusters, and markets. These characteristics are often lacking in rural areas (Cruickshank et al., 2009). However, increased global connectedness, for example, through information and communication technology (ICT), is suggested to help overcome such disadvantages, and rurality is now believed to offer particular advantages linked to opportunity identification and development beyond a local/regional market (Naldi et al., 2015; Stathopoulou et al., 2004). Based on this we believe that certain characteristics of a rural context have the potential to enable, facilitate, or limit speed of innovation. This is because they are active in shaping entrepreneurs’ thoughts and behaviors and thus influence their ability to identify and collaborate to take advantage of new opportunities (Aldrich and Martinez, 2001). To understand more about innovation speed in SMEs located in rural contexts, we rely on existing literature on innovation and proximity (Boschma, 2005), and in particular proximity in interorganizational collaboration (Knoben and Oerlemans, 2006). This focus on proximity is relevant because a key question related to achieving rapid product innovation in SMEs in rural areas is how to overcome problems of geographical distance to important partners and create other forms of proximity that can drive the process (Virkkala, 2007). As far as we know, earlier research on proximity has not been related to understanding how it may influence speed of innovation. This leads to the specific research question that we build on in this study: how does proximity influence speed of innovation for an SME located in a rural context? To answer the research question, the rest of the chapter is organized as follows. First, we present a more thorough examination of the theoretical perspectives on speed of innovation and proximity, and relate them to SMEs in rural contexts. Then, the methodology is presented. We apply a single-case study of a small manufacturing firm within the plastic industry located in Northern Norway. The study follows an innovation process from the generation of a new product idea to the launching of the product through retrospective stories told by the central actors. The following section presents and summarizes the findings. Finally, the contributions, limitations, and possibilities for further research are discussed.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 25

22/08/2018 10:08

26

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES Speed of Innovation We have in the introduction argued that, for an SME located in a rural context, developing new products faster than the competitors may be the only way to create some advantages and survive. In general, the globalized competition and shorter product life cycles create needs for accelerated speed of product innovation. Innovation speed has traditionally been an important concept in new product development (NPD) literature and is referred to as time to market, cycle time, or speed to market (Shan et al., 2016). In line with Kessler and Chakrabarti (1996: 1144), we define speed of innovation as ‘the time elapsed between a) initial development, including the conception and definition of an innovation, and b) ultimate commercialization, which is the introduction of a new product into the marketplace’. To explore this process in a rural SME, we follow the recommendation from Moreno-Moya and Munuera-Aleman (2016) and differentiate between development speed and launching speed. The development phase includes idea generation and screening, preliminary analysis, product development and testing, and market analysis and testing, that is, the speed with which the idea is converted into a new product. The launching phase consists of doing the market planning and launching the new product, that is, the speed with which the product is commercialized. In our study, we focus on speed of innovation in an SME. Traditionally, an SME lacks many of the internal resources needed to engage in rapid innovation processes. On the other hand, SMEs have the flexibility and the short decision processes that could speed up such processes significantly (Moreno-Moya and Munuera-Aleman, 2016). While the internal context and conditions are considered to be important for rapid product development, we will in this study focus on the importance of the external context, or what is also labeled as external learning in new product development (Kessler et al., 2000). The involvement of external actors as, for example, customers, has been recognized as important for the success of these development processes (Carbonell et al., 2009). Moreover, knowledge sharing in external relationships enhances capability of the rural SME to facilitate economic growth, competitiveness and employment (Reinl et al., 2015). To understand more about how this is connected to speed of innovation of SMEs in a rural context, we now turn to proximity (Boschma, 2005; Knoben and Oerlemans, 2006).

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 26

22/08/2018 10:08



Speed of innovation and proximity in a rural context ­27

Proximity and Speed of Innovation The concept of proximity is used in many different ways in the existing literature, for example in innovation studies (see, for example, Boschma, 2005), cluster studies (dos Santos Silvestre and Dalcol, 2009), and in inter-organizational relationships (Balland et al., 2015; Salamonsen, 2016). Because the most important issue for SMEs in rural areas related to speed of innovation is how to overcome problems of geographical distance to important partners (Virkkala, 2007), we view proximity from an interorganizational relationship perspective. Proximity can drive relationship development and knowledge creation, and can influence innovation speed by reducing the involved firms’ transaction costs in terms of formation, coordination, and control (Balland et al., 2015; Boschma and Frenken, 2010). Based on this and related to understanding more about how proximity influences rural SMEs, different aspects of proximity are relevant to our study: different dimensions, degrees, and dynamics of proximity. The geographical dimension of proximity has received a lot of attention in earlier research as it is suggested to be essential for innovation through knowledge spillover, favoring the creation of networks, clusters, and innovation in urban settings (Broekel, 2015; Boschma and Ter Wal, 2007; Torre, 2008). However, scholars argue that geographical proximity is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for innovation to take place, in particular as perceptions of geographical proximity depend on the type and strength of a firm’s external relations (Boschma, 2005; Torre and Rallet, 2005). In addition, to understand more about how it could be possible for a small firm to have rapid innovation processes in a rural context, it is necessary to go beyond the concept of geographical proximity and create other forms of proximity that can drive the process (Virkkala, 2007). Boschma (2005) demonstrates that proximity is a multidimensional concept including geographical, cognitive, institutional, organizational, and social dimensions. In this study, we focus mainly on cognitive and social proximity, in addition to the geographical dimension. Boschma refers to geographical proximity as the spatial or physical distance between firms. Further, he describes cognitive proximity as the firms’ shared knowledge base that facilitates understanding and communication, and social proximity in terms of micro-level social relations. When it comes to degree of proximity, both too much and too little proximity can be detrimental to innovation, for example, due to lock-ins, loss of flexibility, and too much knowledge variation (Balland et al., 2015). Finally, proximity is a dynamic concept and can evolve over time with firms’ relations, knowledge developments, and external environments. For instance, more social connectedness in relationships can increase cognitive proximity that makes it possible to

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 27

22/08/2018 10:08

28

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

reduce geographical proximity as firms develop a stronger knowledge base (Balland et al., 2015; Breschi and Lissoni, 2003).

METHODOLOGY Research Design To explore our research question, a case study design was chosen (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2013). In order to gain an in-depth understanding, we chose only one case: a manufacturing SME located in Alta in Northern Norway. We chose an embedded single-case study design (Yin, 2013) and a qualitative approach where we retrospectively examined a product innovation process from idea generation to commercialized product. A single-case study design offers a contextual, layered, and rich description of the research problem by following the processes and activities linked to the different phases of the process (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2013). This enabled us to collect in-depth data on the connection between proximity in the relationships to external actors and the innovation speed. Case Selection and Description We selected Arges as the case company because of its rural location in Northern Norway and because the firm represents a success case when it comes to speed of innovation. SMEs in rural areas are suggested to be at a disadvantage concerning the benefits of innovation due to low geographical proximity to knowledge networks; that is, it is more difficult for rural firms to survive because they have fewer opportunities to take advantage of knowledge spillovers and create alliances that can compete with large national and international manufacturing firms. Yet, the rural location seems to be no innovation barrier to Arges. Thus, the firm provides an opportunity to gain knowledge linked to the actor–opportunity nexus, and in particular the speed of the innovation processes (Flyvbjerg, 2006). In addition, the manager’s willingness to participate in the study in an ongoing and dialogic manner was important as this provides a rich understanding of the history and current situation of the firm. Arges was originally founded in 1992. Since initialization, the firm has been successful in producing tailor-made solutions in high density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic for contracting firms and the telecommunication market. Despite initial success and high turnover, the firm was dissolved in 2012, when Wavin AS decided to consolidate its production to the south of Norway. However, along with the founding entrepreneur and local

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 28

22/08/2018 10:08



Speed of innovation and proximity in a rural context ­29

investors, the firm restarted plastic production in autumn 2013. Today, Arges has 12 employees and a yearly turnover of around NOK 30 million. Right after restarting at the end of 2013, Arges started to work with a new idea for major improvement of a product in the fish farming industry. Already by the beginning of March 2014, after around three months, the new product was commercialized. During 2015, 90 percent of the market had adopted the product and existing suppliers in this market had not yet come up with a competing product. The Rural Context By a rural context, we mean a local environment with a population of fewer than 50 000 inhabitants and that is not situated within commuting distance of major cities (Freire-Gibb and Nielsen, 2014). Arges is located in Alta, a small city in the northernmost county of Norway with around 20 000 inhabitants. Alta is not within commuting distance of a major city. Alta has a large private sector with a variety of smaller and larger firms; however, Arges is the only firm within the plastic industry sector in the region and thus is at an innovational disadvantage due a lack of complementary knowledge (Asheim et al., 2011). The firm serves local, regional, and national markets. Alta is an accessible city: with a regional airport, it serves as a junction for local bus traffic and has a deep-water harbor. The municipality of Alta has a strong focus on entrepreneurship as a way to enhance local and regional value creation and for local firms to access gateways to increased regional innovation. Unlike many other small rural towns, Alta has a diversity of firms with local ownership. The development of Alta was strongly shaped by its copper industry during the nineteenth century, a period characterized by population growth, mainly from migration from Finland and Sweden, but also from mining cities in the south of Norway. The city’s location in the far north of Norway has strengthened self-reliance and resulted in a strong entrepreneurial trustbased culture. Today, firms located in Alta operate in fields such as mining, slate quarries, construction, fish farming, ICT (information and communications technology), and other service-based firms linked, for example, to tourism. The increased focus on oil development projects in the Arctic during the last few decades has resulted in enhanced local collaboration to win contracts within this industry and other projects previously considered too large for small, rural firms. This has increased learning and enabled firms, in particular within construction, to expand from local to regional and national markets. Further, the public sector in Alta consists of the municipality, local public policy funding offices, a research institute, and a university campus.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 29

22/08/2018 10:08

30

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Collection and Analysis of Data The main data source in this study was semi-structured individual interviews. We conducted six semi-structured interviews with the members of the entrepreneurial team: the general manager (two interviews), technical manager, and marketing manager. In addition, interviews were conducted with the sales manager and with a shift leader from the production team. The interviews were conducted by one of the researchers during 2015.The interviews lasted between one and one-and-a-half hours and took place at Arges’s factory premises. Further, to elicit and trace information linked to proximity and speed of innovation, the researcher asked the informants to talk about the firm and its history, with a particular focus on the innovation process linked to the new product. The researcher recorded the interviews which were later transcribed. The transcripts facilitated identification of factors that enabled the firm to speed up the process and render an impression of the proximity between the firm and their external partners. In addition, the other researcher has for many years collaborated with Arges with respect to teaching at the local university. She also visited the premises several times. During these visits, she observed and conversed with the general manager. Valuable data about the firm was also collected through diverse secondary sources. This comprised mainly newspaper articles and articles published on various web pages, for example, the homepage of Arges, Alta municipality, and diverse industry organizations. Finally, the close collaboration, including many visits and informal conversations between both researchers and the managing director, provided valuable data. The analysis of data consisted of several steps, with weight on reflexivity and sense making rather than coding of data (Alvesson, 2003; Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2009). Salient issues linked to innovation speed and proximity were identified and discussed in relation to the aim of our study. The analysis emphasized triangulation of methods and the use of multiple informants across levels and functions; in addition, careful connection of interview questions to research questions and theoretical foundation enhanced the study’s reliability and validity (Stake, 2013; Yin, 2013). The first step was to become familiar with and make sense of the data through repeated readings and discussions between the researchers, and between the researchers and the general manager at Arges. The second stage involved focusing on the parts of the interviews that we considered meaningful in terms of the aim of our study, that is, identifying those parts most relevant to speed of innovation in a rural context. Further, we used the framework developed by Moreno-Moya and Munuera-Aleman (2016) to operationalize speed of innovation in terms of development

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 30

22/08/2018 10:08



Speed of innovation and proximity in a rural context ­31

Table 3.1  Operationalization of proximity

Geographical proximity Cognitive proximity Social proximity

High

Low

Less than 25 km Overlapping knowledge base Personal relationships, strong ties

More than 25 km Different knowledge base Distanced relationships, weak ties

Source:  Based on Davids and Frenken (2017).

speed and launching speed. These identified parts of the text were color coded. Further, the interviews were re-read several times to see if there was anything we could reduce or add that would contribute to the weight of meaning. The third step was the analysis of the innovation process according to the operationalization of proximity developed by Davids and Frenken (2017) (see Table 3.1). For each proximity dimension, we analyzed the importance and degree of proximity for development speed and launching speed which, in turn, influence speed of innovation.

FINDINGS From the data and based on our analysis, we have reconstructed the narrative of how proximity influences speed in the different phases of innovation. Development Speed Idea generation and screening This phase was characterized by contact between one potential customer, a fish farming firm located within 25 km of Alta, and the firm, Arges. Arges contacted this customer after getting an idea as to how to solve the problem of static electricity in the fish feeding pipes. During interaction between Arges and the customer, geographical proximity enabled the creation of an inter-organizational relationship. Moreover, the interplay between high geographical and low social dimensions of proximity facilitated idea screening and conceptualization because it made it easier for both to understand their respective knowledge bases, which allowed Arges (via the marketing manager/founder) to get to ‘the inside of their problem’

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 31

22/08/2018 10:08

32

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

to find out how it could develop the idea further. To get more detailed knowledge of the problem, it was crucial to get to know how the fish farming technicians experienced it on a daily basis. Hence, to be able to access the fish farming locations physically was crucial to take advantage of customer knowledge, as the technicians have ‘a fingerspitzgefühl [fingertip feeling], they are not able to put into words what they do so it is not easy to get to the inside of their problems’ (marketing manager/founder). While this is in line with research on proximity that has discussed the complementarities between geographical and cognitive proximity for the realization of relationships, our findings show that this interplay is mediated by low social proximity. Furthermore, the finding that geographical proximity to a customer in this phase is crucial to speeding up innovation processes contradicts research arguing that geographical proximity can be replaced by other dimensions of proximity in terms of innovation (Torre and Rallet, 2005). High geographical proximity was a foundation for low social, and in turn, low cognitive proximity in this phase. This was sufficient to move into the next phase in the innovation process. Knowledge needs and sources This phase was characterized by contact between Arges and two universities located more than 25 km from Alta. However, the firm’s contact with the two universities proved to be a challenge for speed on innovation. One major reason for this was the different knowledge bases between the firm and the universities. While the firm considered university knowledge valuable, communication of the problem and suggestions for solutions did not bring the desired results for two major reasons. First, one of the universities took a patronizing role and insisted that its solutions were the best, and thus refused to consider the firm’s understanding of the problem and its propositions for a solution. Consequently, no shared understanding about the practicality of the problem was created, which brought the dialogue to a halt. ‘They had a different opinion about a solution and doubted our propositions’ (marketing manager/founder). Second, while the firm had better dialogue with the other university, its previous experiences influenced its approach, and the managers chose not to enter into a formal agreement. Instead they contacted a professor they knew of directly by phone to ask his advice on static electricity. The professor found Arges’s questions interesting and was therefore willing to spend some time talking with the firm. Even though the firm considered this helpful and inspirational, it was difficult for the firm to use the information directly, as this quote illustrates: ‘My experience is that it is not easy to transfer this knowledge’ (general manager). Academic knowledge is often different from industry knowledge, and cognitive proximity is essential to create

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 32

22/08/2018 10:08



Speed of innovation and proximity in a rural context ­33

shared understanding and to learn (Boschma, 2005; Ballard et al., 2015). Further, institutional proximity is considered to enhance knowledge interaction because institutional similarity increases familiarity which affects the knowledge approach (Boschma, 2005; Boschma and Frenken, 2010). Hence, low levels of proximity between Arges and the two universities did not restrict innovation directly, but it limited speed of development as the managers of Arges used more time than necessary to find a university, or researchers, with whom they felt they could communicate (Lagendijk and Lorentzen, 2007). This suggests that although high geographical proximity is important to establish relations with the right researchers from the start, it may not be sufficient to create good knowledge interactions as they are enabled by institutional proximity and/or cognitive proximity. However, over time, geographical proximity facilitates frequent interactions, which in turn can increase institutional and cognitive proximity (Broekel, 2015). Moreover, geographical proximity can be important to create sufficient social proximity and thereby increase trust and the quality of knowledge interactions. Product development This phase was characterized by extensive contact with two suppliers; the supplier of raw materials and the supplier of machinery, both located more than 25 km from Alta. Further, Arges contacted the suppliers to find out how to mix the right raw materials and adapt the machinery to the new product. In this phase, Arges continually went back and forth between creative thinking and decision-making, a process enabled by the interplay between high social and high cognitive dimensions of proximity with its suppliers. While the importance of social proximity was linked to the suppliers’ willingness to be available, overlapping knowledge bases resulted in rapid knowledge integration and decision-making. Hence, product development was facilitated in the interplay between social and cognitive proximity. Research argues for the importance of social proximity, in particular in terms of trust (Boschma, 2005). For Arges, social proximity has evolved over time, which has changed the status of social relations from distant to more personal. This has resulted in high social and cognitive proximity with this particular supplier. Moreover, this means that Arges can call anytime to ask for advice – and will get it. In addition, a high degree of social proximity limits opportunistic behaviors, that is, their suppliers do not share what they learn with their other customers. Boschma (2005) argues that excessively high degrees of proximity influence innovation negatively. However, our findings show that high degrees of cognitive and social proximity are necessary to increase development speed, which in turn influences speed of innovation. In addition, a prerequisite for high

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 33

22/08/2018 10:08

34

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

social and cognitive proximity is temporary geographic proximity, which the following quotation illustrates: ‘We have gotten to know our customers and we gladly invite them to us, and when they come we do local things and guide them around the region. We never talk business on such trips, we save that for after’ (general manager). As such, our findings suggest low geographical proximity as a foundation for other forms of proximity to speed up product development (see also, Torre, 2008). Testing phase In this phase, Arges contacted a local mechanical firm to get help to sort out how it could manipulate the machinery to produce the fish feeding pipe. Meeting a local mechanic during testing proved to be extremely valuable for maintaining development speed when encountering a problem with adjusting the machinery to enable production of a new product. The following quotation illustrates this: ‘Our technical manager knew of someone with the right knowledge and he just walked across the road, and within three hours he had a solution to our problem’ (general manager). Hence, high geographical proximity between Arges and local firms proved to be crucial to speeding up the testing phase. The reason for this is the tacit nature of the type of knowledge necessary to solve the problem. Thus, being able to solve the problem locally saved Arges both time and money, as the other option would have entailed contacting its foreign supplier, which would have taken much longer due to the different knowledge base (Asheim et al., 2011). The findings in this phase suggest that high geographical proximity is essential for taking advantage of low social and cognitive proximity in situ. This is important to developing and strengthening innovation in rural contexts as cognitive proximity domination is linked to the development of a stronger knowledge base (Balland et al., 2015; Breschi and Lissoni, 2003). Launching Speed During this phase there was contact between Arges and a national wholesaler with an office in Alta. It was the wholesaler, which specializes in sales to the fish farming industry, that first contacted Arges, as the company knew about the new product. Large national and international customers typically do their business through large certified wholesalers as this reduces the cost of buying. This makes it difficult for rural SMEs to negotiate market access in larger and geographically distant markets. In addition, due to the importance of speedy market access, Arges decided that it was unable to reach potential customers in due time anyway. The time-to-market aspect is very important in everything the firm does

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 34

22/08/2018 10:08



Speed of innovation and proximity in a rural context ­35

because ‘maybe we get a year or two before someone else gets an idea’ (marketing manager). Therefore, to gain access to the international fish farming market and increase launching speed, the firm decided that it would be advantageous to cooperate with the national wholesaler on this occasion. This phase was characterized by high geographical proximity, as the wholesaler has an office in Alta, but low social and cognitive proximity. The key objective and strategy for Arges in this phase was to achieve a quick product launch as this impacted directly on its cash flow and firstmover advantage. Hence, geographical proximity facilitated launching speed in this phase.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Our findings demonstrate that dimensions, degree, and dynamics of proximity in relationships to external actors influence speed of innovation. For SMEs in rural contexts, geographical proximity varies across the different phases and actors, and is a foundation for social and cognitive proximity. In addition, social proximity is important to maximize the opportunity potential in terms of cognitive proximity. We have summarized our findings in Table 3.2. Our findings demonstrate clearly that the rural context influences the composition and interplay between different dimensions of proximity and that the way this plays out influences speed of innovation. Table 3.2 illustrates several points that are interesting in terms of future understanding of innovation in rural areas. Theoretical Contributions Our study has at least two important theoretical contributions. First, it contributes to contextualize theory on innovation speed in the context of manufacturing SMEs in rural areas. The focus on external contexts in innovation speed studies is still limited. The need for contextualizing entrepreneurship theory has been discussed for some time now (Welter, 2011). Somewhat counterintuitive to beliefs about the importance of innovation speed in the globalized context, the findings of this study demonstrate that rapid innovations are extremely important to entrepreneurial firms located in a rural context. Further, theory on innovation speed is contextualized to rural SMEs by identifying that different dimensions, levels, and dynamics of proximity in inter-organizational relationships to various actors can facilitate or limit speed of innovation. The findings also demonstrate how this varies in the different phases related to speed of innovation

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 35

22/08/2018 10:08

36

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 36

22/08/2018 10:08

Arges and local  firms

Product testing

Arges and a  wholesaler

Arges and  suppliers (producers of raw material and machinery)

Product  development

Market planning  and launching

Arges and two  universities

Analysis of  knowledge needs

Launching speed

High geographical and low social and  cognitive proximity.

Arges and  potential customers

Idea generation  and screening

Development speed

Low geographical and cognitive proximity.  Not easy to use knowledge – hampers knowledge exchange. Can be inspirational (led the firm in new directions). Low geographical proximity. High social   and cognitive proximity. Good, trust-based relations built over  years that eased flow of communication – e.g., easy to contact to discuss problems and share knowledge. Extensive support, preferred partnerships, and strong relations. High geographical, cognitive, high  cognitive proximity, low social proximity. Meeting face to face speeds up development speed. High geographical proximity. Located at  the same place.

Dimension and degree of proximity

Proximity between

Innovation phases

Table 3.2  Innovation phases, proximity and effect on speed of innovation

The combination of high  geographical and low social proximity facilitated speed of innovation. High geographical proximity  facilitated speed of innovation.

The combination of high  social and high cognitive proximity maintained through low geographical proximity facilitated the speed of innovation.

The combination of high  geographical and low social and cognitive proximity to potential customers facilitated speed of innovation. Low geographical, low cognitive  proximity, low institutional and low social proximity limited speed of innovation.

Effect on speed of innovation



Speed of innovation and proximity in a rural context ­37

(­development phase versus launching phase). Second, our study contributes to connecting existing theory on proximity (Boschma, 2005) and speed of innovation (Kessler and Chakrabarti, 1996). While dimensions and levels of proximity are recognized as important for innovation in rural firms, this literature has not gone far enough in addressing what role they play in how fast these processes can play out. The case study narratives outlined in this study illustrate that geographical, social, and cognitive proximity all played a significant role for speed of innovation. Geographic proximity was particularly important as an antecedent to social proximity, which in turn realized the potential for rapid knowledge integration embedded in cognitive proximity. Practical Implications The main lesson learned from our study is that it is important for SMEs to have in place strategies that enable them to take advantage of cognitive proximity. This has some practical implications for both entrepreneurs and policy makers. SMEs have to reflect on the local and rural knowledge base and initiate partnerships or networks that can be activated in relation to the type of innovation. Hence, geographic proximity is important for SMEs and speed of innovation for two major reasons: (1) it is crucial to establish the right relations to establish high social proximity, and (2) high social proximity with the right external actor increases speed of innovation because it enables fast knowledge integration. For policy makers, the results of this study can contribute to a deeper understanding of how strategies and supporting systems for innovation should be designed to support rapid innovation processes in rural areas. Literature in regional innovations points to the fact that the weak endowment in rural areas in terms of innovation needs to be addressed (Tödtling and Trippl, 2005). Our findings suggest that measures contributing towards building local and regional relationships can contribute to stimulate speed of innovation through dimensions of proximity. While our findings are in line with suggestions in the literature that proximity is a concept that evolves over time, our findings suggest that different dimensions and degrees of proximity dominate speed of innovation at different times and between different actors. Furthermore, the interplay between social and cognitive proximity and external enablers is facilitated through institutional proximity. Limitations and Possibilities for Future Research Innovation processes, and thus speed of innovation, can vary considerably across sectors. One limitation of this study is that it builds on data from

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 37

22/08/2018 10:08

38

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

the manufacturing sector and the findings are not necessarily transferable to other sectors, like, for example, the service or high-tech sector. A singlecase study is an excellent way to explore concepts and the relationships between them in depth; however, this type of research needs to be followed up by studies that provide data from several sectors, firms, and innovation processes, in terms of either multiple-case studies or more quantitative approaches. Multiple-case studies are excellent for building theory in terms of new models and propositions (Eisenhardt, 1989), and quantitative approaches for testing new theory about speed of innovation in SMEs in rural areas. An idea for further research that is not connected to a limitation is to apply an opportunity-based view of innovation speed. Opportunity development, since introduced as a concept by Shane and Venkataraman (2000), has received increased attention in the entrepreneurship literature and is closely related to innovation processes. Davidsson (2015), for example, suggests using the constructs of external enablers, new venture ideas, and opportunity confidence to capture the important ideas commonly discussed under the opportunity label. Further research could, for example, highlight the interplay between a new idea and its external context in terms of external enablers. An external enabler is different from an inter-organizational partner and is defined as ‘a single, distinct, external circumstance, which – by affecting supply, demand, costs, prices or payoff structures – can play an essential role in eliciting and/or enabling a variety of venture developments’ (Davidsson, 2015: 684). Future research can explore how external enablers, such as changes in technology, demographics, regulatory frameworks, or the natural environment, can influence the process of developing new product ideas.

REFERENCES Aldrich, H.E. and M.A. Martinez (2001), ‘Many are called, but few are chosen: An evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25 (4), 41–56. Alvesson, M. (2003), ‘Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research’, Academy of Management Review, 28 (1), 13–33. Alvesson, M. and K. Sköldberg (2009), Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research, London: Sage. Asheim, B.T., R. Boschma, and P. Cooke (2011), ‘Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases’, Regional Studies, 45 (7), 893–904. Balland, P.-A., R. Boschma and K. Frenken (2015), ‘Proximity and innovation: From statics to dynamics’, Regional Studies, 49 (6), 907–20.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 38

22/08/2018 10:08



Speed of innovation and proximity in a rural context ­39

Boschma, R. (2005), ‘Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment’, Regional Studies, 39 (1), 61–74. Boschma, R. and K. Frenken (2010), ‘The spatial evolution of innovation networks: A proximity perspective’, in R. Boschma and R. Martin (eds), The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 120–35. Boschma, R. and A.L. Ter Wal (2007), ‘Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district: The case of a footwear district in the south of Italy’, Industry and Innovation, 14 (2), 177–99. Breschi, S. and F. Lissoni (2003), Mobility and Social Networks: Localised Knowledge Spillovers Revisited, Milan: Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi. Broekel, T. (2015), ‘The co-evolution of proximities – A network level study’, Regional Studies, 49 (6), 921–35. Carbonell, P., A.I. Rodríguez-Escudero and D. Pujari (2009), ‘Customer involvement in new service development: An examination of antecedents and outcomes’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26 (5), 536–50. Cruickshank, J., H.K. Lysgård and M.I. Magnussen (2009), ‘The logic of the construction of rural politics: Political discourses on rurality in Norway’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 91 (1), 73–89. Davids, M. and K. Frenken (2017), ‘Proximity, knowledge base and the innovation process: Towards an integrated framework’, Regional Studies, 1–12. Davidsson, P. (2015), ‘Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re-conceptualization’, Journal of Business Venturing, 30 (5), 674–95. dos Santos Silvestre, B. and P.R.T. Dalcol (2009), ‘Geographical proximity and innovation: Evidences from the Campos Basin oil and gas industrial agglomeration – Brazil’, Technovation, 29 (8), 546–61. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), ‘Building theories from case study research’, Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532–50. Eisenhardt, K.M. and M.E. Graebner (2007), ‘Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges’, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1), 25–32. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006), ‘Five misunderstandings about case-study research’, Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2), 219–45. Freire-Gibb, L.C. and K. Nielsen (2014), ‘Entrepreneurship within urban and rural areas: Creative people and social networks’, Regional Studies, 48 (1), 139–53. Kessler, E.H. and P.E. Bierly (2002), ‘Is faster really better? An empirical test of the implications of innovation speed’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49 (1), 2–12. Kessler, E.H., P.E. Bierly and S. Gopalakrishnan (2000), ‘Internal vs. external learning in new product development: Effects on speed, costs and competitive advantage’, RandD Management, 30 (3), 213–24. Kessler, E.H. and A.K. Chakrabarti (1996), ‘Innovation speed: A conceptual model of context, antecedents, and outcomes’, Academy of Management Review, 21 (4), 1143–91. Knoben, J. and L.A. Oerlemans (2006), ‘Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (2), 71–89. Lagendijk, A. and A. Lorentzen (2007), ‘Proximity, knowledge and innovation in peripheral regions: On the intersection between geographical and organizational proximity’, European Planning Studies, 15 (4), 457–66. Markman, G.D., P.T. Gianiodis, P.H. Phan and D.B. Balkin (2005), ‘Innovation

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 39

22/08/2018 10:08

40

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

speed: Transferring university technology to market’, Research Policy, 34 (7), 1058–75. Moreno-Moya, M. and J.-L. Munuera-Aleman (2016), ‘The differential effect of development speed and launching speed on new product performance: An analysis in SMEs’, Journal of Small Business Management, 54 (2), 750–70. Naldi, L., P. Nilsson, H. Westlund and S. Wixe (2015), ‘What is smart rural development?’, Journal of Rural Studies, 40, 90–101. Reinl, L., E. Owens, F. Kelliher and D. Harrington (2015), ‘Facilitating crossborder rural micro-firm knowledge exchange’, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 16 (3), 183–95. Salamonsen, K. (2016), ‘Overcoming the “smallness challenge” in asymmetrical alliances’, in U. Hytti, R. Blackburn, D. Fletcher and F. Welter (eds), Entrepreneurship, Universities and Resources: Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research, Cheltenham, UK and Northamption, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 94–116. Shan, P., M. Song and X. Ju (2016), ‘Entrepreneurial orientation and performance: Is innovation speed a missing link?’, Journal of Business Research, 69 (2), 683–90. Shane, S. and S. Venkataraman (2000), ‘The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research’, Academy of Management Review, 25 (1), 217–26. Stake, R.E. (2013), Multiple Case Study Analysis, New York: Guilford Press. Stathopoulou, S., D. Psaltopoulos and D. Skuras (2004), ‘Rural entrepreneurship in Europe: A research framework and agenda’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 10 (6), 404–25. Tödtling, F. and M. Trippl (2005), ‘One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach’, Research Policy, 34 (8), 1203–19. Torre, A. (2008), ‘On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission’, Regional Studies, 42 (6), 869–89. Torre, A. and A. Rallet (2005), ‘Proximity and localization’, Regional Studies, 39 (1), 47–59. Virkkala, S. (2007), ‘Innovation and networking in peripheral areas – A case study of emergence and change in rural manufacturing’, European Planning Studies, 15 (4), 511–29. Welter, F. (2011), ‘Contextualizing entrepreneurship – Conceptual challenges and ways forward’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35 (1), 165–84. Yin, R.K. (2013), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, London: Sage.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 40

22/08/2018 10:08

4. Micro firm learning communities in rural tourism: a multi-case study David Aylward, Leana Reinl and Felicity Kelliher* INTRODUCTION As population and employment continue to fall in many peripheral areas due to economic restructuring, there is increasing emphasis on tourism as an impetus for rural and regional development (Brouder and Eriksson, 2013; McAreavey and McDonagh, 2011). Micro firms are the main providers of tourism services in rural locations, defined here as geographic areas populated with fewer than 1000 residents (von Friedrichs Grängsjö, 2003). Micro firms account for over 90 per cent of all tourism businesses in the countries represented in this multi-case study (Government of Canada, 2016; Welsh Government, 2016). These firms ‘draw on locally available resources such as themselves, their family, business or community’ (Siemens, 2010: 65) to develop their businesses. Despite calls for greater attention to be paid to ‘collaboration between small tourism enterprises in the enhancement of rural destinations’ (Komppula, 2014: 361; Polo and Frías, 2010) research reveals little about how these firms learn as they pursue development together. This chapter asks; what are the elements related to micro firm community learning in a rural tourism context? Research demonstrates that learning with others can assist micro firms to remain competitive and overcome size-specific resource constraints, isolation issues and market challenges (Jack et al., 2010; Morrison et al., 2004). Their learning idiosyncrasies owe much to their resource-poor nature, lifestyle motivations and family-value driven approach to business (Kelliher and Reinl, 2009; McAreavey and McDonagh, 2011; Morrison and Teixeira, 2004). Rural tourism micro firm learning needs therefore warrant distinct consideration, as they are different to those of larger firms, urban-based firms and/or firms operating in other sectors. Consistent with Lave and Wenger’s (1991) community of practice perspective, we conceive that learning occurs as people engage in the shared 41

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 41

22/08/2018 10:08

42

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

pursuit of knowledge and/or a learning activity of some kind. In this chapter, we explore the catalyst, structure, strategy and boundary elements that influence micro firm learning in rural tourism communities. We draw on the findings of a multi-case study to better understand sustainable learning community activity. Following this we present our conclusions, recommendations and avenues for further research.

MICRO FIRM COLLABORATIVE LEARNING While a multitude of criteria can be used for their categorisation, a micro firm is defined here as a commercial enterprise with ten or fewer full-time employees. This definition is consistent in the micro firm literature (Devins et al., 2005) and with criteria set by the European Commission (2017). While Canadian micro firms employ one to four employees (Government of Canada, 2016), we apply the European Commission criteria for crosscase comparison. Micro firms are so invested in running their businesses that they tend to be less informed than other tourism stakeholders about strategic opportunities (Kearney et al., 2014). They primarily rely on those outside the business for learning and development opportunities. A rush to action shapes the way they collaborate and learn (Devins et al., 2005; Kelliher and Reinl, 2009). Their primary rationale for connecting with others is to cultivate close relationships that can support immediate to short-term goals and ease resource constraints and environmental shocks to which they are susceptible (Alonso and Bressan, 2014; Devins et al., 2005; Tinsley and Lynch, 2007). An inclination to focus inward and look to their own for business-related advice and information (Brouder and Eriksson, 2013; Devins et al., 2005) can have negative connotations for learning. An overreliance on close others (family, friends and neighbours) as learning allies reflects the embedded nature of micro firm learning. As a result, they lack connections to broader levels of the tourism system (Saxena and Ilbery, 2008) and access to the knowledge it offers. A situated learning framework is particularly fitting for micro firms (Devins et al., 2005), especially rural ones due to the social and situational nature of their development (Alonso and Bressan, 2014; Siemens, 2015). From a community of practice standpoint, learning occurs through the shared pursuit of knowledge and/or a learning activity of some kind (Lave and Wenger, 1991). This perspective gives rise to the concept ‘learning community’ which is defined as stakeholder collaboration that builds shared meaning and results in learning during practice (Reinl and Kelliher, 2014). Affiliation to a learning community offers a competitive advantage

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 42

22/08/2018 10:08



Micro firm learning communities in rural tourism ­43

that micro firms would be less able to leverage on their own. Governments are increasingly aware of the benefits of supporting learning communities where collaboration between public and private actors can result in positive commercial and social outcomes (Heidari et al., 2014; Morrison et al., 2004).

BROKERING MICRO FIRM LEARNING COMMUNITIES We now contemplate the catalyst that precipitates the initiation or establishment of a learning community and consider what impact this may have on sustained activity. Support agencies (for example, a local or regional tourism organisation or rural development council) often initiate learning community activity for development projects and initiatives that require stakeholder collaboration to realise their intended benefits. Frequently the lead support organisation provides an individual to facilitate/broker stakeholder exchanges and activities (Beaumont and Dredge, 2010; Morrison et al., 2004). A learning community can also emerge organically where, for example, a local champion of development instigates stakeholder collaboration to co-develop a tourism offering. In essence, these individuals are learning brokers; those who support learning in practice (Kearney and Zuber-Skerritt, 2012; Marsden et al., 2010; Waligo et al., 2013) through intentional strategies which may be explicit or implicit (Halme, 2001; Kelliher and Reinl, 2011). The activities they undertake (brokerage) will be influenced by their organisational origin (for example, community, local industry, government and academia) and resultant logic of engagement. The broker will determine the structure of a learning community, deciding how it is configured and managed. Resource-constrained micro firms often volunteer for tasks and projects that strongly align with their individual business goals (Alonso and Bressan, 2014; Waligo et al., 2013). This potentially limits the developmental influence of their contribution to a particular task and within the confines of a particular subcommittee. Under the right conditions small groups (such as subcommittees) can function as learning sets, where individuals interact and share experience. Ideally, a broker facilitates their configuration and focus. Ultimately this determines their learning value (Devins et al., 2005; Halme, 2001). While a subcommittee structure may be attractive to the broker from a resource management perspective, barriers can develop between members, even active ones, in the absence of a broader community ethos. This challenge is perpetuated in the absence of a collective narrative about practice. Democratic and open communication is the glue that binds a learning

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 43

22/08/2018 10:08

44

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

community together (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Morrison et al., 2004; Reinl and Kelliher, 2014). Consequently, the broker should put a communication strategy in place which aligns learning set objectives with community ones. This should include regular learning set/community communication flows (Kearney and Zuber-Skerritt, 2012). When considering a learning community strategy, brokers should seek to establish shared meaning among members from the outset. If management tasks are divided, shared meaning within a community can diminish (Reinl and Kelliher, 2014). Where this impact is not understood, and where resources come under increasing pressure, there is a proclivity to cut back on important communication methods (for example, suspending the production and distribution of detailed meeting minutes that keep the wider community informed). The community of practice perspective ‘provides the interpretive support necessary for making sense of [a learning community’s] heritage . . . and its power relations [which] define possibilities for learning’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991: 98). Differing perspectives are inevitable in a rural tourism cohort as some pursue growth-focused development, while other ecological or lifestyleminded individuals want to sustain tourism without growth (McAreavey and McDonagh, 2011; Waligo et al., 2013). Politically astute members are likely to have greater influence over learning community practice than less vocal members. Powerful stakeholders can also influence leadership, participation and access to resources which limits the knowledge required to get things done (Beaumont and Dredge, 2010; Morrison et al., 2004). Negotiation is a fundamental component of learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Strategies to nurture negotiation under a cooperative ethos can counterbalance individual goals over time, and community learning can potentially stabilise and evolve. Avoiding a top-down brokerage approach (Halme, 2001; Tinsley and Lynch, 2007) while encouraging progressive competence development among members should ensure that learning momentum sustains beyond the life of a single broker’s contribution (Halme, 2001; Reinl and Kelliher, 2010). An omnipresent broker extinguishes a learning community dynamic in the longer term (Marsden et al., 2010). The movement of members to more central community roles (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) reflects the emergent nature of learning and underscores the need for broker succession planning in this environment. The community’s boundary can be a rich site for learning and innovation (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger et al., 2011). Boundary spanning activities that connect the learning community with external stakeholders are an important function of brokerage (Halme, 2001; Wenger, 1998). New ideas and experiences for tourism/rural development can be gener-

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 44

22/08/2018 10:08



Micro firm learning communities in rural tourism ­45

ated with external stakeholders (Marsden et al., 2010) and can prevent the community’s repository of knowledge becoming stale or redundant. Importantly, individuals who are external or peripheral to the learning community and those who have intermittent roles in it will require help to understand its learning and knowledge dynamics. In this context, artefacts are important tools of understanding (Halme, 2001) as they represent and give form to what has been learned. They include documents, stories, rules and routines, which are developed through sustained community practice (Wenger, 1998). Once comprehended by stakeholders, artefacts facilitate ‘the translation of actions and understanding between communities’ (Jones et al., 2010: 659) and as differences in their interpretation are negotiated, learning occurs and practice advances (Halme, 2001; Morrison et al., 2004; Wenger, 1998). Fundamentally a learning community is not static but continually evolves and the broker plays a crucial role in this evolution (Jack et al., 2010; Kearney and Zuber-Skerritt, 2012; Kelliher and Reinl, 2011; Marsden et al., 2010). Supporting broker replenishment is therefore important in periods of transition (Wenger, 1998). In recognition of micro firm resource restrictions and learner tendencies, passing the leadership baton from outgoing to incumbent broker (often a local network champion) should occur under hand-holding conditions (Waligo et al., 2013). This should be done with the aforementioned caveats in mind. The above literature review identified catalyst, structure, strategy and boundary elements. We now draw on the findings of a multi-case study to better understand how these elements influence sustainable learning community activity in a rural micro firm environment.

METHODOLOGY Given the rich detail required to study tourism micro firm learning contexts (Jack et al., 2010; Reinl and Kelliher, 2014), we pursued a qualitative interpretive multi-case study over a 17-month period (April 2014 to August 2015) to explore the catalyst, structure, strategy and boundary elements in two learning communities, one in south-western Ontario, Canada, the other in north Wales. Each case is a bounded system within its own physical, social, historical and/or economic context (Creswell, 1998). Criteria-based sampling permitted the identification of information-rich cases (Marsden et al., 2010) based on the following selection criteria, that local businesses and support stakeholders were engaged in a learning community for tourism development, and that the learning community was situated in a rural location where the local economy relied significantly on

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 45

22/08/2018 10:08

46

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

a tourism sector. In situ academic faculty aided the identification of learning communities in each region. Once case particpants were contacted, a pre-prepared research outline and consent forms were discussed and formally agreed following an acceptable time lapse to consider participation unabaited. The snowball technique was followed from this point as participants recommended potential interviewees. Case Overview and Research Design The Canadian case is located within driving distance of several busy tourist destinations including Toronto and Niagara Falls. The learning community comprises members from two neighbouring municipalities (merged in 1999 under a provincial government cost-saving exercise). The location offers outdoor sports and recreation activities including hiking, biking, ziplining, tubing, kayaking and fishing. Recognition by the Regional Tourism Organisation (RTO) that community collaboration and stakeholder engagement required strengthening in anticipation of the redevelopment of a local mill led to the establishment of the learning community in early 2015. Of the 12 members, four are core (see Table 4.1). The majority of these business owners operate and live within a 2 km radius. Communication methods include meetings, email, meeting minutes and agendas. The Welsh case is located in the heart of a major national park wherein slate quarries, which contributed substantially to the local economy in the past, have been transformed into a premium outdoor activity centre by private firms. Described as ‘a playground for adrenaline junkies’ in local and national press, zip-lining, mountain biking/climbing, caving and subterranean trampolining are offered here. Established in November 2011, the learning community has 19 members, four of which are core (see Table 4.1). The majority of the business owners operate and live within a 5 km radius. The learning community has a website, Facebook page and brochure. Their main communication method is meetings and resultant minutes which are emailed to the wider group post interaction. Over the years many voluntary groups (including group A) have been active in local tourism development. In 2014, the learning community subsumed group A’s activities, which included organising two tourism events per annum. Group A’s activities and brokerage are separate to that of the learning community and it has a separate constitution due to its charitable status. The research design incorporated a range of learning community members including both micro firm owners and support stakeholders in core, peripheral and boundary/external roles to help us understand catalyst, structure, strategy and boundary elements. Primary data was obtained through 11 hours of face-to-face and telephone semi-structured interviews

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 46

22/08/2018 10:08



Micro firm learning communities in rural tourism ­47

Table 4.1  Participant and observation details Case approach

Description

Wales

Canada

Total time

Case selection

Discussion  with in situ academic liaisons Core members  interviewed

5 hours

5 hours

10 hours

Brenda, 55 mins Aidan, 45 mins Dona, 34 mins Anna, 4 hours

Emma, 66 mins

3 hours 20 mins

Owen, 3 hours Madison, 3 hours Sarah, 3 hours Hailey, 66 mins Hannah, 30 mins James, 16 mins Rose, 10 mins Leah, 11 mins Olivia, 8 mins Alice, 6 mins

13 hours

3 hours

6 hours

2 hours

N/A

2 hours

5 hours

6 hours

11 hours

1 hour

N/A

1 hour

Semistructured interviews and observations

Core members  observed Peripheral  members Observed

Researcher observation

Community  meetings Council  meetings Tourist  attractions Festival

Gavin, 25 mins Jennifer, 9 mins Gareth, 75 mins Una, 50 mins Daniel, 35 mins Alan, 33 mins Lauren, 32 mins Lynn, 30 mins Seren, 25 mins 3 hours

7 hours 41 mins

with 16 micro firm owners and four network facilitators across both cases. Observations of case participants in their own place of business and as they interacted with one another in the community permitted us ‘to gain additional insights through experiencing the phenomena’ (Ritchie, 2003: 35). This included 20 hours’ observation of ten case-related tourist attractions, six learning community meetings, two town council meetings and a festival. Once research relationships were established, Skype was used to gather updates and developments on learning community activities from case participants between face-to-face interviews. We also maintained reflective diaries to document the evolution of the study.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 47

22/08/2018 10:08

48

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Data Management and Analysis Catalyst, structure, strategy and boundary elements offered a good starting point; data analysis assisted us to overcome potential preconceptions. Individual case analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994) and data categorisation facilitated the exploration of patterns and differences within and subsequently between the cases (Miles et al., 2014). An iterative process of categorising, connecting, collaborating and classifying (Dey, 1993) was carried out across both cases. The analysis of interview transcripts, field notes, documentary evidence and reflective diary entries was evolutionary in nature as we managed, shaped and made sense of the data (Dey, 1993). Documentary analysis, contextual analysis and the analysis of case correspondence on social media tools provided a more rounded approach to understanding the dynamic facets of the observed learning communities. The qualitative software package QSR NUD*IST Vivo (NVivo) was used to sort, reduce and code the data without losing its contextual richness (Saldana, 2009). Replication logic allowed us to extend theory (Miles et al., 2014; Siggelkow, 2007), ultimately permitting the refinement of an existing learning community model (Reinl and Kelliher, 2014).

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS The findings are presented under the literature-informed learning community elements: catalyst and structure, strategy and boundary. Learning Community Catalyst and Initial Structure In both cases the catalyst for learning community initiation or establishment was funding which resulted in an enhanced focus on rural tourism development. In the Welsh case £4.5m in European and national funding spurred a major regeneration project and the establishment of several large tourism businesses on the studied location’s outskirts. This resulted in ‘more confidence to set up . . . small business’ (Daniel). In Canada, RTO motivation to fortify stakeholder collaboration prior to a $40 million private investment project led to the establishment of the learning community in early 2015. Canadian micro firms recognised the importance of working with others to remain competitive and overcome resource and market challenges, while Welsh micro firms were only beginning to recognise that ‘there is strength in working together [and] not being an individual provider . . . engrossed in their own business’ (Gavin). Structure and membership configuration varied in both cases. The

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 48

22/08/2018 10:08



Micro firm learning communities in rural tourism ­49

Canadian case community was led and brokered by consultants hired by the RTO. While perceived as ‘leading edge in destination development and highly capable of fostering the community collaboration and stakeholder engagement necessary to achieving true success in developing [tourism communities]’ (RTO), members explained that the consultants dominated meetings and discussions and limited their influence. Emma was asked to recommend members based on her long-standing history with local firms; however, her suggestions were discounted and strict membership criteria were set by RTO managers. The vast majority of members did not know one another prior to the initial learning community meeting, held outside the case locality. The consultants assured members that they would provide ‘full participation, sufficient input flow and productive outcomes’ (meeting agenda). These assurances regarding support were tempered with caution ‘they [the consultants] are there to help but at the end of the day you . . . need to drive the strategy . . . take it into your own hands’ (RTO manager: Michael). A stakeholder mapping exercise permitted members to comprehend different stakeholder responsibilities. This made individuals ‘feel better . . . not walking away thinking how is [the local tourism office] going to do all of this stuff plus do our regular stuff’ (Emma). Apprehensions were voiced during the Canadian interviews about moving forward. ‘We are really going to take their [the consultants] lead . . . I don’t guarantee that I have the skill sets. This is whole new turf [ground] for me’ (Emma). Despite the RTO manager’s confidence that the transition would be smooth and Emma’s willingness to step into a broker role, reservations were expressed by many of the micro firms (James, Hailey, Hannah): ‘I think . . . we [LC members] need to look at it [the strategy] in terms of the long-run not just short-term. We have got to plan how we implement it’ (James); ‘I don’t know how we [learning community members] make the case but I am . . . hoping that they [regional managers and consultants] are going to help us figure out how we are going to do that [get external businesses on board before the consultants step back]’ (Hailey). Conversely the Welsh community had a complex history with several tourism and community groups. It had a dominant core (the committee) and a subgroup (group A) which engaged in distinct tourism-related activities dictated by separate funding criteria. Some community members expressed confusion about the structure, ‘You have got all of these splinter groups . . . they all kind of do the same thing’ (Gavin). Brenda has chaired the Welsh learning community for over three years and commented: ‘I have been a member [for] 12 years . . . involved in the regeneration project. [The local transport company] I manage take a significant number of people [tourists to the learning community location] every year, over 100,000. I became the chair . . . because I think I have got more knowledge in tourism.’

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 49

22/08/2018 10:08

50

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Asked about the structure and membership, Brenda explained, ‘While there are committee elections . . . there is rarely more than one candidate . . . we don’t have . . . people vying for places; everybody is busy . . . want to help . . . but people don’t really want the responsibility’. Although Brenda would like to ‘let somebody else have a go at being the chair . . . it’s time consuming’. Many members acknowledged that without Brenda the learning community would struggle to function. Learning Strategy In the initial stages of the Canadian case there was ‘no sense of collaboration yet’ and members ‘don’t know too many people’ (Hailey). Many acknowledged the need to ‘know who’s in the room’ (Hailey, Hannah, Ryan). Asked by the consultants to rank the importance of different events at a community meeting, one member confessed that ‘when it came to “industry day” I put it really low [priority] because I didn’t know what industry day was’ (Hailey). In the Welsh case, members reported feeling too intimidated to share ideas ‘you will always think maybe that it’s not quite so good’ (Una). As a counter measure, Una suggested that working on initiatives together rather than on an individual basis ‘might help . . . voice things . . . it could [then] go to the bigger group’. In the Canadian case a range of consultant templates aided discussion but ‘they [the consultants] ask the questions’, frame the responses and guide the outcomes. For the consultants ‘making sure it [the strategy] gets done’ required ‘capturing the most relevant variables for both destination strength and community support and engagement’ (meeting template). Consultant-led exercises promoted reflection; ‘Have we [consultants] missed any key variables . . . that you think need to be clarified or changed?’ This triggered further contemplation of options for tourism development; ‘How would local businesses/operators respond to a tourism tax?’ (meeting minutes). These exercises left some feeling that: ‘nothing is getting done . . . I don’t see a plan’ (Hannah). Some measures, for example, Dona’s introduction of action points to the community’s minutes were reportedly ‘pulling things together’ (Gavin). However ‘closed questions, closed answers, lack of opportunity for people to contribute, and their opinions to be considered before decisions are made’ (Lauren) diminished learner autonomy. Several interview statements suggested that the negotiation of shared meaning is tempered by politics and power dynamics; ‘I used the opportunity of [Joseph] not being at the table to air my opinion that I thought the reporting structure for tourism was our [downfall]. I would never have said that if [he] was sitting at the table’ (James).

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 50

22/08/2018 10:08



Micro firm learning communities in rural tourism ­51

In each case learning community goals were determined by core members without being negotiated by the wider community. In the Welsh case, the perception that ‘vested interests’ were controlling practice and that some members were being marginalised suggested that community goals were not reflected. While Gareth acknowledged that in theory all members can raise their ideas at community meetings, he questioned ‘whether they [the core members] take any notice’. Ideas put forward by those in non-central roles have ‘fallen on deaf ears’ (Daniel). This inhibited member contribution to the goal setting process; ‘I won’t turn up [at] the next meeting’ (Gareth). Having concluded that the committee was insular, some members decided to work together on the periphery. In the latter stages of the Canadian case study, many worried that those with the greatest influence (the RTO consultants and regional managers) did not live in the community, nor did they understand concerns about the impact of the mill development on the culture of the village. Apprehensions about taking over the learning community were evident in the case findings. Specific concerns were expressed about how to communicate the strategy to local residents and how to manage the diverse business interests within the municipalities. In the final stages of data collection some of the Canadian micro firms began to meet informally to discuss the strategy and potential promotional opportunities (Hailey and Hannah). Conversely, as the Welsh community evolved, active members started to realise the importance of negotiating practice at community level; ‘please put that [updating the website] in [the meeting minutes] so all members will be aware’ (Aidan). Boundary Engagement Regardless of the membership rules set out in the group’s constitution, the boundary of the Welsh learning community was open, ‘We are happy to take anybody, people in [the neighbouring village] are welcome to join’ (Alan). Interestingly, geographical boundaries set by the regional council restricted members from joining and linking with successful tourism groups in neighbouring council districts. This was perceived as a missed opportunity to ‘learn what they [the neighbouring groups] are doing and how they do it’ (Una). Some members expressed the feeling that there is a limit to what they can achieve without the engagement of the larger businesses in the community. Brenda arranged an informal presentation from the larger business owners to clarify that they were ‘keen to work with accommodation providers’ (meeting minutes). For Alan ‘[the local tourism office] was there to see what [they] can get for [themselves] rather than what [they] can do for the community’.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 51

22/08/2018 10:08

52

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

The Welsh case findings demonstrate that peripheral participation can be positive if the link to the community remains intact. For example, Gavin visited a village in the west of Ireland to ‘learn from [them] and bring it back’. This boundary spanning activity spurred the development of a tourism offering among accommodation providers in the case location. In the Canadian case, despite the acknowledgement that ‘there needs to be more engagement’ from the business community for real outcomes to be achieved, and an increasing appreciation by the micro firms regarding the resources required to support such activity, autonomy remained restricted with regard to expanding membership: ‘I don’t know if the higher power [RTO managers and consultants] would be open to that [inviting new members]. I would have to check in advance’ (Hailey). With a closed boundary and clear knowledge and competence deficits, James confessed ‘I don’t know how we make the case [to get external stakeholders to engage in the strategy]’ given the need ‘to get it [the strategy] clear in [our] heads first’. Community politics regarding the inherited tourism strategy became an increasing concern as the time for the consultants to withdraw drew closer: ‘It’s going to be the movers and shakers [local influential individuals] of [the municipalities] who get together and say . . . this is not sounding good’ (Rose: external micro firm); ‘maybe we [community residents] are not informed [about the strategy] enough in town’ (Olivia: external micro firm).

DISCUSSION AND LEARNING COMMUNITY MODEL The findings above demonstrate that catalyst, structure, strategy and boundary elements shape learning in both cases. Their influence on sustained learning community activity is now discussed. In the Canadian case, the learning community structure was rigid. This was evident from strict selection criteria, hard boundaries, dominant core leadership (the RTO and consultants) and peripheral micro firm membership. Although group activities facilitated individual learning, didactic communication methods and a dominant broker with a short-term outcome driven focus stifled a learning community dynamic (Halme, 2001; Tinsley and Lynch, 2007). Members had little responsibility or opportunity to shape practice and resources (artefacts) due to this inflexible leadership approach. The strategies adopted were primarily knowledge exchange based with an immediate action focus that is all too common in micro firm settings (Devins et al., 2005). The lack of external boundary interactions required to generate new ideas and support knowledge exchange (Brouder and

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 52

22/08/2018 10:08



Micro firm learning communities in rural tourism ­53

Eriksson, 2013; Halme, 2001) hampered community learning for tourism development goals. In the Canadian case, a lack of progressive learning strategies, specifically support for self-developed leadership (Kearney and Zuber-Skerritt, 2012), left members ill-equipped to assume community management once the RTO and consultants stepped back. Sustained activity of the Canadian learning community is reliant on resident support in the longer term. Although the consultants provided many resources (for example, facilitation, reports and self-reflection templates), presenting the tourism strategy as a fait accompli left no opportunity for micro firms to shape the tourism strategy. Leveraging the strategy as a tool of understanding to promote shared meaning (Halme, 2001; Jones et al., 2010) with local residents will be extremely challenging given that it is not comprehended and valued by the micro firms who will be at the front line of those negotiations. The Welsh community was more fluid, which is crucial for evolution (Marsden et al., 2010; Reinl and Kelliher, 2014). Membership was more inclusive with core members democratically elected. Nonetheless, the variance in the value perception of membership suggests a division within the learning community. Communication to and from group A proved particularly ineffective. Of note, the members’ sense of belonging was coupled with a reported distance to group A. If the broker fails to maintain shared meaning between this group and the wider community, sustained learning activity will be threatened (Reinl and Kelliher, 2014). Balancing self and community gain proved a challenge, particularly as micro firms felt they had less influence than larger tourism providers in the location, highlighting power and political barriers to sustainable activity (Beaumont and Dredge, 2010; Morrison et al., 2004; Wenger, 1998). As community members assumed more central roles and negotiated the requirements associated with them, shared meaning began to develop. In particular, there was strong evidence of boundary spanning as the broker and other members leveraged external expertise to fill the knowledge gaps of the Welsh learning community. In summary, a dominant broker/core membership impeded learner autonomy in the two cases (as Kearney and Zuber-Skerritt, 2012; Marsden et al., 2010 found). The stakeholder composition of public and private actors in both communities could have supported positive outcomes (Heidari et al., 2014; Kelliher and Reinl, 2011; Morrison et al., 2004); however, in the absence of certain strategies, sustained learning community activity will be problematic (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Marsden et al., 2010). Without opportunities to provide input into the decision-making process, peripheral participation and espoused intentions to plan on the outskirts of both learning communities increased. This began to drive practice out

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 53

22/08/2018 10:08

54

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

to the periphery. Indicators of stable community learning (i.e. negotiation and the development of shared meaning) were not prominent in either of the cases. The following elements were found to influence sustained learning community activity in the observed cases: 1.  balanced broker hand-holding and broker step-back to promote learner autonomy; 2. progressive strategies emphasising the negotiation of shared meaning; 3. boundary interactions in pursuit of knowledge flow and competence development, and in support of learning community goals. These formed the basis for several refinements to Reinl and Kelliher’s (2014) model illustrated below in Figure 4.1: 1. The model acknowledges resource constraints; individual and collective attributes and external environmental impulses affiliate to rural micro tourism firms. Broken and solid lines exhibit varying degrees of openness within the learning community and in cross-boundary interactions. 2. The cyclical model highlights a crucial balance between broker handholding when at the core of the community and interim broker stepback to facilitate micro firm learner autonomy. Learning community leadership should be developed through a broadening of responsibility and through negotiation tactics which establish common ground and alleviate any issues in pursuit of shared meaning. As central roles are negotiated the capabilities relating to sustained learning activity should increase. 3. Progressive learning strategies relating to learning community structure, core/periphery communication flow, broker competence development, leadership replenishment and boundary management, should reflect the learning community’s shared goals and stage of evolution. As a basic guiding principal, these learning strategies should uphold the cornerstones of community learning (negotiation, common ground and shared meaning (see Figure 4.1)) and offer access to the wider learning community. Their diminution will splinter learning community practice. 4. The left-hand side of the model illustrates a closed boundary (depicted by a solid line) which inhibits external–internal stakeholder interaction and minimises knowledge flows and competence development. This can prevent the negotiation of artefacts (for example, in the Canadian case, tourism strategy) that can build competence and promote

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 54

22/08/2018 10:08



Micro firm learning communities in rural tourism ­55 s/ raint const ective e c r u l Reso ual & col id Indiv tes u attrib

WIDER LEARNING COMMUNITY

Learning Strategy BROKER

Establish common ground Closed boundary interactions

M

Y

O ON

Step-back

T

AU

Open boundary interactions

BROKER INDIVIDUAL MICRO FIRMS

Hand-holding

Build shared meaning

Negotiate conflicts & issues

LC barrier release

Peripheral Practice

Communication flow

Exte r impu nal envi ronm lses

enta

l

Sources:  Adapted from Lave and Wenger (1991); Reinl and Kelliher (2014).

Figure 4.1  Micro firm learning community model the understanding required to sustain learning community activity. Conversely, open and brokered boundary interactions facilitate artefact negotiation (exposing the rules of engagement between the micro and large Welsh businesses) resulting in learning barrier release as exhibited to the right of the refined model.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Despite calls for greater attention to be paid to ‘collaboration between small tourism enterprises in the enhancement of rural destinations’ (Komppula, 2014: 361; Polo and Frías, 2010), little is known about the elements affiliated to micro tourism community learning in a rural setting. While existing research highlights catalyst, structure, strategy and boundary as elements that influence learning in this environment, their impact on sustained learning community activity was not understood. This chapter builds on extant micro firm and learning literature. Drawing on Lave and

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 55

22/08/2018 10:08

56

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Wenger’s (1991) community of practice perspective, we explored how the above elements influence sustained learning community activity through a multi-case study approach. We began with individual case analysis and data categorisation, followed by an iterative process of categorising, connecting, collaborating and classifying across both cases. QSR NUD*IST Vivo (NVivo) helped to preserve the contextual richness of the data. We identified three key influences on sustained learning community activity from the case analysis. The first reflected the requirement for a balanced and regularly replenished broker to promote autonomy in this environment. The second emphasised a need for progressive strategies tailored to the life cycle of the learning community. Finally, the case findings illustrated how boundary interactions influence knowledge flow and competence development in support of learning community goals. We then presented a refined learning community model adapted from Reinl and Kelliher’s (2014) research based on the case findings. We acknowledge that the multi-case methodology has limitations when based on two case studies. As such, recommendations for further research are offered with the underlying goal of their transferability to other cases with similar characteristics. The refined learning community model (Figure 4.1) may offer a good starting point in that endeavour. The case findings highlight a gap in the comprehension of support actors as to the value of a learning strategy for sustained community activity. This suggests that learning is assumed to happen as an automatic outcome of collaborative practice. Competent brokerage is not fully understood by community stakeholders. Underdeveloped learning broker capabilities mean that the progression to independent sustained activity is curtailed, particularly in a micro firm context. Notably, the survival of both communities relied upon the commitment of voluntary tourism champions. The legacy of learning community catalysts and resultant brokerage would be a worthwhile area for additional research. A valuable addition to this multi-case research would be a policy review of funding, training and development initiatives in rural settings where sustained collaboration for tourism development is being pursued through a community stakeholder approach.

NOTE * Each author contributed equally to this chapter. We would like to thank Professor Marion Joppe, University of Guelph and Professor Gareth Griffiths, Bangor University for their valuable insights as academic liaisons in the case study countries. This research is supported by the Irish Research Council and co-funded by Marie Curie Actions Grant ELEVATEPD/2014/14.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 56

22/08/2018 10:08



Micro firm learning communities in rural tourism ­57

REFERENCES Alonso, A.D. and A. Bressan (2014) ‘Collaboration in the context of microbusinesses: The case of terracotta artisans in Impruneta (Italy)’, European Business Review, 26 (3), 254–70. Beaumont, N. and D. Dredge (2010) ‘Local tourism governance: A comparison of three network approaches’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18 (1), 7–28. Brouder, P. and R.H. Eriksson (2013) ‘Staying power: What influences micro firm survival in tourism?’, Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 15 (1), 125–44. Creswell, J.W. (1998), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Devins, D., J. Gold, S. Johnson and R. Holden (2005) ‘A conceptual model of management learning in micro businesses: Implications for research and policy’, Education and Training, 47 (8/9), 540–51. Dey, I. (1993), Qualitative Data Analysis: A User-Friendly Guide for Social Scientists, London: Routledge Press. European Commission (2017), What is an SME?, accessed 10 June 2017 at http:// ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/business-friendly-environment/sme-definition/. Government of Canada (2016), Key Small Business Statistics – June 2016, accessed 10 June 2017 at www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/061.nsf/eng/h_03018.html. Halme, M. (2001), ‘Learning for sustainable development in tourism networks’, Business Strategy and the Environment, 10 (2), 100–114. Heidari, M., A.A. Najafipour, S. Farzan and S. Parvaresh (2014), ‘The fundamental distinctive applications of networks in tourism industry: A useful mechanism for trust’, International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Services, 3 (2), 263–85. Jack, S., S. Moult, A.R. Anderson and S. Dodd (2010), ‘An entrepreneurial network evolving: Patterns of change’, International Small Business Journal, 28 (4), 315–37. Jones, O., A. Macpherson and Thorpe, R. (2010), ‘Learning in owner-managed small firms: Mediating artefacts and strategic space’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22 (7–8), 649–73. Kearney, A., D. Harrington and F. Kelliher (2014), ‘Exploiting managerial capability for innovation in a micro firm context: New and emerging perspectives within the Irish hotel industry’, European Journal of Training and Development, 38 (1/2), 95–117. Kearney, J. and O. Zuber-Skerritt (2012), ‘From learning organisation to learning community sustainability through lifelong learning’, The Learning Organisation, 19 (5), 400–413. Kelliher, F. and L. Reinl (2009), ‘A resource-based view of micro firm management practice’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 16 (3), 521–32. Kelliher, F. and L. Reinl (2011), ‘From facilitated to independent tourism learning networks: Connecting the dots’, Journal of Tourism Planning and Development, 8 (2), 185–98. Komppula, R. (2014), ‘The role of individual entrepreneurs in the development of competitiveness for a rural tourism destination – a case study’, Tourism Management, 40, 361–71. Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991), Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 57

22/08/2018 10:08

58

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Marsden, T., A. Franklin, J. Newton and J. Middleton (2010), ‘Sustainability in practice: Situated learning and knowledge for the evolving eco-economy’, Town Planning Review, 81 (5), 541–62. McAreavey, R. and J. McDonagh (2011), ‘Sustainable rural tourism: Lessons for rural development’, Sociologia Ruralis, 51 (2), 175–94. Miles, M.B. and A.M. Huberman (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis – An Expanded Sourcebook, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Miles, M.B., A.M. Huberman and J. Saldana, (2014), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 3rd edn, Washington, DC: Sage Publications. Morrison, A., P. Lynch and N. Johns (2004), ‘International tourism networks’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16 (3), 197–202. Morrison, A. and R. Teixeira (2004), ‘Small business performance: A tourism sector focus’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11 (2), 166–73. Polo, A.I. and D. Frías (2010), ‘Collective strategies for rural tourism: The experience of networks in Spain’, Journal of Tourism Consumption and Practice, 2 (1), 25–45. Reinl, L. and F. Kelliher (2010), ‘Cooperative micro firm strategies: Leveraging resources through learning networks’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 11 (2), 141–50. Reinl, L. and F. Kelliher (2014), ‘The social dynamics of micro firm learning in an evolving learning community’, Tourism Management, 40, 117–25. Ritchie, J. (2003), ‘The applications of qualitative methods to social research’, in J. Ritchie and J. Lewis (eds), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 24–46. Saldana, J. (2009), The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Saxena, G. and B. Ilbery (2008), ‘Integrated rural tourism: A border case study’, Annals of Tourism Research, 35 (1), 233–54. Siemens, L. (2010), ‘Challenges, responses and available resources: Success in rural small businesses’, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 23 (1), 65–80. Siemens, L. (2015), ‘We moved here for the lifestyle: A picture of entrepreneurship in rural British Columbia’, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 27 (2), 121–42. Siggelkow, N. (2007), ‘Persuasion with case studies’, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1), 20–24. Tinsley, R. and Lynch, P.A. (2007), ‘Small business networking and tourism destination development’, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 8 (1), 15–27. von Friedrichs Grängsjö, Y. (2003), ‘Destination networking: Co-opetition in peripheral surroundings’, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 33 (5), 427–48. Waligo, V.M., J. Clarke and R. Hawkins, (2013), ‘Implementing sustainable tourism: A multi-stakeholder involvement management framework’, Tourism Management, 36, 342–53. Welsh Government (2016), Size Analysis of Welsh Businesses, 2016, accessed 10 June 2017 at http://gov.wales/docs/statistics/2016/161129-size-analysis-welsh-business2016-en.pdf.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 58

22/08/2018 10:08



Micro firm learning communities in rural tourism ­59

Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, New York: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., B. Trayner and M. de Laat (2011), ‘Promoting and accessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework’, Rapport 18, accessed 18 January 2016 at www.knowledge-architecture.com/downloads/ Wenger_Trayner_DeLaat_Value_creation.pdf.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 59

22/08/2018 10:08

5. The relations between social capital and growth of innovative early stage firms: a contextual approach Valérie François, Christophe Lafaye and Matthieu Belarouci INTRODUCTION The concept of social capital, widely acknowledged as the present and potential value that ensues from the social relations of individuals and social entities (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), is increasingly used in entrepreneurship studies to explain the growth (Maurer et al., 2011; Partanen et al., 2008; Pirolo and Presutti, 2010; Prashantham and Dhanaraj, 2010) of established firms and innovative young enterprises (Anderson et al., 2007; Maurer and Ebers, 2006; Stam et al., 2014). However, empirical findings to date differ and are even contradictory. According to Stam et al. (2014) and Gedajlovic et al. (2013), the main explanation lies in the absence of contextual, organisational, temporal and institutional variables in previous studies. The authors suggest, first, that organisations are too different to be able to reach a consensus on a notion that is ‘extremely difficult’ to evaluate (Gedajlovic et al., 2013). Secondly, social capital is generally represented in an atemporal way, although several studies have shown that its nature and role evolve in line with the development process (Partanen et al., 2008), the business (Prashantham and Dhanaraj, 2010) or the individual (Cao et al., 2012). Finally, as Martinez and Aldrich (2011) suggest, the context, especially the institutional context in which the link between the company’s social capital and growth develops, plays a key role. Our study adopts this contextual perspective of social capital. The aim of the present study is to examine the role of social capital on growth. To this end, we analyse the perceived utility of resources received from the networks of innovative small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) entrepreneurs (‘organisational context’) during the first six years of existence (‘temporal context’), selecting firms that received some form of public support from the French Nord–Pas-de-Calais region (‘institutional context’). 60

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 60

22/08/2018 10:08



The relations between social capital and growth of innovative firms ­61

Our study differentiates between internal social capital (ISC) and external social capital (ESC) (Adler and Kwon, 2002) which is better adapted to a study on innovative young enterprises (Cao et al., 2012; Cuevas-Rodriguez et al., 2014; Davidsson and Honig, 2003; Debrulle et al., 2014; Yli-Renko et al., 2002). Our hypotheses aim to provide elements of contextual responses to the entrepreneurial debate on the role of social capital in the growth of innovative young firms. Thus, we begin by analysing whether there is a significant link between ISC and ESC and the growth of innovative enterprises in the company’s early years. We then test the moderating role of incubators and clusters – as institutional variables – on the link between the social capital and growth of a young enterprise. Two distinct groups of French firms from the Nord–Pas-de-Calais region were used in this study: in the first group, the firms had been hosted by an incubator, while in the second group, they had received public assistance in the form of advice or subsidies. Our findings confirm that ESC has a positive role on growth in the context of innovative young firms, contrary to ISC. We point to the existence of a potential threshold effect linked to the size of the firm in terms of number of employees, beyond which ISC impacts on innovation and ultimately on growth. Finally, our findings do not support the notion that firms which have passed through an incubator have a greater level of ESC, subsequently ensuring better growth. The chapter begins by defining the notion of social capital – more specifically, internal and ESC – through the lens of specific organisational, temporal and institutional contexts. The study hypotheses that we test are drawn from our review of the literature. We then describe the research method used and the analytical framework adopted. Finally, we present and discuss our findings, and make recommendations together with possible avenues for future research.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: A MULTICONTEXTUAL APPROACH TO SOCIAL CAPITAL Many studies have shown that entrepreneurial activity is linked to the entrepreneur’s or the firm’s relational networks which provide the resources used for the company’s growth or performance, whose acquisition would not have been possible otherwise, or else with great difficulty. However, while the definition of social capital is widely accepted, its representation and operationalisation often remain vague. In effect, few studies differentiate between the nature of the relationship that leads to the resource, and

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 61

22/08/2018 10:08

62

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

the resource itself (Gedajlovic et al., 2013). Such studies have referred to the structural dimension of the model developed by Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) to identify sources of social capital that are represented by strong and weak ties (Pearson et al., 2008). The approach based on strong and weak ties is frequently adopted to distinguish between relations involving the firm’s internal stakeholders (ISC or ‘bonding social capital’) and those involving external stakeholders (ESC or ‘bridging social capital’) (Adler and Kwon, 2002; Davidsson and Honig, 2003). This distinction gives us clear insights into the role of different types of resources and sources of social capital (Gedajlovic et al., 2013). Thus, ISC refers to relational exchanges developed within a homogeneous group (Eklinder-Frick et al., 2014). Within a company, social capital encompasses the social links developed between individuals – such as employees (Carrasco-Hernández and Jiménez-Jiménez, 2013; Yli-Renko et al., 2002) and associates (Light and Dana, 2013), and also the support of family and friends (Davidsson and Honig, 2003) in the new business venture – as well as between departments and business units within the same organisation (Yli-Renko et al., 2002). As several authors have pointed out (Davidsson and Honig, 2003; Eklinder-Frick et al., 2014; Shrestha, 2013), the internal perspective of social capital is traditionally linked to the notion of strong ties as described by Granovetter (1973). In other words, a young business venture’s ISC encompasses the (strong) internal links they have and which they cultivate with individuals or groups of individuals within their organisation (Cuevas-Rodriguez et al., 2014). ESC refers to the relational exchanges that an enterprise or an individual (e.g., the manager (Cao et al., 2012)) from said enterprise forges with its external stakeholders (Cuevas-Rodriguez et al., 2014). As several authors have pointed out (Davidsson and Honig, 2003; Debrulle et al., 2014; Gedajlovic et al., 2013), the external perspective of social capital is traditionally linked to the notion of weak ties as described by Granovetter (1973). In other words, the ESC of a young enterprise encompasses the (weak) external ties that it has and that it cultivates with external players (Cuevas-Rodriguez et al., 2014). In order to avoid the tautological pitfall mentioned by Gedajlovic et al. (2013), our study adopted the lens of ISC and ESC to distinguish between a specific resource (the assistance received) and the nature of the entrepreneur’s1 relational network (the strength of ties) that the resource in question came from. However, this is insufficient to obtain empirical results that can be compared with previous studies. According to Stam et al. (2014) and Gedajlovic et al. (2013), the organisational, temporal and institutional contextualisation of social capital also needs to be taken into consideration.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 62

22/08/2018 10:08



The relations between social capital and growth of innovative firms ­63

The Organisational (Innovative Enterprise) and Temporal (First Years of Life) Context Our study examines the ISC and ESC of very small and small innovative businesses in their first years of development. Defined by weak links, the main contribution of ESC lies in the access it gives to information and knowledge. It provides rare, non-overlapping and new information (Burt, 2000; Kolstad and Wiig, 2013) that would have been difficult and costly to obtain otherwise (Davidsson and Honig, 2003). Debrulle et al. (2014) show that there is a positive and significant link between this form of social capital and the start-up’s absorption capacity, helping it to identify business opportunities (Anderson et al., 2007) both in the form of access to new markets (Yli-Renko et al., 2002) and innovative opportunities (Cao et al., 2012). For example, Yli-Renko et al. (2001) point out that young high-tech companies manage to survive, grow and prosper, despite their significant lack of specific resources, thanks to social capital. In effect, in developing a suitable external network, the company creates a unique resource for acquiring and dealing with information and knowledge that gives it a real competitive edge. The more diverse these networks are for start-ups, the more positive the link with the firm’s performance (Stam et al., 2014). The 2001 study of young high-tech start-ups was extended via the perspective of internationalisation (Yli-Renko et al., 2002). The authors show that the greater the start-up’s ESC, the more knowledge it will have and the faster its growth abroad. Davidsson and Honig (2003) explain that ESC is a major factor in determining which young entrepreneurs will achieve sales or profit, given that both factors are considered as critical for the success of a new enterprise. The two authors – like Debrulle et al. (2014) but contrary to Stam et al. (2014) – observe that the extent of ESC increases in parallel with the development of the business. However, some studies have also identified negative effects linked to ESC. If, as we saw earlier, establishing ties allows the entrepreneur to acquire resources at little cost at moment t, maintaining and developing them in the long run involves a major investment in terms of time and energy (McFadyen and Cannella, 2004). This time-consuming process is all the more challenging for start-ups which are traditionally held back by their lack of resources (Semrau and Werner, 2012). Consequently, entrepreneurs would do well to limit their external relations (Cao et al., 2012). Another stumbling block concerns the difficulty in exploiting the resources obtained. Thus, Stam et al. (2014) show that it is more difficult to make sense of information extracted from weak links since the individual does not have access to the collective construction of meaning within the network. Moreover, the development of weak links by start-ups exposes them to opportunistic

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 63

22/08/2018 10:08

64

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

risks from their partners (Pirolo and Presutti, 2010). On the other hand, while ESC can give rise to negative outcomes, most studies on the issue highlight the positive effects. H1a:  External social capital promotes the growth of innovative young enterprises in their first years of development Defined by strong links, ISC promotes the exchange of reliable resources, the transfer of tacit knowledge (Stam et al., 2014) and solidarity in the form of various kinds of support (Gedajlovic et al., 2013). The contribution of ISC is very important in the early stages of a new business venture (Davidsson and Honig, 2003). In effect, the moral and financial support and advice provided by friends and family are key success factors in a start-up process. Later on, the increase in ISC fosters cohesiveness and an organisation-wide vision conducive to exchange, creativity, problemsolving (Yli-Renko et al., 2002) and innovation (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Sanchez-Famoso et al., 2014). In the same way, by developing intraorganisational social links, entrepreneurs forge a better understanding of the organisation’s potential and can thus reallocate resources to foster exchange (Cao et al., 2012). Yli-Renko et al. (2002) observe a significant link between ISC and a young high-tech start-up’s know-how. The calmer the social climate, the stronger the firm’s performance (Shrestha, 2013). However, several studies have pointed to the limitations of ISC. First, the impact on developing young firms is more tenuous than during the emergence stage. Thus, Debrulle et al. (2014) found no significant link between a start-up’s absorption capacity and its ISC, no matter what the environmental conditions of its activity. In line with the findings on ESC, Stam et al. (2014) conclude that the positive effects of ISC on performance are considerably more marked on older firms than on young ones. In short, while the findings from these different studies dispute the impact of ISC, the latter nonetheless appears to act as a positive innovation and growth lever. Given that our sample is made up of innovative young start-ups, we therefore expect to find a positive link between their ISC and growth: H1b:  Internal social capital promotes the growth of innovative young enterprises in their first years of development The Institutional Context The institutional context plays a key role in the level of ESC needed by an entrepreneur. Thus, public institutions can offset any potential weaknesses related to finance, infrastructure, market structure, etc., and assist the

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 64

22/08/2018 10:08



The relations between social capital and growth of innovative firms ­65

young firm in assessing potential business opportunities (Gedajlovic et al., 2013; Molina-Morales and Martinez-Fernández, 2009). Since young businesses can be a source of job creation, local authorities tend to view them with certain expectations in mind (Anyadike-Danes et al., 2015; Birch, 1979). Thus, public measures designed to support entrepreneurship locally are a key aspect of the institutional context, especially in terms of policies designed to support business incubators and clusters. Incubators are generally considered an important resource in helping emerging firms to overcome their inevitable difficulties (Hackett and Dilts, 2004). They were originally created by public authorities to provide some start-ups with the environment, support and resources needed to offset the difficulties often encountered in the early years (Schwartz, 2013). Thus, incubators play a key role in developing relational and business networks, and in strengthening the social capital of incubated firms (Adlesic and Slavec, 2012; Patton, 2013). This reticular capacity is viewed as a strong factor of satisfaction for incubated firms in their evaluation of the support structure (Adlesic and Slavec, 2012; Tötterman and Sten, 2005). In view of our definition of social capital, we can define two levels of ESC for incubated business ventures, i.e., the resources arising from external relations with other members of the incubator and those acquired from firms outside the incubator. Tötterman and Sten (2005) suggest that one of the main reasons firms join an incubator is the desire to benefit from the internal relational network of the incubated firms so as to share information and reduce their isolation. This also explains the need for ‘immersion’ in university incubators (Borges and Filion, 2013). In addition, incubators provide support, training, events, contacts, etc., helping young companies to enhance their relations and business communication. Ebbers (2014) also suggests that one aspect of the added value of incubators lies in their capacity to provide an internal incubator marketplace. Patton and Marlow (2011) highlight the support role played by incubators, which allows young business ventures to grow their external networks, helping them to obtain the information and knowledge required for their development. Borges and Filion (2013), for instance, suggest that incubated firms can use the legitimacy and reputation of the support structure (especially when it has a strong reputation) to develop market credibility, and consequently develop business contacts with external stakeholders. While belonging to an incubator theoretically appears to provide greater access to social capital, empirical findings are more nuanced (Amezcua et al., 2011; Patton and Marlow, 2011; Tötterman and Sten, 2005). Thus, Tötterman and Sten (2005) argue that links and trust between incubated firms disappear in the post-incubation stage. They suggest that while incubators provide useful general assistance to the firms

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 65

22/08/2018 10:08

66

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

hosted, they find it harder to provide customised support. In line with these findings, Borges and Filion (2013) show in particular that although university incubators offer significant support in developing financial, high-tech and support networks for incubated firms, they have far less success in the case of business networks which are nonetheless essential for the success of a young venture. As we can see, the literature is far from unanimous on the issue of the build-up of a firm’s social capital by joining an incubator. However, one of their main functions is to promote the emergence of a relational network, and this very reason for their existence incites us to formulate the following hypothesis: H2a:  Joining an incubator has a positive moderating effect on the ESC of innovative start-ups and their growth In the French context, clusters are generally associated with the idea of a competitiveness hub, or a so-called ‘pole de compétitivité’. A government white paper by Blanc in 2004 gives the following definition: ‘a pôle de compétitivité in a given region is an association of enterprises and research and training organisations engaged in a partnership process designed to create synergies based on innovative projects jointly developed for (a) given market(s)’ (Blanc, 2004). They can be classified as ‘proactive’ lusters, linked to a voluntary policy, and may be compared to ‘spontaneous’ clusters. French clusters tend to receive considerable public funding in a bid to revive or support the competitiveness of specific sectors through innovation and supporting activities and jobs. Businesses that belong to a cluster often enjoy close relations with research institutions, universities, financers and specialised suppliers (Lechner and Leyronas, 2012). In general, clusters are developed locally to boost confidence and mutual cooperation between specialised, complementary businesses, and are characterised by a high degree of social capital (McEvily and Zaheer, 1999). Consequently, clusters promote an inter-organisational exchange of knowledge (Arikan, 2009). Porter (2011) argued that belonging to a cluster promotes ‘cross-fertilisation’ between businesses thanks to their proximity and simpler exchange of information. Fallout is seen in terms of productivity, innovation (Porter, 2011) and business opportunities (Anderson et al., 2007). Social interaction and exchange of useful information between cluster members is also one of the keys to their success (Anderson et al., 2007). However, Pirolo and Presutti (2010) come to a different conclusion regarding the proximity of social interactions. Observing companies’ relations with their main customers within a cluster, they suggest that clients located in different and more

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 66

22/08/2018 10:08



The relations between social capital and growth of innovative firms ­67

diverse geographic areas are more useful than local clients from within the cluster. Consequently, the authors recommend that young business ventures develop weak links with distant customers from outside the cluster so as to ‘stimulate the acquisition and exploitation of information in an innovative way’. McEvily and Zaheer (1999) note that to be efficient – in other words, not to lose their competitive edge – members of a cluster must develop non-overlapping information networks. From our literature review, we conclude that the prevailing view is that a cluster has a positive moderating effect on the ESC of an innovative start-up and its growth. H2b:  Being a member of a cluster has a positive moderating effect on the external social capital of innovative start-ups and their growth

METHODOLOGY Context Our study focuses on the development of innovative new ventures created between 2008 and 2013, located in the Nord–Pas-de-Calais region of France. Nord–Pas-de-Calais is the fourth most economically significant of the 22 French regions, with an average contribution of 5.12 per cent to the national gross domestic product (GDP) (Ile-de-France: 30.64 per cent; Rhône-Alpes: 9.86 per cent; Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur: 7.25 per cent), but is ranked 14th position regarding GDP per capita.2 Due to its de-industrialisation history, the region has the highest rate of unemployment in France (11.5 per cent) and ranks in 18th position for new venture creation and 12th position for innovation. However, the socio-economic position of Nord–Pas-de-Calais is improving. The region jumped from the least dynamic region (ranked 22nd out of 22 regions) for new venture creation in 2001 to 18th position in 2013, and obtained the European Entrepreneurial Region Award from the European Union. In its Innovation Regional Strategy project for 2014–2020 (Stratégie Régionale d’Innovation 2014–2020 (SRI)3), the Nord–Pas-de-Calais Regional Council set itself the target of catching up with the national average by doubling the number of innovative new ventures. According to the SRI (SRI 2014–20: 10), only 142 innovative new ventures created since 2008 were still operating in 2012. To achieve its target, the Nord France Innovation Développement (NFID) structure was founded in 2009 to implement the regional entrepreneurial policy, and its means and powers have been consolidated in recent years. One of the main aims

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 67

22/08/2018 10:08

68

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

of the NFID is to ‘enhance the coordination of entrepreneurs and the development of networks involving entrepreneurship and innovation stakeholders’ (SRI 2014–20: 54). The development of innovative new ventures is thus one of the main drivers of the region’s economic policy, and the development of entrepreneurial networks is considered a priority for its success. Sample Our study focuses on new ventures created between 2008 and 2013, located in the Nord–Pas-de-Calais region of France. The databases we used were provided by NFID, a service offered by the Nord–Pas-de-Calais regional council to provide information, studies and public policy guidelines in terms of innovation. The first database featured two groups of companies. The first group included 122 companies hosted by one of seven regional incubators4 since 2008, and they were all still active at the time of the study. We received replies from 62 companies in this group, corresponding to a response rate of 50 per cent. The second group included 188 businesses which were not incubated, but which, because of their innovative character, benefited from resources and support from various structures,5 and were also still active at the time of the study. Forty-two firms from this group replied, corresponding to a response rate of 22 per cent. The questionnaire was thus administered to 104 founder–owners in the second semester of 2014 by phone (52), face to face (49) or email (3). Due to outliers and missing information, five firms were removed from the sample in the econometric analysis. Dependant Variables: Growth Given the specific features of the business ventures in our sample (very small, less than six years old, innovative), we retained job creation as a growth variable. Effectively, for a young firm, job creation indicates an increase in resources and offers a good indicator of the firm’s growth (Kogut and Zander, 1992). Moreover, Stam et al. (2014) suggest that non-financial indicators to measure growth are a better option when assessing the link between social capital and performance. Job creation is measured longitudinally in absolute value (Davidsson and Wiklund, 2000), taking the firm’s situation in terms of job creation (full-time jobs) into account at two given intervals: t0 corresponds to the moment the firm is launched and t1 corresponds to the time of the study. Growth is thus assessed over the whole duration of the firm’s existence. The definition and operationalisation of variables are summarised in Table 5.1.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 68

22/08/2018 10:08



The relations between social capital and growth of innovative firms ­69

Table 5.1  Definitions of variables Categories

Variables

Definitions

Regression models

Dependent variable

Growth

Models 1  to 6

Independent variables of interest

Internal  social capital (ISC) External  social capital (ESC)

Number of jobs created from the  creation of the business to the survey Sum of notes evaluating the perceived  usefulness of help received from family, friends, former colleagues and associates Sum of notes evaluating the  perceived usefulness of help received from clients, suppliers, lawyers, accountants, entrepreneur clubs and support structures Total funds in euros raised from the  creation of the business to the survey Number of months

Control variables

Total  funding Age of the  business Sector

Incubation

Cluster

Models 2  and 6 Models 3  to 6

Models 1  to 6

Sector membership: industry  (1), retail (2), information and communications (3), specialised scientific and technical activities (4) and services (5). Dummy variable (1) if the firm was  previously hosted by one of the seven regional incubators (0) otherwise. Dummy variable (1) if the firm  belongs to a national or regional pôle de compétitivité (0) otherwise.

Independent variables of interest: social capital In line with Debrulle et al. (2014) and Cuevas-Rodriguez et al. (2014), we evaluated ESC and ISC on a Likert scale from 0 to 5 to assess the degree of utility of the support received by each category of stakeholder (see the Appendix): 0 indicates absence of support, 1 equals unhelpful support and 5 very useful support. ESC refers to support from clients, suppliers, lawyers, accountants, entrepreneur clubs and support structures. In the same way, we assess ISC through the support received from family members, friends, former colleagues and partners. In order to assess the link between

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 69

22/08/2018 10:08

70

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

social capital and growth, we express social capital via an indicator corresponding to the sum of marks attributed to stakeholders. The mark in the case of ESC can range from 0, if no support was received, to 30 if all the support received is perceived as very useful. In the case of ISC, the mark is between 0 and 20. Independent Control Variables The estimates incorporate two quantitative and three qualitative control variables. The independent quantitative control variables are total funding and the age of the venture in months. Initial financial resources are closely linked to the firm’s growth. The three qualitative control variables used are incubation, belonging to a cluster6 and sector of activity. Based on the French industry classification (NAF code), we split the firms included in the study into five activity sectors: industry (1), retail (2), information and communication (3), specialised scientific and technical activities (4) and services (5).

RESULTS Description of Data Table 5.2 details the descriptive statistics of the sample. The median number of employees at launch is 1.06 and standard deviation is 1.3. Forty entrepreneurs launched their start-up with no employees, while 12 businesses began with more than three. Between the launch date and the sample collection, average job growth was +1.81 for a standard deviation of 2.3 employees. Seven companies had eliminated one to two jobs, while 20 firms had not created any. Only six of them had created more than ten jobs. The average age of the businesses at the time of the data collection was three years and two months and ranged between six months and Table 5.2  Descriptive statistics (N = 104)

Growth ISC ESC Total funding Age of business

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 70

Mean

Standard deviation

Min.

Max.

1.81 9.76 12.41 309 991.35 36.59

2.3 4.6 6.93 577 864.16 18

−2 0 0 1000 6

9 19 28 4 106 000 69

22/08/2018 10:08



The relations between social capital and growth of innovative firms ­71

Table 5.3  Composition of internal and external social capital Sources of social capital Internal social capital  Partners  Family  Friends   Former colleagues External social capital   Support structures   Chartered accountants  Lawyers  Customers   Entrepreneur clubs  Suppliers

Frequency of support received (%)

Representation in social capital indices (%)

64 67 52 41

33 31 21 15

90 69 59 52 50 45

25 19 16 14 14 11

five years and nine months. Twelve had total funding less than or equal to 10 000 euros with a minimum of 2000 euros for two of them, while 11 firms had funding more than or equal to 1 million euros. Average funding was 309 991.35 euros for a standard deviation of 577 864.16 euros. The companies were from five sectors: 14.4 per cent from commerce, 22.1 per cent from industry, 32.7 per cent from IT and communications, 23.1 per cent from science and technology, and 5 per cent from services. Of the companies included in the sample, 59.6 per cent had been in an incubator and 55.8 per cent belong to a cluster. We evaluate social capital by the sum of the marks attributed to each stakeholder with regard to perceived usefulness of the support received. Table 5.3 details the composition of internal and ESC indicators. The left-hand side of Table 5.3 indicates the frequency of the support received per category, in other words, the percentage of respondents declaring they received at least some help (different from 0 on the Likert scale). The right-hand side reports the relative weight of each item in the social capital indices. We assess this by the ratio of the value of the item to the corresponding social capital index. For instance, the sum of marks attributed to the support structures (268) divided by the sum of the ESC index (1053) indicates that the perceived usefulness of help received from support structures accounts for 25.4 per cent of the overall ESC index. ISC mainly appears to be made up of support from partners and family. It is worth noting that support from partners is all the more important in that 26 per cent of the firms in our sample correspond to sole entrepreneurs. The main source of ESC is assistance from consulting structures, especially support

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 71

22/08/2018 10:08

72

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Table 5.4  Matrix of simple correlations Growth Growth Total  funding Age of  business ESC ISC Sector Incubator Cluster

Total funding

1 0.49***

1

0.07

0.04

0.25** 0.11 0.03 0.15 0.32**

0.34*** 0.15 −0.05 0.25* 0.32**

Age of business

ESC

ISC

Sector

Incubator

Cluster

1 0.21*

1

1 −0.01** 1 −0.13 0.3 1 0.01 −0.13 −0.01 1 −0.11* 0.20* 0.20* −0.01 −0.13 0.16 0.14 0.12

Note:  *, **, *** indicate the level of significance at 0.05, 0.01 and < 0.001.

structures (25 per cent), chartered accountants (19 per cent) and lawyers (16 per cent). Support from commercial partners or customers and suppliers is less important, representing respectively 14 per cent and 11 per cent. Simple Pearson Correlations Table 5.4 sets out the correlation matrix to examine the presence of multicollinearity. Apart from the strong link observed between the dependent growth variable and total funding, there does not appear to be a strong or significant correlation between independent variables. Significant but relatively weak links can be observed between funding, the ESC and belonging to a cluster or an incubator. Since the Pearson correlation matrix reports only partial pairwise correlations, we implemented a variance inflation factor (VIF) test. The latter estimates the true correlations among independent variables. The rule of thumb states that multicollinearity deserves treatment when the generalised variance inflation factor (GVIF) indices exceed 4. The results reported in Table 5.5 reject the presence of high correlations among independent variables. Hence, the econometric models provide consistent estimates. Econometric Results Analysis of the link between social capital and growth by hierarchical regression involves comparing different estimates based on a single sample. In each estimate, we successively add the variables of interest. Comparison of standardised coefficients within these estimates gives us the relative

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 72

22/08/2018 10:08



The relations between social capital and growth of innovative firms ­73

Table 5.5  Variance inflation factors (VIF) tests Variables Total funding Age of business ESC ISC Sector Incubation Cluster

GVIF

Df

GVIF1/2*Df

1.14 1.06 1.20 1.13 1.27 1.24 1.15

1 1 1 1 4 1 1

1.07 1.03 1.1 1.06 1.03 1.11 1.07

influence of the different variables on growth, while comparison of adjusted R² between the estimates evaluates the predictive ability of the variables added. Table 5.6 compares the results of six estimates. Model (1) shows the links between the control variables and growth only. Model (2) assesses the contribution of ISC alone to explain growth. In the same way, only the contribution of ESC is introduced in model (3). Models (4) and (5) incorporate respectively the moderating effect of incubation and cluster in the role of social capital on growth. Model (6) tests the links between all of the variables and growth. Standard errors are indicated between brackets under the estimated coefficients. Model (1) indicates that businesses hosted by clusters have a higher growth level than the others (b = 0.44**). On the other hand, the findings do not support the notion that the same is true for incubated firms. Note that a firm’s total funding and age control variables are positively and strongly linked to growth. Sectorial affiliation appears to be weakly explanatory. Only businesses from sector 3 (IT and communications) have a growth level higher than the reference sector 1 (commerce). With regard to the regression coefficients, we can see that the intensity of links between the control variables and growth is stable between estimates (1) to (6). Model (2) shows that ISC is not significantly linked to growth. Hypothesis (H1b) is therefore rejected. On the other hand, model (3) validates hypothesis (H1a). The calculation indicates that ESC is positively correlated to growth (b = +0.258***). The contribution of this variable to variance explained in adjusted R² is +6%. Together with total funding, ESC has the greatest explanatory value. Models (4) and (5) do not provide evidence that the impact of ESC on growth differs according to adherence to an incubator (H2a) or a cluster (H2b). The introduction of ISC in model (6) does not change the preceding results in any way.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 73

22/08/2018 10:08

74

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Table 5.6  Estimates of the relationship between growth and social capital Independent Variables Intercept Total funding Age of  business

Dependent variable: growth in employees (1)

(2)

(3)

−0.333 −0.267 −0.288 −0.283 (0.251) (0.255) (0.241) (0.242) 0.423*** 0.422*** 0.424*** 0.42*** (0.09) (0.09) (0.086) (0.088) 0.191** 0.199** 0.191** 0.187** (0.09) (0.09) (0.087) (0.086)

Sector (ref: Industry) Retail 0.061 (0.293) IT and 0.688**  Communica(0.284) tion Scientific −0.142  activities (0.283) Services 0.42 (0.485) ISC

0.026 (0.293) 0.634** (0.284) −0.163 (0.283) 0.429 (0.485) 0.104 (0.9)

ESC Incubation −0.136   (ref: (0.189) Non-incubated) Cluster (ref: excl. 0.363**   cluster) (0.183) ESC x Incubation

−0.164 (0.189) 0.348** (0.183)

0.072 (0.281) 0.805** (0.275) −0.061 (0.273) 0.529 (0.466)

0.34 0.28 5.751*** 99

0.35 0.28 5.284*** 99

0.083 (0.283) 0.806** (0.276) −0.057 (0.274) 0.526 (0.468)

(5)

(6)

−0.289 −0.304 (0.244) (0.275) 0.424*** 0.423*** (0.087) (0.09) 0.191** 0.193** (0.086) (0.291) 0.073 (0.283) 0.806** (0.277) −0.059 (0.278) 0.53 (0.469)

0.09 (0.296) 0.803** (0.294) −0.053 (0.286) 0.535 (0.477)

0.0263 (0.092) 0.258*** 0.314*** 0.254*** 0.297*** (0.086) (0.131) (0.127) (0.15) −0.25 −0.255 −0.246 −0.258 (0.184) (0.184) (0.186) (0.19) 0.296** (0.177)

ESC x Cluster R² Adjusted-R² Fisher Observations

(4)

0.40 0.34 6.561*** 99

0.309** (0.176) −0.098 (0.174)

0.40 0.33 5.892*** 99

0.296** (0.178) 0.007 (0.172)

0.306** (0.182) −0.107 (0.185) 0.026 (0.181)

0.40 0.33 4.4*** 99

0.40 0.31 4.4*** 99

Note:  † p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 74

22/08/2018 10:08



The relations between social capital and growth of innovative firms ­75

DISCUSSION The Organisational and Temporal (Early Years) Context ESC is generally considered to have a positive role on the growth of business organisations. Our findings confirm this in the context of innovative young firms, putting them in line with the more specific work by Stam et al. (2014), Debrulle et al. (2014), Anderson et al. (2007) and Yli-Renko et al. (2001). In effect, the risky and uncertain innovation process is dependent on the capacity of individuals to collect, produce and exchange knowledge with external stakeholders (Yli-Renko et al., 2001). In other words, innovative firms must be able to develop weak links with external sources of information and knowledge liable to promote business opportunities (Adler and Kwon, 2002). We may note that advisory services, which include business support structures, business owner clubs, lawyers and chartered accountants, represent 75 per cent of the support in our ESC index, against 25 per cent for customers and suppliers. While some of the studies mentioned highlight the important role of customers and suppliers in obtaining information about potential business opportunities, the apparently more modest support received from customers and suppliers in our study may be explained in several ways. First, the development of weak links by young business ventures leaves them vulnerable to risks of opportunistic behaviour by their partners (Pirolo and Presutti, 2010), especially when the information and negotiating power asymmetry is reinforced via multinationals and long-established firms. Second, the young age of the businesses in our study is a handicap (lack of legitimacy, experience, etc.) (Stinchcombe, 1965), restricting the development of trust and, consequently, the exchange of information with this type of partner required for their growth. In addition, entrepreneurs in their starting phase often prefer to increase their ESC in order to develop their new venture. Their strategic actions could target customers and suppliers as the literature has already shown. They could also target support structures which play a major role in obtaining ESC. ISC is traditionally considered to have a positive impact on the emergence of new business ventures (Davidsson and Honig, 2003), but its impact wears off or is relatively obscure during the development stage (Debrulle et al., 2014). However, in the context of innovative young businesses, we might expect to see a positive effect insofar as the innovation process depends on the capacity of individuals to collect, produce and exchange knowledge within the company (Sanchez-Famoso et al., 2014), in other words, to develop strong internal links that will be a source of

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 75

22/08/2018 10:08

76

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

cohesiveness, sharing and creativity. However, our findings show no significant link between ISC and the growth of innovative young businesses. The size of the organisations studied is potentially one of the reasons for this. In effect, the median number of employees at launch was 1.06 and average job growth was +1.81. In other words, because of their age, the companies have very few employees, which limits the impact of cognitive and informational exchange. This suggests that there is a threshold effect linked to the size of the firm in terms of number of employees, beyond which ISC impacts on innovation and ultimately on growth. This hypothesis is in line with observations by Stam et al. (2014) which suggest that the positive effects of ISC on performance are considerably more marked for older firms than young ones. While the size of the firm (in terms of jobs) is one possible explanatory factor, the nature of the relations may be another. Hite and Hesterly (2001) show that as strong ties (family, friends, etc.) are not, by nature, economic ties, they are not necessarily linked to the growth of the firm. On the other hand, as weak links are far more market oriented, they tend to promote growth to a greater extent. ISC is thus less decisive once the company has been launched and before it has expanded with regard to jobs. In short, the role of ISC on innovative firms evolves as follows: (1) before the emergence of the firm, ISC plays a major role in the emergence of nascent firms; (2) during the start-up phase, ISC does not have a significant impact on the growth of the business; (3) its impact on growth develops when the company reaches a certain job creation threshold. It would be interesting to determine the level of this threshold in a future study. Our study builds on previous research in terms of the organisational and temporal context. Thus, for innovative young firms (under five years old), ESC oriented towards market ties is decisive for growth in the early years. ISC, on the other hand, does not impact a firm’s growth during this period. The Institutional Context (Incubation and Cluster) Our study shows that almost all (90 per cent) of the firms obtained resources from business support structures. The support supplied by these entities forms the highest percentage (25 per cent) in the ESC index. The role of business support structures is thus essential in the life of innovative young firms and in the development of their ESC. In view of the reputation, purpose and role assigned to incubators by the authorities, it is interesting to explore the specific case of business ventures that have been taken under their wing. One of their key roles is considered to be that of networking. However, our findings do not support the notion that firms which have passed through an incubator have a greater level

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 76

22/08/2018 10:08



The relations between social capital and growth of innovative firms ­77

of ESC, subsequently ensuring better growth. Some studies have already expressed doubts as to the capacity of firms that have joined an incubator to develop or maintain a useful business network (Borges and Filion, 2013; Tötterman and Sten, 2005). In addition, Amezcua et al. (2011) showed that young incubated businesses must find a compromise between the modus operandi and market and incubator expectations. Spending some years in the incubator appears to result in a delayed learning process and competitive selection. Our findings also suggest that firms do not grow more easily than others after being through an incubator. In fact, leaving the incubator appears to be a difficult transition period for young companies. In addition, incubators do not seem to do better than other forms of support at helping to build ESC, or at least, at indicating how to use it better. This finding has implications for local public policy decision-making regarding the selection of alternative initiatives to enhance business creation. Our results provide evidence that incubators, which are costly to develop, are not necessarily more efficient than smaller structures or Boutique de Gestion, which are less intense in resource requirements. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the purpose and services of incubators cannot be reduced simply to the emergence phase of the startup (e.g. innovation advice, shared working space, etc.) Given their main role – namely, to collectively develop innovative start-ups – clusters are considered as places where the interaction and links forged between stakeholders enhance the competitiveness of firms (McEvily and Zaheer, 1999). In our study, over half of the firms (55.8 per cent) belonged to this type of structure. However, while clusters play a role in the growth of innovative young ventures, given our present state of knowledge, we cannot say that clusters accentuate the role of ESC on growth. The Inherent Difficulty of Measuring Social Capital We believe that a qualitative dimension of social capital is lacking in many studies. A structural weakness in the definitions frequently used for social capital is due to the value assigned to it. Resources resulting from social capital are defined as having intrinsic value (Adler and Kwon, 2002; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Vila et al., 2013). Their quality is implicit, given that they are evaluated either with respect to the act of acquisition or retention by the social capital player, or by the value of the ties through which the resource in question has been obtained. In this perspective, the more resources players obtain from their relational network, the more valuable their social capital. There are two limitations to this idea. First, the value of a resource – especially if it concerns information, knowledge

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 77

22/08/2018 10:08

78

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

or support – is more to do with its (correct) usage than its accumulation. Second, this notion obscures the potential negative impacts of social capital (Gedajlovic et al., 2013; Schulman and Anderson, 1999). In measuring the way in which an entrepreneur perceives the usefulness of the links it develops with a whole series of stakeholders, our study heightens the pertinence of the social capital indicator used. In addition, simultaneity bias is an inherent and major challenge in estimating the link between social capital and performance (Carpenter et al., 2012; Gedajlovic et al., 2013; Kreiser et al., 2013). Simultaneity bias appears when the dependent variable that we seek to predict is both the consequence and the cause of the independent variable. This difficulty is frequent, both because of the tools used to measure social capital and the nature of the samples collected. In effect, the data available on innovative start-ups is by nature limited, and the small number of individuals that make up the populations limits the potential to analyse in panels, thereby isolating the temporal dynamic of social capital. Although the Wu–Hausman endogeneity test rejects endogeneity in our models, future studies could look at the same study using panel data, and examine potential issues of endogeneity that cross-sectional data cannot capture adequately.

CONCLUSION The aim of our study is in line with the contingent approach of social capital recently developed by Stam et al. (2014) and Gedajlovic et al. (2013). While findings on the impact of social capital on a firm’s growth or performance are contradictory, our study illustrates the conditions underpinning this type of relationship. In particular, it includes the context in which the firms under study develop, such as joining an incubator or being a member of a cluster. The study adopts the suggestion by Stam et al. (2014) to consider the relational, temporal and contextual dimensions of social capital. The relational dimension is analysed through the lens of how entrepreneurs perceive its usefulness with respect to their stakeholders. The temporal dimension is approached through the sample itself, which turns the spotlight on a specific period in the firm’s lifespan. The contextual dimension is linked to the fact that some firms in the sample had been through an incubator or belonged to a cluster. We showed that during the early years, the ESC of young businesses appears to be a decisive resource for its growth. On the other hand, this is not the case for ISC. In addition, while belonging to a cluster has an impact on growth, we observed no significant impact of clusters with regard to the link between social

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 78

22/08/2018 10:08



The relations between social capital and growth of innovative firms ­79

capital and growth. At the same time, joining an incubator appears to have no impact on either growth or the relationship under study. Our study also contributes an original take on the topic of social capital as it is not necessarily considered as a positive resource. The link has to be considered as useful by the entrepreneur for social capital to ensue. Finally, while our sample has a clear interest in view of the characteristics of the firms included in the study, it is nonetheless relatively limited, which restricts generalisation of the findings. Future studies could examine the same study in two further directions. First, they could compare the performance and growth of firms following whether they received support or not, so as to disentangle the actual effectiveness of existing public devices. Second, a focus on the role of clusters deserves to be investigated. Since they aim at developing inter-firm networks so as to enhance innovation, it is of interest to investigate the extent to which they actually contribute to the formation of their members’ ESC.

NOTES 1. We define an entrepreneur as the founder, owner and manager of a small firm (Stam et al., 2014). 2. See www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1893220, accessed 16 April 2018. 3. See http://www.europe-en-france.gouv.fr/Centre-de-ressources/Etudes-rapports-et-docu​ mentation/Synthese-des-Strategies-Regionales-de-l-Innovation-SRI-en-vue-de-la-special​ isation-intelligente-S3-des-regions-francaises, accessed 16 April 2018. 4. Eurasanté (biology, health and nutrition; public research), Cré’Innov (all sectors), EuraTechnologies (digital and ICT), APUI (eco-technologies), Innotex (textiles), Tonic Incubation (all sectors), MITI (all sectors; public research). 5. Such as the Boutiques de Gestion which are a national support network for entrepreneurs, with around 20 branches in the Nord–Pas-de-Calais area, and Réseau Entreprendre, an international network for entrepreneurs. 6. The question was: ‘Is your company a member of a “pôle de compétitivité”?’

REFERENCES Adler, P.S. and S.-W. Kwon (2002), ‘Social capital: Prospects for a new concept’, Academy of Management Review, 27 (1), 17–40. Adlesic, R.V. and A. Slavec (2012), ‘Social capital and business incubators performance: Testing the structural model’, Economic and Business Review, 14 (3), 201–22. Amezcua, A., S.W. Bradley and J. Wiklund (2011), ‘Cutting the apron strings of business incubation firms: Is the ability of newness . . . a liability?’, in Academy of Management Proceedings, San Antonio, TX: Academy of Management, pp. 1–7. Anderson, A., J. Park and S. Jack (2007), ‘Entrepreneurial social capital

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 79

22/08/2018 10:08

80

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

c­onceptualizing social capital in new high-tech firms’, International Small Business Journal, 25 (3), 245–72. Anyadike-Danes, M., M. Hart and J. Du (2015), ‘Firm dynamics and job creation in the United Kingdom: 1998–2013’, International Small Business Journal, 33 (1), 12–27. Arikan, A.T. (2009), ‘Interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters’, Academy of Management Review, 34 (4), 658–76. Birch, D.G.W. (1979), The Job Generation Process, Cambridge, MA: MIT Program on Neighborhood and Regional Change. Blanc, C. (2004), ‘Pour un écosystème de la croissance: Rapport au Premier Ministre’, Assemblée Nationale. Borges C. and L.J. Filion (2013), ‘Spin-off process and the development of academic entrepreneur’s social capital’, Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 8 (1), 21–34. Burt, R.S. (2000), ‘The network structure of social capital’, in Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423. Cao, Q., Z. Simsek and J.J. Jansen (2012), ‘CEO social capital and entrepreneurial orientation of the firm bonding and bridging effects’, Journal of Management, 1–26. Carpenter, M.A., M. Li and H. Jiang (2012), ‘Social network research in organizational contexts a systematic review of methodological issues and choices’, Journal of Management, 38 (4), 1328–61. Carrasco-Hernández, A. and D. Jiménez-Jiménez (2013), ‘Can family firms innovate? Sharing internal knowledge from a social capital perspective’, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 30–37. Cuevas-Rodriguez, G., C. Cabello-Medina and A. Carmona-Lavado (2014), ‘Internal and external social capital for radical product innovation: Do they always work well together?’, British Journal of Management, 25 (2), 266–84. Davidsson, P. and B. Honig (2003), ‘The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (3), 301–31. Davidsson, P. and J. Wiklund (2001), ‘Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current research practice and suggestions for the future’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25 (4), 81–100. Debrulle, J., J. Maes and L. Sels (2014), ‘Start-up absorptive capacity: Does the owner’s human and social capital matter?’, International Small Business Journal, 32 (7), 777–801. Ebbers, J.J. (2014), ‘Networking behavior and contracting relationships among entrepreneurs in business incubators’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38 (5), 1159–81. Eklinder-Frick, J., L.T. Eriksson and L. Hallén (2014), ‘Multidimensional social capital as a boost or a bar to innovativeness’, Industrial Marketing Management, 43 (3), 460–72. Gedajlovic, E., B. Honig, C.B. Moore, G. Tyge Payne and M. Wright (2013), ‘Social capital and entrepreneurship: A schema and research agenda’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37 (3), 455–78. Granovetter, M.S. (1973), ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–80. Hackett, S.M. and D.M. Dilts (2004), ‘A systematic review of business incubation research’, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29 (1), 55–82. Hite, J.M. and W.S. Hesterly (2001), ‘The evolution of firm networks: From

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 80

22/08/2018 10:08



The relations between social capital and growth of innovative firms ­81

emergence to early growth of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 22 (3), 275–86. Kogut, B. and U. Zander (1992), ‘Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology’, Organization Science, 3 (3), 383–97. Kolstad, I. and A. Wiig (2013), ‘Is it both what you know and who you know? Human capital, social capital and entrepreneurial success’, Journal of International Development, 25 (5), 626–39. Kreiser, P., P. Patel and J. Fiet (2013), ‘The influence of changes in social capital on firm-founding activities’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37 (3), 539–68. Lechner, C. and C. Leyronas (2012), ‘The competitive advantage of cluster firms: The priority of regional network position over extra-regional networks – A study of a French high-tech cluster’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24 (5–6), 457–73. Light, I. and L.-P. Dana (2013), ‘Boundaries of social capital in entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37 (3), 603–24. Martinez, M.A. and H.E. Aldrich (2011), ‘Networking strategies for entrepreneurs: Balancing cohesion and diversity’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 17 (1), 7–38. Maurer, I., V. Bartsch and M. Ebers (2011), ‘The value of intra-organizational social capital: How it fosters knowledge transfer, innovation performance, and growth’, Organization Studies, 32 (2), 157–85. Maurer, I. and M. Ebers (2006), ‘Dynamics of social capital and their performance implications: Lessons from biotechnology start-ups’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 51 (2), 262–92. McEvily, B. and A. Zaheer (1999), ‘Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities’, Strategic Management Journal, 20 (12), 1133–56. McFadyen, M.A. and A.A. Cannella (2004), ‘Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships’, Academy of Management Journal, 47 (5), 735–46. Molina-Morales, F.X. and M.T. Martinez-Fernández (2009), ‘Too much love in the neighborhood can hurt: How an excess of intensity and trust in relationships may produce negative effects on firms’, Strategic Management Journal, 30 (9), 1013–23. Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), ‘Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage’, Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), 242–66. Partanen, J., K. Möller, M. Westerlund, R. Rajala and A. Rajala (2008), ‘Social capital in the growth of science-and-technology-based SMEs’, Industrial Marketing Management, 37 (5), 513–22. Patton, D. (2013), ‘Realising potential: The impact of business incubation on the absorptive capacity of new technology-based firms’, International Small Business Journal, 32, 897–917. Patton, D. and S. Marlow (2011), ‘University technology business incubators: Helping new entrepreneurial firms to learn to grow’, Environment and Planning – Part C, 29 (5), 911–26. Pearson, A.W., J.C. Carr and J.C. Shaw (2008), ‘Toward a theory of familiness: A social capital perspective’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32 (6), 949–69. Pirolo, L. and M. Presutti (2010), ‘The impact of social capital on the start-ups’ performance growth’, Journal of Small Business Management, 48 (2), 197–227.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 81

22/08/2018 10:08

82

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Porter, M.E. (2011), Competitive Advantage of Nations: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, New York: Simon and Schuster. Prashantham, S. and C. Dhanaraj (2010), ‘The dynamic influence of social capital on the international growth of new ventures’, Journal of Management Studies, 47 (6), 967–94. Sanchez-Famoso, V., A. Maseda and T. Iturralde (2014), ‘The role of internal social capital in organisational innovation. An empirical study of family firms’, European Management Journal, 32 (6), 950–62. Schulman, M.D. and C. Anderson (1999), ‘The dark side of the force: A case study of restructuring and social capital’, Rural Sociology, 64 (3), 351–72. Schwartz, M. (2013), ‘A control group study of incubators’ impact to promote firm survival’, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38 (3), 302–31. Semrau, T. and A. Werner (2012), ‘The two sides of the story: Network investments and new venture creation’, Journal of Small Business Management, 50 (1), 159–80. Shrestha, M.K. (2013), ‘Internal versus external social capital and the success of community initiatives: A case of self-organizing collaborative governance in Nepal’, Public Administration Review, 73 (1), 154–64. Stam, W., S. Arzlanian and T. Elfring (2014), ‘Social capital of entrepreneurs and small firm performance: A meta-analysis of contextual and methodological moderators’, Journal of Business Venturing, 29 (1), 152–73. Stinchcombe, A.L. (1965), ‘Social structure and organizations’, in J.P. March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 142–93. Tötterman, H. and J. Sten (2005), ‘Start-ups business incubation and social capital’, International Small Business Journal, 23 (5), 487–511. Vila, J.E., M. Fornoni and D. Palacios (2013), ‘Multidimensional social capital in new ventures’, The Service Industries Journal, 33 (9–10), 820–32. Yli-Renko, H., E. Autio and H.J. Sapienza (2001), ‘Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms’, Strategic Management Journal, 22 (6–7), 587–613. Yli-Renko, H., E. Autio and V. Tontti (2002), ‘Social capital, knowledge, and the international growth of technology-based new firms’, International Business Review, 11 (3), 279–304.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 82

22/08/2018 10:08



The relations between social capital and growth of innovative firms ­83

APPENDIX B8. Did you receive help from any of these stakeholders? If so, how useful was it? If yes, check the box o o o o o o o o o o

Stakeholders

Partners Family members Friends Former colleagues Clubs or associations of entrepreneurs Suppliers Clients Chartered accountants Lawyers Support structures (e.g.: BGE, Chambers of commerce, ruche d’entreprises, incubators, etc.)

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 83

Useless

Very useful

1 o o o o o

2 o o o o o

3 o o o o o

4 o o o o o

5 o o o o o

o o o o o

o o o o o

o o o o o

o o o o o

o o o o o

22/08/2018 10:08

6. Internationalized SMEs: the impact of market orientation and marketing capability on business performance Sanna Joensuu-Salo, Kirsti Sorama and Salla Kettunen INTRODUCTION The growth and success of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has been one of the most important issues concerning the economy in Finland in recent years. In the forest sector, especially, internationalization has been seen as a prerequisite for growth. The degree of internationalization varies across sectors, for example, a study by Kettunen (2013) found that the share of exports was over 50 percent in the sawmill industry, whilst in other sectors it was usually under 10 percent. Existing research has shown that market orientation and marketing capability have either a direct or indirect effect on business performance and success (Narver and Slater, 1990; Vorhies et al., 2011). It could be assumed that when operating in foreign markets, these concepts are even more important. A firm’s global market orientation by itself is an idiosyncratic competence thereby supporting the firm’s activities in its markets. Market orientation can be embodied as an antecedent of the internationalization process of an SME (Wright et al., 2007). However, there is still a gap in literature exploring the interplay of market orientation and marketing capability in the internationalization process. Also, the effect of market orientation and marketing capability on a firm’s performance within international markets is not well examined especially with SMEs. In Finland, the forest sector is an important part of the whole economy and has been in major turbulence. It is important to develop competences of small and medium-sized firms to succeed in international markets. The research in this chapter contributes to the literature in two important ways. First, it analyzes the role of market orientation and marketing capability in SMEs operating in the forest sector. Second, this study brings new knowledge about the interplay of market 84

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 84

22/08/2018 10:08



Internationalized SMEs ­85

orientation and marketing capability in the internationalization process of SMEs. The objectives of the chapter are to analyze: (1) the impact of market orientation and marketing capability on business performance within SMEs in the forest sector; and (2) the difference of this impact between internationalized SMEs and SMEs operating only in domestic markets in that sector.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Factors Influencing the Internationalization of SMEs in the Forest Sector The forest sector in its different forms has traditionally been important to Finland. In south and central Ostrobothnia, the mechanical wood industry (sawmills, building, engineered wood products, furniture) also forms a notable cluster on a national scale. Many of these industries face growing and fierce competition from international markets, which, combined with second-guessing customer behavior, has already led to big structural changes. Working in domestic markets therefore also requires an understanding of international markets. Internationalization provides bigger market areas and decreases the risk during a recession in the domestic market. New technology and materials should be utilized in order to stay at the cutting edge of the industry (Loukasmäki, 2015). The growth and internationalization of the forest sector, and especially wood products, has been studied in Finland’s Strategic Programme for the Forest Sector. It reviles that the obstacles to growth and internationalization for the smaller firms are mainly internal, whereas the operational environment mainly sets the boundaries for bigger firms. Within the wood product industry, the internal barriers are formed by lack of co-operation and networking; shortages in sales and marketing know-how; not building a brand; the dearth of internationalization planning and promotion of exports; lack of strategic and internationalization knowledge; lack of business development and capability of revision in firms; family businesses possibly withdrawing too much; lack of spirit and will to grow firms. Operational environment factors include things like the collective agreements and high level of labor costs; how to finance internationalization; how to recognize financing and advisory services (small firms); the disappearance of basic industry from Finland; cheap imported goods; subsidy politics of the EU impacting competition in the European internal markets. According to Kettunen (2013), internal strengths of the firms were described as strong own production, technically high quality ­products,

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 85

22/08/2018 10:08

86

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

strong product planning/design, personnel, competence and benefits of family business. The continuous lack of resources and knowledge have formed barriers to the internationalization of the wood product industry in Finland. Internationalization of firms should be seen as a strategic goal and a clear action plan should be adopted to achieve this goal. When firms assess the required competencies of their personnel, staff experience in international business could be included. Customer-oriented products and maintaining good service levels are essential factors that exporting countries need to consider. A product that is successful in domestic markets may need some changes when it is taken to other external market areas. It is also important to succeed in charting the right marketing channels and finding an effective way for distribution and sales (Kettunen, 2013). Competing by quality in the forest sector requires standardization, CE marking, planning tools and data models. If there were only one supplier of wood products or parts, this would not be necessarily beneficial to the consumer, especially in the construction industry. Therefore competition and many suppliers in the market is a positive thing. Firms need to make sure that their processing, distribution channels and product know-how are in order (Heino, 2011; Hurmekoski et al., 2015). In the wood product industry, in particular, there are several associations, which aim at influencing the regulations, rules and their interpretation, standardizing products and networking. Market Orientation Market orientation (MO) is the basis of marketing and strategic planning (Narver and Slater, 1990) and entails the processes of a firm implementing marketing concepts in practice (Kohli et al., 1993). Marketing concept means how a firm can find needs and wants in the market and use these needs as a basis of product/service development which is better than its competitors (Slater and Narver, 1998). Three different elements have been identified in MO: customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination (Narver and Slater, 1990). Customer and competitor orientation refer to active information generation from customers and competitors through monitoring market needs and wants. Interfunctional coordination refers to the firm’s ability to disseminate this information throughout the firm in a way that creates value for the customer through products and services. Jaworski and Kohli (1993) identify three phases in the process: (1) generating market information from customer’s present and future needs, (2) sharing market knowledge within the firm, and (3)

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 86

22/08/2018 10:08



Internationalized SMEs ­87

answering customer’s present and future needs. In Homburg and Pflesser’s (2000) view, MO consists of different perspectives such as values, norms, artifacts and behavior. MO can thus be seen as an embedded cultural state which has an effect on the different activities in firms. However, MO can also be viewed as a strategic option, deliberately chosen in order to enhance performance. In terms of MO, firms can be classified in different ways. Some scholars view MO as a continuum along which firms can be placed, that is, firms can adopt different levels of MO. Others view MO as dichotomous: a firm either is or is not market oriented (Harris, 1999). MO has also been viewed as a resource in a learning organization (Hunt and Morgan, 1995), in which case MO is considered a resource for generating information to help the firm to develop products and services with better value for the customer. Hurley and Hult (1998) argue that, for growth and productivity, it is not MO itself that is relevant but rather the development of the firm’s competencies through MO. MO has attracted wide research efforts over the past years, with the studies highly concentrated on MO’s effect on business performance. Prior research indicates that MO is related to business performance either directly or indirectly (e.g. Verhoef et al., 2011; Narver and Slater, 1990; Pelham, 2000; Maydeu-Olivares and Lado, 2003; Matsuno et al., 2002; Shin and Aiken, 2012). Also studies using meta-analyses confirm the positive effect of MO on business performance (Cano et al., 2004; Kirca et al., 2005). The same result has been found also in microenterprises by Spillan et al. (2013). Jain et al. (2013) propose an integrated framework of antecedents and effects of MO based on earlier research. They also argue that there is a positive, significant and robust link between MO and firm performance. Contradictory results exist concerning the effect of MO on profitability. Narver and Slater (1990) find that MO has a substantial positive and direct effect on profitability in both commodity products businesses and noncommodity businesses. Morgan et al. (2015) examine also the dark side of MO. He states that if a firm implements both MO and entrepreneurial orientation philosophy, it may hinder new product development performance. However, a high MO may help reduce consumer learning and enhance the adoption of radical new products. Pelham (1997) suggests that MO has an indirect effect on profitability through firm effectiveness and growth/share (Pelham, 1997). Also, Slater and Narver (1994) confirm MO’s effect on sales growth. In addition, Pelham (2000), in a study of MO in small firms, finds that it has a critical role in implementing a growth strategy. In conclusion, MO has either a direct or indirect effect on profitability and has a role to play in growth.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 87

22/08/2018 10:08

88

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Marketing Capability According to the resource-based view (RBV), a firm can be viewed as a bundle of resources, and competitive advantage is based on possession of valuable and rare resources. Little utilized in the field of marketing (Srivastava et al., 2001), the RBV has been later complemented by a view emphasizing dynamic capabilities (DC), which highlights the ability of a firm to adjust its processes so as to utilize resources effectively in a dynamic business environment; in the DC view competitive advantage stems not just from resources but rather from new resource configurations based on dynamic capabilities (Cavusgil et al., 2007). According to Day (1994), capabilities are complex bundles of skills and knowledge accumulated in the firm and applied in organizational processes. Day (1994) categorized marketing capabilities as outside-in capabilities (e.g. market information, customer relations), inside-out capabilities (logistics, cost control) and integration capabilities (pricing, product/service development). He considers, in particular, the capabilities connected to understanding the markets and customer focused marketing capabilities central for market oriented firms. Hooley et al. (1999) see capabilities at three different levels; they argue that the capabilities presented by Day (1994) are at the operational level but more important capabilities are at the firm’s cultural and strategic level. Reijonen and Komppula (2010) found that although MO, and in particular customer orientation, have been adopted to some degree among Finnish SMEs, there are considerable gaps in marketing capabilities. Since marketing processes tend to develop at firm level, capabilities also evolve individually, potentially producing unique ways of utilizing competencies. Srivastava et al. (2001) emphasize the creation of customer value based on knowledge and relationship resources within innovation, value chain and customer relationship management processes. As markets become increasingly complex, dynamic capabilities are also increasingly important: the ability to learn from market information, to experiment flexibly, to market in a way that builds relationships (Day, 2011). The emphasis on dynamic capabilities highlights the importance of strategic level adoption of MO. Vorhies and Harker (2000) found in their study that firms with high MO also had higher levels of the six marketing capabilities, these being marketing research, product development, pricing, distribution, promotion and marketing management. In a further study on customer focused marketing capabilities, the impact on financial performance from capabilities in brand management and customer relationship management was found (Vorhies et al., 2011). The latter enables efficient deployment of relationship resources and the former, of reputational

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 88

22/08/2018 10:08



Internationalized SMEs ­89

resources. Also Wilden and Gudergan (2015) found that marketing capabilities are positively associated with firm performance in highly competitive environments. Foley and Fahy (2009) argue that MO and marketing capability are linked. Recent research has shown that marketing capability mediates the effect of MO (Shin and Aiken, 2012; Merrilees et al., 2011). This was also found in Finnish SMEs; especially with growth firms, MO had an indirect effect on business performance mediated by marketing capability (Joensuu et al., 2015). Jain et al. (2013) also state that in earlier research, a close association had been found between MO and marketing planning/ operational marketing strategies. By developing a firm’s MO, the firm’s marketing capabilities may also develop, and in the long run, resulting in sustainable competitive advantage. In sum, it appears MO and marketing capabilities are linked, and have a connection with business performance. Internationalization In the theory of the internationalization of firms there is no single explanatory factor, so the researchers propose that internationalization must be considered from a combination of several different perspectives (Chetty and Campbell-Hunt, 2003). With the advent of globalization and the knowledge economy, an important issue lies in the strategic capabilities that enable the internationalization of SMEs. The ability to internationalize has become a competitive necessity for many firms, enabling survival and growth under globalization (Acs et al., 2003; Knight, 2000; Coeurderoy et al., 2011). Correspondingly, this phenomenon has received increasing attention from scholars who have sought to characterize the internationalization process and export behavior of SMEs (Moen and Servais, 2002), be it incremental as in the Uppsala model and the network approach (e.g. Johanson and Vahlne, 2009) or radical as in the “born-global” firms (e.g. Freeman and Cavusgil, 2007), and to identify the antecedents and consequences of internationalization (Coviello and McAuley, 1999; Higon and Driffield, 2011; Ruzzier et al., 2006; Sousa et al., 2008). SMEs play an important role in international markets. SMEs are usually limited in their resources and international experience. Strategy and entrepreneurship scholars argue that firms succeed by building and retaining a competitive advantage. For example, Ireland et al. (2003) integrated theories from strategy and entrepreneurship disciplines to explain how firms develop and sustain these advantages. They noted that firms succeed by identifying and exploiting new opportunities and by deploying their resources in ways that allow them to create value. Some of these

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 89

22/08/2018 10:08

90

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

­ pportunities lie in the foreign markets, requiring strategies that leverage o SMEs’ skills and capabilities. Internationalization may be a complex and expensive process, which requires careful assessment of opportunities and the development and implementation of several strategies (George et al., 2005). For this reason, the internationalization cannot be explained by one theory. In studying entrepreneurship from a strategic perspective, researchers have used the RBV to focus on entrepreneurial capabilities. RBV proposes that the firm’s resources and capabilities are the source of its competitive advantage. In different firms the resources are various and often underused (Barney, 1995). The RBV says that the firm can get a competitive advantage only if it can take advantage of a particularly valuable resource, which none of its competitors will be able to easily imitate. Only the use of such resources can lead to a permanent gain and competitive advantage (Hamel and Prahalad, 1990). A number of researchers have adopted a resource-based, or capabilities perspective, to empirically address the issue of the internationalization of SMEs. Among the first were Dhanaraj and Beamish (2003) who found the product development and market development capabilities of SMEs to successfully predict their internationalization performance. The MO is a valuable and rare resource which is difficult to imitate. It is considered as one of the firm’s internal capabilities, which may create a sustainable competitive advantage (Hult et al., 2005; Zhou et al., 2008). Knight and Cavusgil (2004) submit that MO provides the basis for the firm’s commitment to external markets. MO can be internationalized within the firm’s internationalization process as one of the antecedents of internationalization, particularly when (1) MO develops and promotes learning processes in foreign markets, and (2) firms which have high MO develop strong market capabilities, such as distribution networks, market knowledge and customer relationships, which provide for the firm’s special knowledge of foreign markets (Wright et al., 2007). Armario et al. (2008) indicate that a direct positive relationship exists between MO and a strategy of internationalization, and that the effect of MO on performance in foreign markets is moderated by knowledge acquisition and market commitment. Although researchers have focused on understanding the variety of factors affecting SMEs’ internationalization, MO has not been the focus of these studies.

METHODOLOGY For the purposes of our study, data for the research was collected as a part of a project “Growth for Wood Product Industry”, which is implemented

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 90

22/08/2018 10:08



Internationalized SMEs ­91

in co-operation with the Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences and the Finnish Forest Centre. The project is funded by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. Measurement Constructs MO was measured using the 20-item MARKOR-scale (Kohli et al., 1993; Farrell and Oczkowski, 1997). Cronbach’s alpha for the measurement instrument was 0.77. Marketing capabilities were measured among eight capabilities: market research, pricing, product/service development, distribution, marketing communications, marketing planning and management, customer relations and branding. Capabilities concerning market research, pricing, product/service development, distribution, marketing communications and marketing management were measured using items from Vorhies and Harker (2000). For customer relations and branding, items from Vorhies et al. (2011) were added for the instrument. The final instrument consisted of 24 items. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.94. The seven-point Likert scale was used. Business performance was measured by reference to Chapman and Kihn (2009). Their ten-item instrument was originally developed by Govindarajan and Fisher (1990). For this study, the original measurement instrument was adapted to Finnish SMEs and the final instrument used nine items and covered non-financial and financial factors. Items related to profit, equity ratio, liquidity, turnover, development of new products, market share, market development, personnel development and political– public affairs. Respondents were asked to rate their business performance relative to competitors during the past three years with the five-point Likert scale. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88. Respondents and Analysis Methods The questionnaire was sent during spring 2016 to 504 (= N) customer firms of the Forest Centre; 425 firms located in southern Ostrobothnia and 79 firms in central Ostrobothnia. All the firms were registered to work in the wood processing industry. The respondent rate was low and the firms were therefore called and asked to answer the questionnaire either online or by returning the questionnaire via mail. During the third round, the Forest Centre sent a request to answer the questionnaire via email to the central Ostrobothnian firms. When the firms of retired entrepreneurs and firms who had gone into liquidation were removed from the original N, the potential group of

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 91

22/08/2018 10:08

92

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

respondents downsized from 504 to 363. After the reminders, we received 101 answers in total, resulting in a respondent rate of 28 percent. Twenty answers were received from central Ostrobothnia (respondent rate of 32 percent) and from southern Ostrobothnia 80 answers were received (respondent rate of 27 percent). In addition, one respondent did not answer the question on location. A total of 31 percent of the respondents were active in international markets, and 69 percent were active only in domestic affairs. Data was analyzed using SPSS 22 software and Amos. Multicollinearity tests were used to show that there was no problem with collinearity. Linear regression analysis was also used to test the relationships between variables. Regression analysis showed that MO did not have a direct effect on business performance, but marketing capability did. After that, path analysis was carried out using Amos. Path analysis is an extension of the regression model in which indirect paths can also be tested. The final model was tested separately for firms operating only in domestic markets and for firms operating in international markets. In the model, marketing capability fully mediates the effect of MO on business performance. Goodness of fit measures (NFI, CFI, RMSEA and CMIN/DF) were used for model evaluation (Byrne, 2010).

RESULTS Figure 6.1 presents the empirical model and Table 6.1 presents the model estimates for internationalized firms. MO has an indirect effect on business performance mediated by marketing capability. The goodness of fit measures are good (NFI = 0.98, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.000, CMIN/DF = 0.943, p = 0.332). The model explains the 36 percent variance of business performance. MO also has a direct and significant effect on marketing capability. MO explains the 74 percent variance of marketing capability. Marketing capability has a direct and significant effect on business performance (standardized regression weight 0.60). The indirect effect of MO is significant (standardized regression weight 0.52). R2 0.74*** MARKET ORIENTATION

0.86***

MARKETING CAPABILITY

0.60***

R2 0.36*** BUSINESS PERFORMANCE

Figure 6.1  Empirical model for internationalized firms

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 92

22/08/2018 10:08



Internationalized SMEs ­93

Table 6.1 Estimates and standardized regression weights of the model (internationalized firms)

Marketing ←  capability Business ←  performance

Estimate

S.E.

C.R.

P

Stand. regr. weight

1.099

.125

8.770

***

.86

.413

.103

4.002

***

.60

Market orientation Marketing capability

Note:  * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

R2 0.54*** MARKET ORIENTATION

0.73***

MARKETING CAPABILITY

R2 0.15***

0.39***

BUSINESS PERFORMANCE

Figure 6.2  Empirical model for firms operating only in domestic markets

Table 6.2 Estimates and standardized regression weights of the model (firms operating in domestic markets)

Marketing ←  capability Business ←  performance

Estimate

S.E.

C.R.

P

Stand. regr. weight

.883

.101

8.714

***

.73

.297

.088

3.369

***

.39

Market orientation Marketing capability

Note:  * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Figure 6.2 presents the empirical model and Table 6.2 presents the model estimates of firms operating in domestic markets only. The estimates of the model differ from the model estimates for internationalized firms. Goodness of fit measures are not adequate for this model (NFI = .94; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .201; CMIN/DF = 3.776, p = .052). The model explains

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 93

22/08/2018 10:08

94

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

the 15 percent variance of business performance. The effect of marketing capability is smaller than in the model tested for internationalized firms. However, it still has a significant effect on business performance (standardized regression weight 0.39, p = 0.000). Also, the indirect effect of MO on business performance is smaller (standardized regression weight 0.29) than in the model tested for internationalized firms. However, MO has a direct and significant effect on marketing capability and it explains the 54 percent variance of marketing capability. Marketing capability mediates the effect of MO on business performance with both groups: with internationalized firms and also with firms operating only in domestic markets. Marketing capability has a direct effect on business performance. However, the model fit is not good in the model tested for firms operating in domestic markets and the standardized regression weights are smaller than in the model tested for ­internationalized firms. It seems that marketing capability and MO are even more important factors for firms operating in international markets. It could be assumed that firms operating in domestic markets have more knowledge about the market situation because the market is more stable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The aim of this study was to analyze (1) the impact of MO and marketing capability on business performance with SMEs in the forest sector, and (2) the difference of this impact between internationalized SMEs and SMEs operating only in domestic markets in that sector. First, it can be said that both MO and marketing capability have an effect on business performance both within firms operating in domestic markets and firms operating in international markets. However, MO and marketing capability have even greater impact on business performance within firms operating in international markets. This indicates that SMEs aspiring to operate in international markets should pay close attention as to how knowledge of customers and competitors is acquired and used in the development of marketing operations (MO) – which in turn, then has a direct connection to the firms’ success. The study demonstrates that MO directly affects marketing capabilities and thus indirectly affects performance, and supports previous research (e.g. Kirca et al., 2005). A firm can consequently develop marketing capabilities by enhancing MO and with it be more successful. González-Benito et al. (2014) and Liao et al. (2011) noted that different factors may mediate the effects of MO.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 94

22/08/2018 10:08



Internationalized SMEs ­95

The operating environment is relevant when assessing the effects of marketing capabilities on performance. In foreign markets, operating firms need more marketing capabilities than firms operating only in domestic markets. This is in line with the study of Wilden and Gudergan (2015) in which the effect of the competitive environment on the importance of marketing capabilities was indicated. A market-oriented firm aims to achieve and get access to market intelligence when it comes to the competitors, customers, technology, government, and other environmental factors in a very systematic and proactive approach. MO and marketing capabilities contribute to the superior firm performance (Morgan et al., 2009.) Morgan et al. (2009) also found that MO has a direct effect on the firm’s return on investment (ROI), and that marketing capabilities directly impact both ROI and perceived firm performance. As Knight and Cavusgil (2004) stated, MO is the basis for how the firm is linked to foreign markets and thus, it can be considered one of the prerequisites for the firm’s internationalization process. With it the firm learns from markets and develops capabilities to help it succeed. The study demonstrates that in the specific case of the growth and internationalization of SMEs in the forest sector, attention should be primarily given to the development of the firm’s MO which, in turn, develops the firm’s marketing capabilities. MO is as Wright et al. (2007) suggested, one of the factors that influence the internationalization of the firm but at the same time it can be seen as a determinant of marketing capabilities, which in turn, is very important for the firm’s performance in the international markets. There are two major perspectives on the process of internationalization of SMEs. The first perceives the internationalization of SMEs as being a sequential process that leads from a domestic market to international markets in accordance with a “learning process”, whereby knowledge of the new markets is acquired and resources are increasingly committed to those markets (Johanson and Vahlne, 1990, 1997; Cavusgil, 1980). The second perspective, derived from the international entrepreneurship literature, contends that a firm can be “born global” (Knight and Cavusgil, 1996). The current state of research suggests that in mature industries in which environment change is minimal, the sequential perspective on internationalization is more appropriate, whereas, in growing industries, the second perspective provides a better understanding of the internationalization as a phenomenon. In conclusion, the wood product industry is a business area closer to the former than the latter perspective. Research has also shown that the possession of certain competencies can facilitate the development of a firm’s internationalization strategy, especially in the earlier stages of the process (Li et al., 2004). The present study contributes to this line of research by investigating whether MO,

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 95

22/08/2018 10:08

96

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

understood as a specific corporate competence, constitutes as an antecedent to internationalization in SMEs in the wood product industry. From the behavioral perspective, MO has been defined as “the organization-wide generation of market intelligence pertaining to current and future customer needs, dissemination of the intelligence across departments, and organization-wide responsiveness to it” (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990). As such, MO can also be understood as a resource. In the theory of RBV, MO is an intangible property of the firm that enables the firm to manage market information and deliver value to its customers (Hunt and Lambe, 2000). But the acquisition of such knowledge in a single, specific context is not as relevant as the acquisition of the ability to analyze, understand, and respond to a range of contexts. Firms learn to learn (Armario et al., 2008). According to Day (1994), market-oriented companies develop “inside-out” capabilities, which connect the internal processes that define organizational capabilities with the external environment, thus allowing the company to be competitive by creating solid relationships with customers, distributors, and suppliers. These distinctive capabilities can be characterized as “market-sensing” and “customer-linking and channel-bonding”. In this sense, these refer to marketing capabilities that in this study proved to be linked to the firm’s business performance in the international markets. Internationalization may imply costs arising from unfamiliarity with the local environment, from cultural, political and economic differences. International business scholars have highlighted that many of the challenges are typical of the difficulties associated with the liabilities of foreignness (e.g. lack of local information, unfamiliarity with local culture) and newness (e.g. establishing internal management systems, international relationships), if the new countries are dissimilar to the home country (Li, 2007). However, internationalization gives the opportunity to gain additional knowledge and experience, which in turn lead to competitive advantages in the form of quick adaptation to the consumer preferences and an ability to innovate and maintain high-quality products (Harrison et al., 2000). The major contribution of this study was to show how MO and marketing capabilities, as distinctive competencies, support a firm’s activities in foreign markets. In the forest sector context, the findings worthy of noting were the positive influence of a firm’s overall MO on its marketing capabilities and their positive relationship with the firm’s internationalization process. Capabilities in transformation and learning (as developed from market oriented behaviors) facilitate the process of turning information about foreign markets into an appropriate market response. Every empirical research has certain limitations that restrict the generalizability of the findings. In this case, it is possible that if the study were to be conducted in other regions and countries in the world, the magnitude

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 96

22/08/2018 10:08



Internationalized SMEs ­97

and direction of the relationship in the model might be different. The degree of economic development may account for distinct SME behavior. This study was conducted within the Finnish forest sector, so the results could be different for other sectors. The low degree of internationalization of the firms in current data is also a restricting factor. Although the study has provided strong evidence in support for the model, the relatively small number of respondents represents another potential concern. However, the sample is fairly representative of the population and there was no evidence of non-response bias. Moreover, given the confirmatory nature of the study, the sample can be considered sufficient. Future research could examine the interplay of MO and marketing capability in the internationalization process of firms operating in other sectors. Based on in-depth interviews with British exporters, Diamantopoulos and Cadogan (1996) revealed that there are different patterns of export MO, determined largely by organizational and environmental influences. It could be argued that the environment and the sector have some kind of effect on implementation of market oriented behaviors. Globalization has changed the markets since Diamantopoulos and Cadogan’s research, so the patterns of MO in the international context could be further researched. Furthermore, it would be interesting to find out what role MO and marketing capability play in firms that are born global, in contrast to firms where internationalization is a sequential, learning process. Recent studies of SMEs’ internationalization have highlighted the concept of global mindset (GM) (e.g. Felicio et al., 2012). The analytical capacity resulting from GM facilitates flexibility and adaptation to the local environment and at the same time sensitivity to the context (Huang and Kung, 2011). GM could be the prerequisite for MO. This may be the next step of any future study; are GM and MO interrelated?

BIBLIOGRAPHY Acs, Z., L.P. Dana and M. Jones (2003), ‘Toward new horizons: The internationalization of entrepreneurship’, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1 (1), 5–12. Armario, J., D. Ruiz, and E. Armario (2008), ‘Market orientation and internationalization in small and medium sized enterprises’, Journal of Small Business Management, 46 (4), 485–511. Bard, U. (2007), ‘The role of market orientation and learning orientation in enhancing small firm business performance’, University of Vaasa, Acta Wasaensia 171. Barney, J. (1995), ‘Looking inside for competitive advantage’, The Academy of Management Executive, 9 (4), 49–61. Byrne, B. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 2nd edn, New York: Routledge.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 97

22/08/2018 10:08

98

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Cano, C., F. Carrillat and F. Jaramillo (2004), ‘A meta-analysis of the relationship between market orientation and business performance: Evidence from five continents’, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 179–200. Cavusgil, S.T. (1980), ‘On the internationalization process of firms’, European Research, 8 (6), 273–354. Cavusgil, E., S. Seggie and M.B. Talay (2007), ‘Dynamic capabilities view: Foundations and research agenda’, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 15 (2), 159–66. Chapman, C. and L.-A. Khin (2009), ‘Information system integration, enabling control and performance’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34 (2), 151–69. Chetty, S. and C. Campbell-Hunt (2003), ‘Paths to internationalisation among small-to medium-sized firms: A global versus regional approach’, European Journal of Marketing, 37, 796–820. Coeurderoy, R., M. Cowling, G. Licht and G. Murray, (2011), ‘Young firm internationalization and survival: Empirical tests on a panel of “adolescent” new technology-based firms in Germany and the UK’, International Small Business Journal, 30 (5), 472–92 (first published online, 8 March). Coley, L., J. Mentzer and M. Cooper (2010), ‘Is “consumer orientation” a dimension of market orientation in consumer markets?’, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 18 (2), 141–54. Coviello, N. and A. McAuley, (1999), ‘Internationalisation and the smaller firm: A review of contemporary empirical research’, Management International Review, 39 (3), 223–56. Day, G. (1994), ‘The capabilities of market-driven organizations’, Journal of Marketing, 58 (4), 37–52. Day, G. (2011), ‘Closing the marketing capabilities gap’, Journal of Marketing, 75 (July 2011), 183–95. Dhanaraj, C. and P.W. Beamish (2003), ‘A resource-based approach to the study of export performance’, Journal of Small Business Management, 41 (3), 242–61. Diamantopoulos, A. and J. Cadogan (1996), ‘Internationalizing the market orientation construct: An in-depth interview approach’, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 4 (1), 23–52 (first published online, 28 July 2006). Ekeledo, I. and K. Sivakumar (2004), ‘International market entry mode strategies of manufacturing firms and service firms: A resource-based perspective’, International Marketing Review, 21, 68–101. Farrell, M. and E. Oczkowski (1997), ‘An analysis of the MKTOR and MARKOR measures of market orientation: An Austrian perspective’, Market Bulletin, 8, 30–40. Felicio, J.A., V.R. Caldeirinha and R. Rodriques, (2012), ‘Global mindset and the internationalization of small firms: The importance of the characteristics of entrepreneurs’, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8 (4), 467–85. Foley, A. and J. Fahy (2009), ‘Seeing market orientation through a capabilities lens’, European Journal of Marketing, 43 (1/2), 13–20. Freeman, S. and S.T. Cavusgil (2007), ‘Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm’, Journal of International Business Studies, 35 (3), 124–41. George, G., J. Wiklund and S. Zahra (2005), ‘Ownership and internationalization of small firms’, Journal of Management, 31 (2), 210–33. González-Benito, O., J. González-Benito and P. Muñoz-Gallego (2014), ‘On the

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 98

22/08/2018 10:08



Internationalized SMEs ­99

consequences of market orientation across varied environmental dynamism and competitive intensity levels’, Journal of Small Business Management, 52 (1), 1–21. Govindarajan, V. and J. Fisher (1990), ‘Strategy, control systems and resource sharing: Effects on business-unit performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 33 (2), 259–85. Hamel, G. and K.G. Prahalad (1990), ‘The core competence of the corporation’, Harvard Business Review, 68 (3), 79–91. Harris, L. (1999), ‘Barriers to developing market orientation’, Journal of Applied Management Studies, 8 (1), 85–101. Harrison, A.L., E. Dalkiran and E. Elsey (2000), International Business: Global Competition from a European Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heino, P. (2011), ‘Puurakentamisen osaaminen ja osaajat: kansallinen kartoitus’ [‘Knowledge and expertise in wood construction: national inventory’], Forestry Foresight Unit (University of Eastern Finland and Joensuun Tiedepuisto Oy, accessed 14 April 2016 at www.metsaennakointi.fi/tietoa/julkaisut.html. Higon, D. and N. Driffield (2011), ‘Exporting and innovation performance: Analysis of the annual Small Business Survey in the UK’, International Small Business Journal, 29 (1), 4–24. Homburg, C. and C. Pflesser (2000), ‘A multiple-layer model of marketing-oriented organizational culture: Measurement issues and performance outcomes’, Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (4), 449–62. Hooley, G., J. Fahy, T. Cox, J. Bercas, K. Fonfara and B. Snoj (1999), ‘Marketing capabilities and firm performance: A hierarchical model’, Journal of Marketing Focused Management, 4 (3), 259–78. Huang, C.-L. and F.H. Kung (2011), ‘Environmental consciousness and intellectual capital management: Evidence from Taiwan’s manufacturing industry’, Management Decision, 49 (9), 1405–25. Hult, G.T.M., D.J. Ketchen and S.F. Slater, (2005), ‘Market orientation and performance: An integration of disparate approaches’, Strategic Management Journal, 26 (12), 1173–81. Hunt, S., and J. Lambe (2000), ‘Marketing’s contribution to business strategy: Market orientation, relationship marketing and resourced-advantage theory’, International Journal of Management Review, 2 (1), 17–43. Hunt, S. and R. Morgan (1995), ‘The comparative advantage theory of competition’, Journal of Marketing, 59 (October), 1–15. Hurley, R. and T. Hult (1998), ‘Innovation, market orientation and organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination’, Journal of Marketing, 62 (July), 42–54. Hurmekoski, E., R. Jonsson and T. Nord (2015), ‘Context, drivers and future potential for frame multi-story construction in Europe’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 99, 181–96. Ireland, R., M. Hitt and D. Simon (2003), ‘A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions’, Journal of Management, 29 (6), 963–89. Jain, R., C. Jain and P. Jain (2013), ‘Integrated framework of antecedents and effects of market orientation. A qualitative review’, Management and Labour Studies, 38 (4), 425–45. Jaworski, B. and A. Kohli (1993), ‘Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences’, Journal of Marketing, 57 (3), 53–70. Joensuu, S., A. Viljamaa, M. Katajavirta, S. Kettunen and A.-M. Mäkelä (2015),

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 99

22/08/2018 10:08

100

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

‘Markkinaorientaatio ja markkinointikyvykkyys eteläpohjalaisissa kasvuyrityksissä’, Seinäjoen ammattikorkeakoulu, accessed 17 April 2018 at https:// theseus.fi/handle/10024/97182. Johanson, J. and E. Vahlne (1990), ‘The mechanism of internationalization’, International Marketing Review, 7 (4), 11–24. Johanson, J. and J.-E. Vahlne (1997), ‘The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments’, Journal of International Studies, 8 (1), 23–32. Johanson, J. and J.-E. Vahlne (2009), ‘The Uppsala internationalization process model revised: From liability of foreigness to liability of outsidership’, Journal of International Business Studies, 49, 1411–31. Kettunen, L. (2013), ‘MSO:n selvitys “Puutuotealan kasvun ja kansainvälistymisen esteet ja ratkaisut”’, Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö: Metsäalan strateginen ohjelma, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment 26/2013. Kirca, A., S. Jayachandran and W. Bearden (2005), ‘Market orientation: A metaanalytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance’, Journal of Marketing, 69 (2), 24–41. Knight, G. (2000), ‘Entrepreneurship and marketing strategy: The SME under globalization’, Journal of International Marketing, 8 (2), 12–32. Knight, G. and S.T. Cavusgil (1996), ‘The born global firm: A challenge to traditional internationalization theory’, in S.T. Cavusgil and T.K. Madsen (eds), Export Internationalizing Research-Enrichment and Challenges, Advances in International Marketing, New York: JAI Press, pp. 11–26. Knight, G.A. and S. Cavusgil (2004), ‘Innovation, organizational capabilities and the born-global firm’, Journal of International Business Studies, 35 (3), 124–41. Kohli, A. and B. Jaworski (1990), ‘Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications’, Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 1–18. Kohli, A., B. Jaworski, and A. Kumar (1993), ‘MARKOR: A measure of market orientation’, Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (4), 467–77. Li, L. (2007), ‘Multinationality and performance: A synthetic review and research agenda’, International Journal of Management Review, 9 (2), 117–39. Li, L., D. Li and T. Dalgic (2004), ‘Internationalization process of small and medium-sized enterprises: Toward a hybrid model of experiential learning and planning’, Management International Review, 44 (1), 93–117. Liao, S.-H., W. Chang, C. Wu and J. Katrichis (2011), ‘A survey of market orientation research (1995–2008)’, Industrial Marketing Management, 40 (2), 301–10. Loukasmäki, P. (2015), ‘Wood industry’, Ministry of Employment and the Economy 4/2015. Matsuno, K., J. Mentzer, and A. Özsomer (2002), ‘The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and market orientation on business performance’, Journal of Marketing, 66 (3), 18–32. Maydeu-Olivares, A. and N. Lado (2003), ‘Market orientation and business economic performance. A mediated model’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14 (3), 284–309. Merrilees, B., S. Rundle-Thiele and A. Lye (2011), ‘Marketing capabilities: Antecedents and implications for B2B SME performance’, Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 368–75. Moen, O. and P. Servais (2002), ‘Born global or gradual global? Examining the export behavior of small and medium-sized enterprises’, Journal of International Marketing, 10 (3), 49–72.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 100

22/08/2018 10:08



Internationalized SMEs ­101

Morgan N., D. Vorhies and C. Mason (2009), ‘Market orientation, market capabilities, and firm performance’, Strategic Management Journal, 30 (8), 909–20. Morgan, T., S. Anokhin, A. Kretinin and J. Frishammar (2015), ‘The dark side of the entrepreneurial orientation and market orientation interplay: A new product development perspective’, International Small Business Journal, 33 (7), 731–51. Mtigwe, B. (2005), ‘The entrepreneurial firm internationalization process in the Southern African context: A comparative approach’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 11, 358–77. Narver, J. and S. Slater (1990), ‘The effect of a market orientation on business profitability’, Journal of Marketing, 54 (October), 20–35. Pelham, A. (1997), ‘Mediating influences on the relationship between market orientation and profitability in small industrial firms’, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 5, 55–77. Pelham, A. (2000), ‘Market orientation and other potential influences on performance in small and medium-sized manufacturing firms’, Journal of Small Business Management, 38 (1), 48–67. Reijonen, H. and R. Komppula (2010), ‘The adoption of market orientation in SMEs: Required capabilities and relation to success’, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18 (1), 19–37. Ruzzier, M., R.D. Hisrich and B. Antonic (2006), ‘SME internationalization research: Past, present and future’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13 (4), 476–97. Shin, S. and K. Aiken (2012), ‘The mediating role of marketing capability: Evidence from Korean companies’, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24 (4), 658–77. Slater, S. and J. Narver (1994), ‘Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation–performance relationship?’, Journal of Marketing, 58, 46–55. Slater, S. and J. Narver (1998), ‘Customer-led and market-oriented: Let’s not confuse the two’, Strategic Marketing Journal, 19, 1001–6. Sousa, C.M.P., F.J. Martinez-Lopez and F. Coelho (2008), ‘The determinants of export performance: A review of the research in the literature between 1998 and 2005’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 10 (4), 343–74. Spillan, J., A. Kara, D. King and M. McGinnis (2013), ‘Market orientation and firm performance: An empirical analysis of Ghanaian microenterprises’, Journal of Global Marketing, 26 (5), 257–72. Srivastava, R., L. Fahey and H.K. Christensen (2001), ‘The resource-based view and marketing: The role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage’, Journal of Management, 27, 777–802. Valtioneuvoston viestintäosasto (2016), ‘Hallitus päivitti yrittäjyyttä ja työllisyyttä koskevia kärkihankkeitaan’, Bulletin 155, accessed 8 August 2016 at http://­valtioneuvosto.fi/artikkeli/-/asset_publisher/hallitus-paivitti-yrittajyyttaja-tyollisyytta-koskevia-karkihankkeitaan?_101_INSTANCE_3wyslLo1Z0ni_ groupId=10616. Verhoef, P., P. Leeflang, J. Reiner, M. Natter, W. Barker, A. Grinstein, A. Gustafsson, P. Morrison and J. Saunders (2011), ‘Cross-national investigation into the marketing department’s influence within the firm: Toward initial empirical generalizations’, Journal of International Marketing, 19 (3), 59–86. Vorhies, D. and M. Harker (2000), ‘The capabilities and performance advantages

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 101

22/08/2018 10:08

102

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

of market-driven firms: An empirical investigation’, Australian Journal of Management, 25 (2), 145–71. Vorhies, D., L. Orr and V. Bush (2011), ‘Improving customer-focused marketing capabilities and firm financial performance via marketing exploration and exploitation’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (5), 736–56. Wilden, R. and S. Gudergan (2015), ‘The impact of dynamic capabilities on operational marketing and technological capabilities: Investigating the role of environmental turbulence’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 181–99. Wright, M., P. Westhead and D. Ucbasaran (2007), ‘Internationalization of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and international entrepreneurship: A critique and policy implications’, Regional Studies, 41 (7), 1013–30. Zhou, K.Z., J.J. Li, N. Zhou and C. Su (2008), ‘Market orientation, job satisfaction, product quality and firm performance: Evidence from China’, Strategic Management Journal, 29 (9), 985–1000.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 102

22/08/2018 10:08

7. Systematising higher education: a typology of entrepreneurship education Torgeir Aadland and Lise Aaboen 1. INTRODUCTION Entrepreneurship education has expanded from a business school offering to other disciplines (e.g. Ohland et al., 2004; Faherty, 2015), and new ways of teaching have been developed featuring new methods and overarching ideas of what entrepreneurship education should be (Vesper and Gartner, 1997; Katz, 2003; Neck and Greene, 2011; Fayolle, 2013). Universities offer cross-disciplinary activities, co-curricular activities and students’ clubs for entrepreneurship, with business plan competitions, internships, grants and venture creation activities (Morris et al., 2014; Levie, 2014). Activities found in entrepreneurship education span from case solving, simulations, games and simple semester-only student enterprises to internships, consultant businesses and new technology-based venture creation. All of these educations feature different designs and methods, and all have different curricula and focuses. Although some have the same objective – to create new ventures or entrepreneurial graduates – the means used to reach the ends vary extensively. Thus, comparisons between different entrepreneurship programmes and courses, and prior research are difficult. Despite the large range of offerings that exist, the current entrepreneurship education literature tends to only distinguish between three different educational classifications – education ‘about’, ‘for’ and ‘through’ (or ‘in’ or ‘embedded’) entrepreneurship (Hannon, 2005; Pittaway and Cope, 2007b; Robinson et al., 2016). Pittaway and Cope (2007b) differentiate between the classes: ‘about’ focuses on traditional approaches to teaching entrepreneurship, where the students should obtain knowledge about entrepreneurship. The techniques could take the form of lectures, discussions and case studies as examples. The ‘for’ design is intended to teach the students skills that are necessary for entrepreneurs, preparing them for entrepreneurial careers. The last design, ‘through’, teaches the students 103

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 103

22/08/2018 10:08

104

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

through actual entrepreneurship, using learning through practice as its basic approach. However, if we examine the different meanings in this classification of entrepreneurship education, we see that it has a combination of objective and activities combined. ‘About’ and ‘for’ could be connected to the objective in a course, while ‘through’ could be connected to the activities. In addition, the focus is more on the teacher’s activities rather than student-centred. Thus, this classification is coarse, somewhat unclear and gives little detail about specific programmes or courses. An example is the difference between an internship and a venture creation programme. The former might aim to create future entrepreneurs (Nitu-Antonie et al., 2014), whilst the latter aims to create new ventures in which the students continue to work after graduating (Lackéus and Williams Middleton, 2015), producing entrepreneurs in the educational pathway. Both could be classified as education ‘through’ entrepreneurship, but evaluating and comparing these might produce results that are difficult to interpret. Another question remains regarding whether entrepreneurship education can actually be divided into these three groups and whether entrepreneurship education should fit into only one of these. Previous literature has struggled to assess entrepreneurship education, prompting several calls for a more systematised classification (Pittaway and Cope, 2007a; Fayolle and Gailly, 2008; Haase and Lautenschläger, 2011). The objective of the present work is to construct a typology (Smith, 2002) that allows for a more fine-grained systematisation of entrepreneurship education. Haase and Lautenschläger (2012) developed a multidimensional typology for entrepreneurship education. Although elegant, it does not provide the simplicity needed for assessing entrepreneurship education and classification for cumulative research. In other words, the classification needs to be more fine-grained, focused and studentcentred than the ‘about’, ‘for’ and ‘through’ model whilst concurrently simplifying the reality enough. This study therefore contributes to the entrepreneurship literature in three ways. First, it creates a framework for entrepreneurship education, enabling scholars to better compare and evaluate the different entrepreneurship programmes and courses. Second, it presents entrepreneurship education in theory, identifying different ways to teach entrepreneurship. Third, it enables cumulative research in the field of entrepreneurship education because it allows scholars to pinpoint their contributions. From a long-term perspective, it improves the entrepreneurship education field in both theory and practice and counteracts the current fragmentation and lack of theory in the field (see Fayolle, 2013; Fiet, 2001). The next section describes how we conducted the systematic literature review of the field. The following section presents an overview of the results

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 104

22/08/2018 10:08



Systematising higher education ­105

of the literature review of entrepreneurship education. The programmes and courses identified in the literature review are further analysed in section four, while we construct a new typology of entrepreneurship education and then demonstrate the use of this in section five. The final section discusses the research limitations and presents our conclusions.

2. METHOD FOR THE SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW We performed a structured literature review in order to identify the different approaches and methods used in entrepreneurship education. The literature review consisted of a structured literature search in ISI Web of Science; we sought articles or reviews focusing on entrepreneurship education in higher education. Research on entrepreneurship education has different foci, and since research on programmes, schools and courses were all of interest, we included combinations of different terms and definitions in the search. The words connected to the context were Entrepre* Educat*, Entrepre* Program*, Entrepre* School* and Entrepre* Course*. We also included the words Undergrad*, Bachelo*, Master*, High* Edu*, Universit* and Stude*. The terms and their combinations were limited to titles, abstracts and keywords, and we included articles with ‘entrepre* educat*’ in the title. This initial search resulted in over 300 articles. We limited the article language to English and selected the database’s research areas: Business Economics, Education Educational Research, Engineering, Public Administration, Social Sciences Other Topics, Operations Research, Management Science and Psychology; this narrowed the total pool of articles to 279. In our first article scan, we focused on the abstracts. We read each article’s abstract and excluded those without a focus on education, those focusing on lower educational levels, those exploring co-curricular activities or those focusing on executive education. Based on the abstract screening, we selected 132 articles to read fully; however, of the 132 articles identified, we were unable to obtain the full text version of ten. Thus, we read 122 articles in full. We constructed a protocol that included all 122 articles. In a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, we took notes on each article in columns based on the country where the studied entrepreneurship education was located, the method that was used in the paper, the type of entrepreneurship education (mainly, the programme or course) that was studied and the level of entrepreneurship education (mainly, undergraduate or graduate). We also added other comments such as ‘part of engineering education’ or short summaries of the main points of the article. The document was 34 pages long and provided an overview of all the articles.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 105

22/08/2018 10:08

106

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Out of the 122 articles we read, 41 contained descriptive information about 42 programmes or combinations of courses. Among the articles that did not provide a description of a programme or combination of courses, entrepreneurial intention was the most common theme under investigation. Most of the other articles focused on specific elements in the entrepreneurship education, such as learning from failure, learning via apps, learning to generate business ideas, entrepreneurial skills, psychological ownership and social capital among the students as well as analyses of the curriculum. Some of the articles described entrepreneurial campuses, contextual differences, mapping entrepreneurship education in certain countries or students’ interest in entrepreneurship education. We further analysed the 41 articles describing entrepreneurship educations in a second Excel document. We used Fayolle and Gailly’s (2008) teaching model framework to compare the different programmes and courses we had identified. This education-level framework evaluates an entrepreneurship education programme or course using five questions: ‘why’, ‘for whom’, ‘for which results’, ‘what’ and ‘how’. The answers to these questions are, respectively, the entrepreneurship education’s objectives or goals, its target or audience, the evaluations and assessments it uses, which contents and theories it applies and the methods and pedagogies used in the entrepreneurship education. We also added ‘where’ to help set the context of the education whenever this information was available. We then answered all of the questions in Fayolle and Gailly’s (2008) framework for all 42 entrepreneurship educations, identifying the different choices that each programme made at the didactical level. When investigating the questions across programmes, we identified the ‘how’ question as being the most important in distinguishing one programme from the others. Therefore, the answers given across educations in the ‘how’ column formed the starting point for constructing the new typology. We tested the typology using descriptions of programmes and courses in conference papers from the European Council for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (ECSB) Entrepreneurship Education Conference in order to ensure that it was also useful for programmes that had not been part of the analysis leading to the construction of the typology. We are aware that the articles include a potentially skewed selection of described entrepreneurship educations – they are commonly educations at the universities of the authors of the reviewed papers. If the people involved in the entrepreneurship programmes or courses are simultaneously researchers in entrepreneurship education, there is a chance that they will make more informed decisions when constructing their own programmes; therefore, these programmes might not be representative of entrepreneurship education in general. Another danger of describing

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 106

22/08/2018 10:08



Systematising higher education ­107

entrepreneurship programmes or courses in the researchers’ own universities is that they may have incentives to describe these entrepreneurship educations favourably. Therefore, the typology should also be applied to empirical data from other entrepreneurship education programmes.

3. TRENDS IN THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION LITERATURE When examining the articles from our systematic search, we identified three potential reasons for the fragmentation in the field. First, the field of entrepreneurship education is relatively young. The 122 articles that we reviewed ranged from the early 1990s until 2016 when we did our search. The majority of the articles were written after 2010, which also confirms that entrepreneurship education is a growing field of research. Second, the majority of the studies were conducted simultaneously in a wide range of countries such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Croatia, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iran, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Romania, Scotland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, the UK and the USA. Third, these countries provide very different contextual conditions for entrepreneurship education, as entrepreneurship educations have developed along different paths into what they are today. To illustrate this point, we use the examples of the USA and Spain. Entrepreneurship education began early in the USA (Katz, 2003). After the Bayh–Dole Act, there were efforts to improve American entrepreneurship education, such as the founding of the Kern Entrepreneurship Education Network (KEEN), which focuses on fostering an entrepreneurial mindset and streamlining the education across universities (see Oswald Beiler, 2015). In contrast, in Spain, the main motivation for entrepreneurship education was to encourage students to become entrepreneurs, or at least to become self-employed, in order to improve the national unemployment rates (Díaz-García et al., 2015). Our literature review confirms the need for scholars to describe what kind of entrepreneurship education they are studying in order to facilitate comparisons. Very few articles actually provide a thorough description of the course or programme under study. Even though we found 41 articles with enough data about particular courses and programmes to enable further analysis, there were only a few articles that primarily focused on the description or the initiation of the programme (e.g. Phan, 2014; Harmeling and Sarasvathy, 2013; Pardede and Lyons, 2012; Stone et al., 2005). This lack of description could be due to three tendencies that we identified in our literature review. The first tendency is to map a certain

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 107

22/08/2018 10:08

108

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

aspect of entrepreneurship education in a country, such as the teaching practices used by entrepreneurship lecturers in Finland (Seikkula-Leino et al., 2015), the extent to which entrepreneurship is taught in universities in Tanzania (Fulgence, 2015) or the entrepreneurship education programme descriptions on the websites of Australian universities (Maritz et al., 2015). A second tendency is to describe entrepreneurship education elements as part of other educations or as a sub-area of research focusing on the interface between entrepreneurship and other areas. For example, there are articles that describe entrepreneurship education as part of engineering (e.g. Yemini and Haddad, 2010; Täks et al., 2016; Oswald Beiler, 2015; da Silva et al., 2015; Zappe et al., 2013; Souitaris et al., 2007) and articles that only focus on social entrepreneurship education. Social entrepreneurship education was even the focus of a special issue of the Academy of Management Learning and Education in 2012; this is reflected in our collection of articles (e.g. Howorth et al., 2012; Mirabella and Young, 2012; Kickul et al., 2012; Smith and Woodworth, 2012). The third and most common tendency is to conduct studies that evaluate programmes or courses. These papers focus on the effects, results and outcomes of the programmes rather than on the programmes themselves, and many of the evaluations involve a pre- and post-test design in order to measure a change in the students. However, in terms of cumulative research, these articles use different methods and approaches when conducting their evaluations, making comparisons across studies difficult. The measured change is based on theories of planned behaviour (e.g. Karimi et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2015; Fretschner and Weber, 2013; Souitaris et al., 2007), action regulation theory (e.g. Gielnik et al., 2015), regulatory focus theory (e.g. Piperopoulos and Dimov, 2015), the Durham University general entrepreneurship test combined with a test to determine brain side dominance (e.g. Kirby and Ibrahim, 2011) or competences identified through the Delphi method (e.g. Morris et al., 2013). Some articles are interested in the long-term change in the students; therefore, they distribute questionnaires before, directly after and six months after the course (e.g. Díaz-García et al., 2015). Others want to capture the change process as it unfolds and collect daily reflections from the students (e.g. Lans et al., 2013). Another example of this is the work by Robinson et al. (2016), who used an ethnographic design and included different approaches to learning in their theoretical foundation: behavioural, social learning, situated learning and existential learning. It is rare to include the results that the students achieve in the course, such as grades on practical assignments (e.g. Swart, 2014), assessments of the business plans they created (e.g. Chang and Lee, 2013) or evaluations of the business opportunities they developed (e.g. Munoz et al., 2011). It is even more unusual to let the students contribute

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 108

22/08/2018 10:08



Systematising higher education ­109

to the evaluation conducted as part of the study by, for instance, letting them fill out a student evaluation on educational quality in entrepreneurship (e.g. del-Palacio et al., 2008) or asking about their satisfaction with the course (e.g. Okudan and Rzasa, 2006). Thus, as previous research has also found, we find the literature fragmented, as there is less focus on thorough descriptions of the entrepreneurship educations explored in the research.

4.  TOWARD A TYPOLOGY The 41 articles that describe the entrepreneurship programmes or courses investigated confirm that entrepreneurship education contains endless variations of designs and systems; we chose to analyse this subgroup of articles further. To create and develop a new typology, we answered Fayolle and Gailly’s (2008) call (among others) and used their framework as a basis for the development of the new systematisation. Their framework does not offer a means of differentiation on an overarching level when it comes to programmes or courses (which is not its intention); however, Fayolle and Gailly (2008: 586) state that their work could be used as a ‘theoretical ground for further taxonomies of entrepreneurship education programs’. The framework contains the questions ‘why’, ‘for whom’, ‘for which results’, ‘what’ and ‘how’. Table 7.1 lists the groups of the identified offerings among the 42 described entrepreneurship educations in the literature review and illustrates the differences between them. Since the literature review revealed two different objectives responding to ‘why’, we created two overarching groups of educations – those focusing on the micro-level objectives and those focusing on the macro-level objectives, either alone or in combination with micro-level objectives. The micro level focused on the students’ development of skills, mindset, experience and awareness. The macro level focused on the creation of new ventures, development of an industry or region, increasing self-employment or an entrepreneurial career among graduates and developing established firms. Further, we organised the educations based on which audience they focused on by responding to ‘for whom’, creating four new subgroups: business students, engineering students, other groups of students (e.g. publishing students) and educations for all students. Hence, we identified eight groups in total to analyse. Further, the eight ‘indicators for impact assessment’ (Mwasalwiba, 2010: 34) were the basis for the question ‘for which results’. The nine ‘most common subjects taught in entrepreneurship programs’ (Mwasalwiba, 2010: 29) were the basis for the ‘what’ question. Lastly, ‘teaching methods’ (Mwasalwiba, 2010: 31) were used as a basis to investigate ‘how’ to teach entrepreneurship. Based on our findings in the reviewed articles, we added

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 109

22/08/2018 10:08

110

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 110

22/08/2018 10:08

Business

Micro

All

Other

Engineers

For whom?

Why?

Resources marshalling and  finance; marketing and salesmanship; idea generation and opportunity discovery; business planning; organisation and team building; new venture creation Resources marshalling and  finance; idea generation

Resources marshalling and  finance; idea generation and opportunity discovery; organisation and team building; new venture creation; SME management Resources marshalling and  finance; marketing and salesmanship; idea generation and opportunity discovery; business planning; organisation and team building; SME management

What?

Mentors; lectures; internships Feedback from faculty;

Assignments; lectures;  presentations; study visit; business plan creation Venture creation (pre-set  duration)

Assignments; lectures;  guest lectures; simulations (business simulations, games, role plays) Discussions; lectures; cases;  teamwork/group work; study visit

Phan (2014)

Lectures; cases; teamwork/  group work; study visit Lectures; venture creation  (pre-set duration)

Stone et al.  (2005)

Oosterbeek et al.  (2010)

Karimi et al.  (2016)

Oswald Beiler  (2015)

Antonaci et al.  (2015)

Neck and  Greene (2011)

Article example

Activities

How?

Table 7.1  Comparison of articles on entrepreneurship education from literature review

Levie (2014); Collins  et al. (2006);

Al-Atabi and  Deboer (2014); Ohland et al. (2004); Radharamanan and Juang (2012); Pardede and Lyons (2012); Hamilton et al. (2005) Nielsen and Stovang  (2015)

Kirby and Ibrahim  (2011)

Other articles in group

111

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 111

22/08/2018 10:08

Macro

Organisation and team building;  new venture creation; SME management

Resources marshalling and  finance; idea generation and opportunity discovery; organisation and team building; SME management; risk and rationality

SME management

Resources marshalling and  finance; marketing and salesmanship; idea generation and opportunity discovery; business planning; organisation and team building; SME management

Business

Engineers

Other

All

Assignments; teamwork/  group work; internships; peer-learning Feedback from faculty;  mentors; internships Mentors; lectures; venture  creation (no pre-set duration)

Assignments; cases; readings;  study visit Assignments; teamwork/  group work; venture creation (pre-set duration); reflections Lectures; cases; venture  creation (pre-set duration)

Business plan creation

 assignments; cases;  and opportunity discovery; teamwork/group work; business planning; guest lectures organisation and team building; new venture creation; SME management

Premand et al.  (2016) Lackéus and  Williams Middleton (2015)

Yemini and  Haddad (2010) Faherty (2015)

Fayolle and  Gailly (2015) McMullan and  Gillin (1998) Täks et al. (2016)

Lans et al.  (2013)

Hills (1988); Sánchez  (2011); Klofsten et al. (2010)

Nichols and  Armstrong (2003)

(2011); Harkema and Schout (2008); Díaz-García et al. (2015); Morris et al. (2013)

  Munoz et al.

112

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

internships, peer-learning, reflections and feedback from faculty and mentors to the list and split real venture creation into two groups: pre-set duration and no pre-set duration. Finally, we split discussion and group work into two groups instead of one group. We identified some important findings from our analysis of the different educations, illustrated in Table 7.1. Regarding the question ‘for which results’, it was clear that most of the educations focused on the students’ academic results. Even though a few of the educations in the articles focused on awareness, interest, intentions and attitudes in entrepreneurship, they did this in combination with the students’ academic performance – thus, the question ‘for which results’ was not included in the typology. When it comes to the question ‘what’, all of the educations in the table except for two cover mostly the same contents and overlap extensively – ‘what’ was also excluded from the typology. However, when we investigated the question ‘how’, we discovered that the different examples from the literature varied not only between the different groups, but also within the different groups. Fayolle and Gailly (2008: 579) conclude that ‘[t]here appears to be no universal pedagogical recipe regarding how to teach entrepreneurship’. The other questions in the teaching model framework have some defined limitations and classifications that the ‘how’ question lacks, and since the other questions are somewhat connected to the ‘how’ question, a better understanding of this question itself is required. We also excluded the question ‘for whom’ from the typology. Even though different students start at different levels of knowledge or prior experience, our findings show that there are no clear differences between the identified groups of educations for the different students. Thus, the answer to the question ‘for whom’, is students in higher education. Regarding the objectives of entrepreneurship education, the ‘why’ question, we identified several different answers: to increase entrepreneurial intentions and contribute to regional development (Lackéus and Williams Middleton, 2015), to increase awareness and give attention to entrepreneurship as a career option (Hills, 1988), to increase entrepreneurial competencies and intentions for self-employment (Sánchez, 2011) and to increase entrepreneurial skills in industries with knowledge gaps and to prepare the students for such careers (Faherty, 2015). However, all of these objectives seek to educate students to contribute to the greater good, either through new businesses or through developing existing enterprises, where both can contribute to increased regional or national value. We argue that an increase in intentions is different from an increase in awareness, but as both courses aim to produce graduates with entrepreneurial attitudes exploited in some way to create value, we find that the ‘why’ question on an overarching level is of less interest. However, while the ‘why’ question alone

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 112

22/08/2018 10:08



Systematising higher education ­113

is of less interest, the questions ‘why’ and ‘when’ in combination are more interesting. Thus, in terms of a new typology, we do not ignore the ‘why’ question, but we rather add the element of time and ask ‘when’.

5. A TYPOLOGY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION In terms of ‘how’, we separated the learning approaches into three different classes of student involvement: passive, participative (input/output focused) and self-driving (method focused). Mwasalwiba’s (2010) conclusion that teaching models can be separated into two groups – active and traditional teaching – formed our base. Traditional teaching is about controlled learning rather than independent learning and development, where lectures, case studies and group discussions are the most common methods (Mwasalwiba, 2010). Our literature review showed that this approach is the most common. The students attend classes with lectures, discussions and case studies, and they prepare through completing readings and assignments. The assignments and work are often theoretical and analytical – the students might reproduce things from the lectures and their previous work, developing this into their own settings. Knowledge is the focus in this class rather than skills, and we label this approach ‘passive’. In the more active methods, the teacher acts as a facilitator and encourages the students to learn through role playing, games, projects and teamwork (Bennett, 2006). However, learning from active methods can vary. For example, an innovation project intended to improve a product or service could be a part of an entrepreneurship course, but the focus could be on the product output rather than on the methods used. The design of such courses might be a result of an objective to increase the attention and knowledge about entrepreneurship as well as how engineering knowledge and skills could be used in the future (e.g. Ohland et al., 2004), but not necessarily on teaching the students the skills and techniques that Neck and Green (2011) advocate in teaching entrepreneurs. Therefore, we argue that active learning in entrepreneurship could be divided into two groups. In the first group, the ‘participative’ approach, the focus is more on including the students, allowing them to participate in the different tasks and assignments and giving them opportunities to obtain new skills. This approach might include project work, real-life and theoretical case solving, prototyping and mentoring, but the activities all focus on the output or given inputs. The faculty’s goal is to receive a deliverable and an output, giving the students the right methods to achieve this output rather than letting them discover and learn the different methods themselves. In the

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 113

22/08/2018 10:08

114

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

other group, the ‘self-driving’ approach, the students are more responsible for the inputs and outputs, and the methods used are the learning itself, which gives the students the analytical and practical skills necessary to perform entrepreneurship in different situations. The methods used are a result of combinations of knowledge, experience and practice to achieve the desired outcome, which can be known prior to or discovered during the work. Examples of content in these approaches are venture creation, advanced simulation and games and implementing products or solutions in the market. However, when separating the learning activity in entrepreneurship education into passive, participative (input/output focused) and selfdriving (method focused), there are still differences in the various activities that cannot be identified in this three-type classification. One difference lies in the impact of the different educations and is connected to ‘when’. In our typology, we include educational impact and define this impact as outcome(s) from the education affecting someone or something other than the students themselves and their teachers for an indefinite lifetime (thus, not a pre-set duration). The objective for entrepreneurship education is to create some sort of value for the society, either through new ventures, educating policymakers with insights in entrepreneurship or through employers with an entrepreneurial mindset pushing for innovation in their work situations; however, when this occurs might vary. Some educations have a longer-term vision that their graduates will be change agents in terms of innovative mindsets and sometime in the future make an impact. We labelled such educations that have no intention to affect other stakeholders during their duration as ‘student-centred impact’. The second impact, the ‘contextual impact’, has, in addition to affecting the students, educational activities that intentionally seek to affect externals for an indefinite lifetime with effects occurring during the educational pathway. As an example differentiating the two impact types; some entrepreneurship educations intend student start-ups to be only a time-limited start-up (e.g. Oosterbeek et al., 2010), while others intend the start-up to become the students’ future work (Lackéus and Williams Middleton, 2015). Hence, the impact from the two different approaches differs in terms of lifetime, and the students’ approach, attitude, risk perception and intention might vary in the two educations. Another example is internships, often with given tasks, where the work performed in these businesses is intended to help the internship business for an indefinite lifetime (and would therefore qualify as extended impact). For students creating new solutions to a given problem and presenting the solutions in a report or business plan without creating a business or pursuing the work beyond the given task, the approach is a form of participative learning, but the solution’s impact is time limited. Thus, we

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 114

22/08/2018 10:08



Systematising higher education ­115

argue that there are two classes in the different learning approaches: ‘learning with student-centred impact’ and ‘learning with contextual impact’. We do not claim that one of the two approaches on the vertical axis is better than the other, and the design needs to be aligned with the education’s objective. This completes our six-class typology. The difficulty with previous classifications in entrepreneurship education is how to fit the different educations into these classes. As discussed previously, whether an education is ‘about’, ‘for’ or ‘through’ might be hard to decide, and whether entrepreneurship can be assessed as only one type is uncertain. The idea behind our new systematisation is to simplify the classification in the research and assessment of entrepreneurship education and to present a way to compare different educations. However, to put an education in one box might be as difficult as saying that entrepreneurship education is ‘about’, ‘for’ or ‘through’. Entrepreneurship education programmes often consist of several courses in combination, all with different focuses and approaches – even these courses might have different approaches during the course. This makes it difficult to classify the programmes; however, all programmes have an objective and overarching goal, and using different courses to obtain this objective might be necessary. To exemplify the use of the typology, we have identified three papers presented at the ECSB Entrepreneurship Education Conference in 2016. We sorted and inserted the typology of the three papers’ descriptions of entrepreneurship educations as illustrated in Figure 7.1, in addition to Oosterbeek et al. (2010), which has a good example of an entrepreneurship course where the students are self-driven, but also with student-centred impact. This illustration shows us how the typology can be used both for individual entrepreneurship courses as well as for entire programmes, but then with the programmes’ individual courses combined. Ramsgaard and Østergaard (2016) describe an entrepreneurship course that uses lectures, team activities and site visits in addition to internships. As internships are situations where the students participate and are given tasks or assignments that the business might benefit from for an indefinite time, we placed this education in both the participative contextual impact in addition to the passive student-centred impact groups. The latter is due to the education’s lectures, team activities and site visits. Frederiksen (2016) describes an entrepreneurship module as a part of a programme where the students are engaged in lectures or discussions as well as group work, where the latter involves activities in which the students have given inputs and need to reach an output based on these inputs. We placed this module in the traditional and participative group, where both have a student-centred impact, as this education appears to focus on the students and not affect someone or something outside the educational setting.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 115

22/08/2018 10:08

Contextual Impact

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Student-Centred Impact

Educational Outcome Impact

116

Ramsgaard and Østergaard, 2016 Hägg, 2016 Frederiksen, 2016 Passive (Traditional)

Participative (Outcome Focused)

Oosterbeek et al., 2010 Self-Driving (Method Focused)

Learning Approaches

Figure 7.1  Examples of courses or programmes inserted in the typology Hägg (2016) describes an entrepreneurship programme where the learning is focused around an actual start-up situation; here, the students’ work in this start-up is intended to lead to a viable business. In addition, Hägg (2016) describes traditional learning situations and group work where the students are working on given problems and need to use predefined inputs. Thus, this last programme is both traditional and participative in the student-centred impact classification, but it is also self-driving in the contextual impact classification, as the students work with real ventures that could affect someone or something outside the educational setting for an indefinite period.

6. CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE STUDIES The objective of the present chapter was to identify a typology that allows for a more fine-grained systematisation of entrepreneurship education. Based on a systematic literature review and further analysis of the identified programmes using Fayolle and Gailly’s (2008) framework, we

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 116

22/08/2018 10:08



Systematising higher education ­117

constructed a typology consisting of a 3 × 2 matrix. The typology separates learning approaches into passive (traditional), participative (output focus) and self-driving (method focus), with the impact from the learning outcomes separated into student-centred and contextual. Compared to the ‘about’, ‘for’ and ‘through’ framework (Hannon, 2005; Pittaway and Cope, 2007b; Robinson et al., 2016), our new typology allows for a more nuanced separation based on both the students’ learning activity and the educational impact in terms of time and external contact and influence. Compared to prior classification, which focuses on the ‘why’ and ‘how’ at the same time but also is somewhat teacher-centred, we move the focus to the students. Moreover, to contrast our typology with the ‘about’, ‘for’ and ‘through’, we see that, for instance, ‘about’ and ‘for’ could both be found in ‘passive’ and ‘participative’. Students could learn ‘about’ entrepreneurship while being in the ‘participative’ class, and learn ‘for’ entrepreneurship in the ‘passive’ class; the latter by learning finance for entrepreneurs as an example. Thus, the typology is an alternative to the prior classification. Additionally, it is also possible to use the typology both at the programme level and at the course level in order to illustrate a more detailed profile of entrepreneurship educations; hence, the typology can distinguish between variations within entrepreneurship education. The main implication from the present chapter is that peer learning and sharing experiences between entrepreneurship courses and programmes will become easier, as it will be easier to see the similarities and differences between entrepreneurship educations. Furthermore, it will be easier to conduct evaluations and assessments of entrepreneurship courses or programmes since it is now possible to ensure, for instance, that the programmes being compared are similar; it will also be possible to isolate dimensions where the programmes differ. This enables cumulative research in the growing field of entrepreneurship education. Finally, the framework can be used to create a map of the different offerings at a university, illustrating the university’s ecosystem. As mentioned in the method section, future studies should apply the new typology to empirical data from programmes that were not part of the literature review to ensure that it can also be used for programmes that are not designed by authors of entrepreneurship education literature. These studies should also develop the typology in the view of different learning theories (e.g. Robinson et al., 2016) and try to include this literature in the model. Furthermore, future studies should explore the boundaries of the entrepreneurship education concept. As presented in the introduction, universities offer co-curricular activities and students’ clubs – these initiatives may produce similar activities and include similar learning projects as the present entrepreneurship education, but they do not normally include

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 117

22/08/2018 10:08

118

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

teacher and student assessments. These elements are not explicitly mentioned in the typology. Future studies should therefore investigate whether these elements are important enough for the typology to be extended to include differences in these activities, or whether co-curricular activities should be organised in an independent typology.

REFERENCES Al-Atabi, M. and J. Deboer (2014), ‘Teaching entrepreneurship using Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)’, Technovation, 34 (4), 261–64. Antonaci A., F.M. Dagnino, M. Ott, F. Bellotti, R. Berta, A. De Gloria, E. Lavagnino, M. Romero, M. Usart and I. Mayer (2015), ‘A gamified collaborative course in entrepreneurship: Focus on objectives and tools’, Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1276–83. Bennett, R. (2006), ‘Business lecturers’ perceptions of the nature of entrepreneurship’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 12 (3), 165–88. Chang W.L. and C.Y. Lee (2013), ‘Trust as a learning facilitator that affects students’ learning performance in the Facebook community: An investigation in a business planning writing course’, Computers and Education, 62, 320–27. Chen S.-C., H.-C. Hsiao, J.-C. Chang, C.-M. Chou, C.-P. Chen and C.-H. Shen (2015), ‘Can the entrepreneurship course improve the entrepreneurial intentions of students?’, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11 (3), 557–69. Collins, L.A., A.J. Smith and P.D. Hannon (2006), ‘Applying a synergistic learning approach in entrepreneurship education’, Management Learning, 37 (3), 335–54. da Silva, G.B., H.G. Costa and M.D. de Barros (2015), ‘Entrepreneurship in engineering education: A literature review’, International Journal of Engineering Education, 31 (6), 1701–10. del-Palacio, I., F. Sole and J.M. Batista-Foguet (2008), ‘University entrepreneurship centres as service businesses’, The Service Industries Journal, 28 (7), 939–51. Díaz-García, C., F. Sáez-Martínez and J. Jiménez-Moreno (2015), ‘Assessing the impact of the “Entrepreneurs” education programme on participants’ entrepreneurial intentions’, Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 12 (3), 17–31. Faherty, A. (2015), ‘Developing enterprise skills through peer-assessed pitch presentations’, Education + Training, 57 (3), 290–305. Fayolle, A. (2013), ‘Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 25 (7–8), 692–701. Fayolle, A. and B. Gailly (2008), ‘From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 32 (7), 569–93. Fayolle, A. and B. Gailly (2015), ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence’, Journal of Small Business Management, 53 (1), 75–93. Fiet, J.O. (2001), ‘The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (1), 1–24. Frederiksen, S.H. (2016), ‘The promise of process. Learning through enterprise in

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 118

22/08/2018 10:08



Systematising higher education ­119

higher education’, paper presented at the ECSB Entrepreneurship Education Conference, Leeds University, 12–13 May. Fretschner, M. and S. Weber (2013), ‘Measuring and understanding the effects of entrepreneurial awareness education’, Journal of Small Business Management, 51 (3), 410–28. Fulgence, K. (2015), ‘Assessing the status of entrepreneurship education courses in higher learning institutions’, Education + Training, 57 (2), 239–58. Gielnik M.M., M. Frese, A. Kahara-Kawuki et al. (2015), ‘Action and actionregulation in entrepreneurship: Evaluating a student training for promoting entrepreneurship’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 14 (1), 69–94. Haase, H. and A. Lautenschläger (2011), ‘The “teachability dilemma” of entrepreneurship’, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7 (2), 145–62. Haase, H. and A. Lautenschläger (2012), ‘The ATMO-Matrix: A typology for entrepreneurship education at universities’, paper presented at the Annual interdisciplinary conference for Entrepreneurship Research, University of Potsdam, 8–9 November. Hägg, G. (2016), ‘Learning from and through each other: A study of peer learning in experiential entrepreneurship education’, paper presented at the ECSB Entrepreneurship Education Conference, Leeds University, 12–13 May. Hamilton, C., G.P. Crawford and E.M. Suuberg (2005), ‘A technology-based entrepreneurship course’, International Journal of Engineering Education, 21 (2), 1–18. Hannon, P.D. (2005), ‘Philosophies of enterprise and entrepreneurship education and challenges for higher education in the UK’, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 6 (2), 105–14. Harkema, S.J.M. and H. Schout (2008), ‘Incorporating student-centred learning in innovation and entrepreneurship education’, European Journal of Education, 43 (4), 513–26. Harmeling, S.S. and S.D. Sarasvathy (2013), ‘When contingency is a resource: Educating entrepreneurs in the Balkans, the Bronx, and beyond’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37 (4), 713–44. Hills, G.E. (1988), ‘Variations in university entrepreneurship education: An empirical study of an evolving field’, Journal of Business Venturing, 3 (2), 109–22. Howorth, C., S.M. Smith and C. Parkinson (2012), ‘Social learning and social entrepreneurship education’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11 (3), 371–89. Karimi, S., H.J.A. Biemans, T. Lans, M. Chizari and M. Mulder (2016), ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education: A study of Iranian students’ entrepreneurial intentions and opportunity identification’, Journal of Small Business Management, 54 (1), 187–209. Katz, J.A. (2003), ‘The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (2), 283–300. Kickul, J., C. Janssen-Selvadurai and M.D. Griffiths (2012), ‘A blended value framework for educating the next cadre of social entrepreneurs’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11 (3), 479–93. Kirby, D.A. and N. Ibrahim (2011), ‘Entrepreneurship education and the creation of an enterprise culture: Provisional results from an experiment in Egypt’, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7 (2), 181–93.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 119

22/08/2018 10:08

120

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Klofsten, M., P. Heydebreck and D. Jones-Evans (2010), ‘Transferring good practice beyond organizational borders: Lessons from transferring an entrepreneurship programme’, Regional Studies, 44 (6), 791–9. Lackéus, M. and K. Williams Middleton (2015), ‘Venture creation programs: Bridging entrepreneurship education and technology transfer’, Education + Training, 57 (1), 48. Lans, T., K. Oganisjana, M. Täks and V. Popov (2013), ‘Learning for entrepreneurship in heterogeneous groups: Experiences from an international, interdisciplinary higher education student programme’, Trames, 17 (4), 383–99. Levie, J. (2014), ‘The university is the classroom: Teaching and learning technology commercialization at a technological university’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 39 (5), 793–808. Maritz, A., C. Jones and C. Shwetzer (2015), ‘The status of entrepreneurship education in Australian universities’, Education + Training, 57 (8/9), 1020–35. McMullan, W.E. and L.M. Gillin (1998), ‘Industrial viewpoint: Entrepreneurship education’, Technovation, 18 (4), 275–86. Mirabella, R. and D.R. Young (2012), ‘The development of education for social entrepreneurship and nonprofit management: Diverging or converging paths?’, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23 (1), 43–57. Morris, M.H., J.W. Webb, J. Fu and S. Singhal (2013), ‘A competency-based perspective on entrepreneurship education: Conceptual and empirical insights’, Journal of Small Business Management, 51 (3), 352–69. Morris, N.M., D.F. Kuratko and C.G. Pryor (2014), ‘Building blocks for the development of university-wide entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 4 (1), 45–68. Munoz, C.A., S. Mosey and M. Binks (2011), ‘Developing opportunity identification capabilities in the classroom: Visual evidence’, Academy of – ­ Management Learning and Education, 10 (2), 277–95. Mwasalwiba, E.S. (2010), ‘Entrepreneurship education: A review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators’, Education + Training, 52 (1), 20–47. Neck, H.M. and P.G. Greene (2011), ‘Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers’, Journal of Small Business Management, 49 (1), 55–70. Nichols, S.P. and N.E. Armstrong (2003), ‘Engineering entrepreneurship: Does entrepreneurship have a role in engineering education?’, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, 45 (1), 134–8. Nielsen, S.L. and P. Stovang (2015), ‘DesUni: University entrepreneurship education through design thinking’, Education + Training, 57 (8/9), 977–91. Nitu-Antonie, R.D., N. Sirghi, C.D. Hategan, E.-S. Feder and O.R. Socoliuc (2014), ‘Education – Vector of entrepreneurship development’, Transformations in Business and Economics, 13 (3C), 348–69. Ohland, M.W., S.A. Frillman, G. Zhang, C.E. Brawner and T.K. Miller III (2004), ‘The effect of an entrepreneurship program on GPA and retention’, Journal of Engineering Education, 93 (4), 293–301. Okudan, G.E. and S.E. Rzasa (2006), ‘A project-based approach to entrepreneurial leadership education’, Technovation, 26 (2), 195–210. Oosterbeek, H., M. van Praag and A. Ijsselstein (2010), ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation’, European Economic Review, 54 (3), 442–54. Oswald Beiler, M.R. (2015), ‘Integrating innovation and entrepreneurship

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 120

22/08/2018 10:08



Systematising higher education ­121

­ rinciples into the civil engineering curriculum’, Journal of Professional Issues in p Engineering Education and Practice, 141 (3). Pardede, E. and J. Lyons (2012), ‘Redesigning the assessment of an entrepreneurship course in an information technology degree program: Embedding assessment for learning practices’, IEEE Transactions on Education, 55 (4), 566–72. Phan, P.H. (2014), ‘The business of translation: The Johns Hopkins University discovery to market program’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 39 (5), 809–17. Piperopoulos, P. and D. Dimov (2015), ‘Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions’, Journal of Small Business Management, 53 (4), 970–85. Pittaway, L. and J. Cope (2007a), ‘Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence’, International Small Business Journal, 25 (5), 479–510. Pittaway, L. and J. Cope (2007b), ‘Simulating entrepreneurial learning: Integrating experiential and collaborative approaches to learning’, Management Learning, 38 (2), 211–33. Premand, P., S. Brodmann, R. Almeida, R. Grun and M. Barouni (2016), ‘Entrepreneurship education and entry into self-employment among university graduates’, World Development, 77, 311–27. Radharamanan, R. and J.-N. Juang (2012), ‘Innovation and entrepreneurship in engineering education at MUSE’, Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 35 (1), 25–36. Ramsgaard, M.B. and S.J. Østergaard (2016), ‘An entrepreneurial approach to assessment of internships’, paper presented at the ECSB Entrepreneurship Education Conference, Leeds University, 12–13 May. Robinson, S., H. Neergaard, L. Tanggaard and N.F. Krueger (2016), ‘New horizons in entrepreneurship education: From teacher-led to student-centered learning’, Education + Training, 58 (7/8), 661–83. Sánchez, J.C. (2011), ‘University training for entrepreneurial competencies: Its impact on intention of venture creation’, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7 (2), 239–54. Seikkula-Leino, J., T. Satuvuori, E. Ruskovaara and H. Hannula (2015), ‘How do Finnish teacher educators implement entrepreneurship education?’, Education + Training, 57 (4), 392–404. Smith, I.H. and W.P. Woodworth (2012), ‘Developing social entrepreneurs and social innovators: A social identity and self-efficacy approach’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11 (3), 390–407. Smith, K.B. (2002), ‘Typologies, taxonomies, and the benefits of policy classification’, Policy Studies Journal, 30 (3), 379–95. Souitaris, V., S. Zerbinati and A. Al-Laham (2007), ‘Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources’, Journal of Business Venturing, 22 (4), 566–91. Stone, D., M.B. Raber, S. Sorby and M. Plichta (2005), ‘The Enterprise Program at Michigan Technological University’, International Journal of Engineering Education, 21 (2), 212–21. Swart, A.J. (2014), ‘Using problem-based learning to stimulate entrepreneurial awareness among senior African undergraduate students’, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10 (2), 125–34. Täks, M., P. Tynjälä and H. Kukemelk (2016), ‘Engineering students’ conceptions

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 121

22/08/2018 10:08

122

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

of entrepreneurial learning as part of their education’, European Journal of Engineering Education, 41 (1), 53–69. Vesper, K.H. and W.B. Gartner (1997), ‘Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education’, Journal of Business Venturing, 12 (5), 403–21. Yemini, M. and J. Haddad (2010), ‘Engineer–Entrepreneur: Combining technical knowledge with entrepreneurship education – The Israeli case study’, International Journal of Engineering Education, 26 (5), 1220–29. Zappe, S., K. Hochstedt, E. Kisenwether and A. Shartrand (2013), ‘Teaching to innovate: Beliefs and perceptions of instructors who teach entrepreneurship to engineering students’, International Journal of Engineering Education, 29 (1), 45–62.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 122

22/08/2018 10:08

8. Entrepreneurship in teacher education: conceptualisation and tensions Karin Axelsson and Mats Westerberg INTRODUCTION Ever since the 1980s, entrepreneurship education has had two main approaches – the traditional focusing on business area skills and the modern focusing on developing enterprising skills for any context (Hoppe et al., 2017). Gibb (1987) was one of the first scholars to try to make sense of the development that was highly driven by policy in Europe and manifested by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1989 (Ball, 1989). In short, entrepreneurship education should not only be about learning to start and operate a firm, but should also be implemented broadly in the education system so that everybody can learn to behave in an enterprising (or entrepreneurial) way in order to thrive in a more complex and uncertain future society. Twenty years later, the Swedish government launched a ‘Strategy for Entrepreneurship in Education’ (Government Offices of Sweden, 2009) based on three principal ideas: that self-employment should be as natural as being an employee, that pupils of all ages should practise entrepreneurial skills, and that entrepreneurship education should run like a common thread throughout the educational system. Following this strategy, changes in the national curricula were implemented, including this new phenomenon of entrepreneurship. This course of action implies that present active teachers should accept, learn about and work with entrepreneurship in their teaching. But this is not an entirely simple task. Research shows that the inclusion of entrepreneurship is an ongoing development where the concept is, mainly due to confounding the two approaches mentioned above, struggling with terminology, language and content as well as legitimacy (Axelsson et al., 2018; Komulainen et al., 2011; Korhonen et al., 2012; Leffler, 2009, 2014). In addition, these active teachers who are responsible for teaching 123

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 123

22/08/2018 10:08

124

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

entrepreneurship do not, in most cases, have any formal education or practical experience of entrepreneurship (Fayolle, 2013; Seikkula-Leino et al., 2015). For the future progress of entrepreneurship in the education system, this also calls for a focus on teacher students attending teacher education. However, until recently teacher education programmes in Sweden did not include any general module about entrepreneurship or enterprise education (Leffler and Svedberg, 2013), despite the fact that it has now been part of the national curriculum for more than five years and several government-backed programmes aimed at promoting entrepreneurial universities (where entrepreneurial teaching is a central aspect) have been initiated. Nevertheless, there are now some initiatives where the aim is to introduce entrepreneurship broadly into the programmes. The overall aim of this chapter is to shed light on one of these early attempts to introduce entrepreneurship into teacher education programmes in Sweden. The purpose of this study is to contribute knowledge about how entrepreneurship is introduced into teacher education programmes at the university level, helping both researchers and practitioners to understand its conceptualisation. Specifically we will answer the following research question: How is entrepreneurship conceptualised in teacher education programmes? This is realised by using and building on Fayolle and Gailly’s (2008) theoretical teaching model framework. As Fayolle (2013) points out, we still lack knowledge on key educational and didactical issues, suggesting a need to deepen the knowledge of what we are actually talking about and doing when teaching or training entrepreneurship. This chapter’s approach thus addresses the neglected area of studying the non-business context of teachers and teacher education in entrepreneurship education research.

LITERATURE REVIEW The interest in entrepreneurship education has grown immensely during the last decade (Neck and Greene, 2011). As pointed out by Hjorth and Steyaert (2004) and Berglund et al. (2012), this taste for knowledge, skills and actions of entrepreneurship has recently spread and is being considered necessary in every aspect of society. This suggests a need for entrepreneurial individuals capable of thinking, acting and making decisions in a wide range of situations and contexts (Hannon, 2013). Sarasvathy and Venkataraman (2011) suggest that the usage of the entrepreneurship concept is even broader – as a general method for human development. Overall, these thoughts sit well with politics and governmental needs in a global competitive market economy of citizens contributing to both economic prosperity and solutions to future societal

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 124

22/08/2018 10:08



Entrepreneurship in teacher education ­125

challenges. The development has complemented the most common view of entrepreneurship, originally anchored in business (Landström et al., 2012), relating to company, value creation and growth (Gibb, 2002) with a view to entrepreneurship becoming a more visible function in society for everyone. On the other hand, this development challenges the already fragmented research field of entrepreneurship with disparate images of what it is and what it is for (Jones et al., 2011). Regardless of how entrepreneurship is conceptualised, the ideal phase to start work with attitudes and knowledge about entrepreneurship is childhood and young adulthood (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003; Johannisson, 2010), and in order to reach a vast number of people, schools and universities are appropriate settings. Accordingly, as supported by research from Kuratko (2005), Johansen and Schanke (2013) and Klapper and Refai (2015), governments worldwide seek to stimulate entrepreneurship through numerous educational initiatives within different educational levels. There has been extensive research in entrepreneurship education at the university level (Gorman et al., 1997), mainly focusing on business or engineering programmes (Pittaway and Edwards, 2012). However, as West et al. (2009) suggest, entrepreneurship should not be used exclusively within the business faculties, but should instead be perceived as a mindset or exploring process that anyone could learn, and therefore has a place across the university. Teacher education is perhaps especially fruitful for entrepreneurship education activities as teacher students not only learn for themselves, but spend their working life teaching pupils in the general education system from preschool to upper secondary school. In consequence, this drives a need to address theoretical insights from research targeting entrepreneurship and enterprising education at different levels of education. As previously stated, within entrepreneurship education two main approaches are present – the traditional focusing on business area skills and the modern focusing on developing enterprising skills for any context (Hoppe et al., 2017). They both build on an entrepreneurship base; however, when being researched – depending on the approach – each emphasises and draws upon knowledge from disparate theoretical domains, that is, entrepreneurship and education. Traditional entrepreneurship education is more narrow and linked to entrepreneurship’s origin in business (Landström et al., 2012) focusing on how to plan, start or make a business venture grow and the skills useful in this business context (Jones and Iredale, 2010; Komulainen et al., 2011). Here, skills such as risk management (Kuratko, 2005) or opportunity recognition (Timmons et al., 1987) are important. The other approach is that adopted by Jones and Iredale (2010) and labelled as ‘enterprising education’, and by Komulainen et al.,

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 125

22/08/2018 10:08

126

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

(2011) specified as ‘internal entrepreneurship’. This approach is broader, often linked to educational settings and approaches to teaching and learning. Correspondingly, the focused entrepreneurial skills are related to personal development and learning strategies for a life-long learning, targeting a large variety of contexts. Skills to practice include flexibility, initiative, creativity and independent action combined with cooperative skills and courage. Similarly, the discussion of entrepreneurial learning within these approaches addresses different aspects. As related to the more narrow business definition, there are researchers such as Cope and Watts (2000) and Rae (2005) focusing on entrepreneurial learning in relation to entrepreneurs and how they learn in their small and medium-sized businesses. Within the broader approach researchers such as Otterborg (2011) and Falk Lundqvist et al. (2014) would rather discuss entrepreneurial learning in relation to educational settings; discussing this as pedagogical and didactical content and methods related to pupils from preschool to upper secondary school level. Depending on the purpose of the entrepreneurship education, there are different classifications flourishing. Gibb (1999) and Hytti and O’Gorman (2004) discuss the aim as learning to understand entrepreneurship, to become entrepreneurial or become an entrepreneur. Traditionally, this has also been discussed in terms of about, in and for entrepreneurship (Henry et al., 2005; Jamieson, 1984). Some exchange ‘in’ with ‘through’ with interpretations as either related to practising business (Johansen and Schanke, 2013) or as pedagogical methods (Kyrö, 2008). There is research analysing the content and structures of entrepreneurship education programmes (e.g. Hytti and O’Gorman, 2004; Pittaway and Edwards, 2012); however, there is no uniformity on what to focus on (O’Connor, 2013). Mwasalwiba’s (2010) literature review shows that the most commonly used methods in entrepreneurship education are lectures, case studies and group discussions. Further, Pittaway and Edwards (2012) show that within business and management schools an overwhelming majority still mainly focus on more traditional methods and content linked to learning ‘about’. But progressive teaching methods, inspired from Dewey (1916), are increasing. Pepin (2012), for instance, argues that Dewey’s thoughts on planning and taking action by testing, while continuously and simultaneously reflecting lay the groundwork for students learning how to be enterprising. A recent example on progressive methods at the university level is a study from Tiernan (2016) where BSc students in education are using active, interactive, experiential learning to learn entrepreneurship. Research on how to practise social capabilities or generic skills and

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 126

22/08/2018 10:08



Entrepreneurship in teacher education ­127

mechanisms by which these can be developed are rare (Dweck, 2012; Tynjälä et al., 2016). But in relation to this, a current study by Svensson et al. (2017) discusses what they refer to as holistic personal development. Here they make an attempt to link teaching and learning to entrepreneurial education by using the notion of holistic education. They propose a framework consisting of three teaching modes – the transmissive (traditional teaching techniques), the transactional (action oriented, problem-solving in an authentic environment) and transformative (students finding purpose and identity, connecting to themselves, others and the world) – arguing all three modes are necessary to attain and understand holistic personal development. The inclusion of entrepreneurship in preschool, compulsory school and upper secondary school contexts is ongoing, with current tensions regarding terminology, language, content and legitimacy (Axelsson et al., 2018; Falk Lundqvist et al., 2014; Komulainen et al., 2011; Korhonen et al., 2012; Leffler, 2014). The above studies indicate that entrepreneurship as business still meets resistance among teachers at these different educational levels and is being reformed in practice into the above described broader enterprising or internal learning approach. However, even if understanding entrepreneurship in the broader approach seems to provide openings to work with entrepreneurship education in teacher education, recent research from higher education shows entrepreneurship also in this context is a controversial concept, and when included in the higher education institutions’ (HEIs) curricula it is more on paper than in reality (SeikkulaLeino et al., 2012). Therefore, enthusiastic individuals tend to have more impact on the focus rather than strategic decisions made by the universities (Leffler and Svedberg, 2013). A reason why entrepreneurship education at the university level is struggling can be related to the fact that most teachers at all educational levels lack formal education or practical experience of entrepreneurship (Fayolle, 2013; Seikkula-Leino et al., 2015). Recent research based on insights from compulsory school and teacher education training (Haara et al., 2016) and basic to upper secondary education (Ruskovaara and Pihkala, 2015) has shown that teachers with supplementary training in entrepreneurship increase its inclusion in their teaching. The teachers’ attitudes and interest are important since they affect classroom content and how the curriculum is being implemented (Korhonen et al., 2012; Sharma and Andersson, 2007). Hence, for the future progress of entrepreneurship, those in teacher education programmes should also be affected by these changes. Thus, as stated by Haara et al. (2016) teacher education students ought to encounter the entrepreneurship perspective and be allowed to interpret, experiment with and reflect on such an approach to teaching and learning.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 127

22/08/2018 10:08

128

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Yet the scientific literature seems to lack descriptions of how to integrate entrepreneurship education into non-business school curricula (Mäkimurto-Koivumaa and Belt, 2015). Some novel work focusing on entrepreneurship in teacher education is provided by Seikkula-Leino et al. (2015) who study how Finnish teacher educators implement entrepreneurship in their context, and how it pervades their teaching in general. Their findings show that even though teachers don’t necessarily support the objectives of entrepreneurship education, they actively use methods of, for example, experiential learning and problem-based learning, and encourage students to be self-directed and take responsibility – which can be perceived as being in line with entrepreneurship education. Another novel work is that of Tiernan (2016), who instead studies a specific compulsory entrepreneurship course in Ireland. The results indicate that the module made students broaden their perception of entrepreneurship, through the practical nature of the experience-based assessment, saying they understood what it feels like to be enterprising and feel encouraged to incorporate this in their classroom. When studying entrepreneurship education in a teacher education context, Fayolle and Gailly’s (2008) teaching model framework seems appropriate as it is largely inspired by educational science (Figure 8.1). They discuss it mainly from two levels: the ontological and the educational levels. The ontological level concerns two dimensions, that is, firstly, a definition and recognition of what entrepreneurship is (and is not) as a teaching field, proposing that each entrepreneurship education programme must build on a clear conception of this. Thus, educators must select among different perceptions of entrepreneurship education and stick to their choice when designing the education. The second dimension concerns defining education in the field of entrepreneurship, which leads to a proposal that the educators need to clarify their philosophical positions and expectations about teaching as well as the role of the students and teachers. Turning to the educational level, this relates to the design and structure of the educational programme. Fayolle and Gailly suggest this design is affected and guided by five interrelated questions, following a specific order: why (objectives and goals), for whom (targets and audiences), for which results (evaluations, assessments), what (content and theories), and lastly how (methods and pedagogies). This framework is used to discuss three broad, different kinds of entrepreneurship education programmes: teaching individuals through a learning process to become an enterprising individual, a future entrepreneur or an academic (as in a teacher or researcher).

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 128

22/08/2018 10:08



Entrepreneurship in teacher education ­129 ONTOLOGICAL LEVEL What does entrepreneurship education mean? What does education mean in the context of entrepreneurship? What are the respective roles of educator and participants?

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL For whom? Audiences Targets

What?

Contents

Why?

Objectives

How?

Methods Pedagogies

For which results? Evaluations Assessments

Figure 8.1 Teaching model framework for entrepreneurship education (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008)

METHODOLOGY In Sweden more than 20 HEIs offer teacher education. In a survey by Leffler and Svedberg (2013), it is clear that most of them neither had, nor had plans for, activities linked to entrepreneurship education. Today, not very much more has happened. However, one Swedish HEI has started to develop entrepreneurship modules in their teacher education programmes. As indicated by the literature review, our starting point is that entrepreneurship education activities in this setting need to be underpinned by thoughts on theoretical concepts and practices from both entrepreneurship and learning theories. Therefore Fayolle and Gailly’s (2008) entrepreneurship teaching model framework serves as an analytic lens to help provide the necessary understanding in relation to our pedagogical and didactical questions.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 129

22/08/2018 10:08

130

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Table 8.1  The research material Research material Interviews with teachers who held the course Focus group interviews with participating students Classroom observations Written inquiries I with participating students (before the course  started) Written inquiries II with participating students (at the end of the  course)

No. 2 2 6 33 30

The teacher education programme in focus is located at a university in mid Sweden educating future elementary and secondary teachers. Within the programme there is a novel attempt to include entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial learning within the education. This is a consequence of the changes imposed by the government affecting teacher education. In 2009, the Swedish government launched a strategy for entrepreneurship in the field of education (Government Offices of Sweden, 2009). This had a further impact on the new and/or revised national curricula introduced in 2010 and 2011 (The Swedish National Agency for Education, 2010, 2011, 2013). In line with this, entrepreneurship education is supposed to be part of all K–12 education. Accordingly, students attending teacher education programmes today are affected by this as they will be the teachers who in the future will implement the strategy and curricula. The research was conducted in a compulsory course within the programme, which included the elements of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial learning. Table 8.1 summarises the research material. The empirical material was collected between April and June 2016. There were 54 students assigned to the course, divided into two groups. The study included six classroom observations, three occasions with each group. This made it possible to experience and reflect upon the actual learning situation. During the first lesson the students filled in written inquiries about their perception and previous knowledge about entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial learning. During the last session the students filled in inquiries where they reflected upon and assessed the lessons, such as the content, their own learning in relation to themselves as well as to the learning outcomes for the course. The handing in of the written inquiries was voluntary; 33 students handed in their answers from the first written inquiry and 30 students from the second. The study also included two semi-structured interviews with the two teachers who held the course. This qualitative inquiry helped to clarify and

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 130

22/08/2018 10:08



Entrepreneurship in teacher education ­131

understand certain aspects of entrepreneurship in this context, focusing on discussing the concepts of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial learning as well as on questions related to Fayolle and Gailly’s (2008) teaching model framework for entrepreneurship education, at both the ontological and the educational levels. Further, influenced by the thoughts of Merton et al. (1990), two focus group interviews with participating teacher education programme students were carried out, where the role of the moderator was to get the participants to interact and discuss particular matters with one another as much as possible (Kitzinger, 1994). The focus group interview addressed their beliefs, views and attitudes on entrepreneurship and learning, but also what they perceived were their main learning outcomes of this course. All interviews lasted between 60 and 80 minutes and were transcribed. Aspects of Fayolle and Gailly’s model (2008) were taken into consideration both when forming the written inquiries and the semi-structured interview template as well as underpinning the discussion in the focus group interviews, in particular the questions related to the educational level. By choosing these interrelated methods we had the opportunity to study both the initial ambitions of what entrepreneurship education in a teacher education programme was planned to be, that is, what, why, how, for whom and for which results, but also what it developed into in practice and how the participating students assessed the education. The collected material has been translated by the authors, and quotations are sometimes carefully edited to enhance readability. Fayolle and Gailly’s (2008) teaching model framework for entrepreneurship education was the main tool for analysis, attempting to form a more comprehensive picture and understanding of the entrepreneurship education’s conceptualisation, design and learning outcomes. Guided by the research question the analysis began with multiple readings of transcriptions from interviews, notes from observations, and the written inquiries to gain an overview and comprehensive picture. Then the empirical material was analysed through a search for the questions included in Fayolle and Gailly’s (2008) model, searching for similarities and differences. Inspired by qualitative content analysis (Silverman, 2010), the written inquiries were analysed both regarding the text per se but also included an interpretation which was linked to the observations, since the questions in the inquiry also were discussed in the classroom. However, when scrutinising the empirical material we also looked for different contextual tensions affecting both the ontological level and the educational level. Considerable effort has been devoted to these tensions, investigating how the teachers have approached them as well as possible explanations for this ­development. In some cases the students’ perceptions and thoughts are used to help illustrate and contrast the discussion.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 131

22/08/2018 10:08

132

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Due to the fact that this chapter mainly discusses entrepreneurship education among students and their teachers at the university, but also since the knowledge and skills these students attain will be used within their future as active teachers, we make a distinction between the use of the words student and pupil. When referring to pupils in this chapter we mean children and young people attending preschool, primary and secondary school. When attending university they are referred to as students.

FINDINGS The Course from the University Teachers’ Perspective From the teachers’ point of view, the course’s raison d’être can be linked to learning and social objectives at both the micro and macro level. At the macro level, it is clear that the economic aspect of entrepreneurship, as well as the political expectations of future entrepreneurial citizens, and the need for entrepreneurial skills in many parts of society, builds up the credibility and relevance of entrepreneurship in teacher education. The most prominent legitimising argument, however, is its inclusion in the national strategy and curricula. At the individual level, the objectives seem twofold, although with different weights. A minor focus lies on giving the teacher students an insight into basic entrepreneurship and commercial entrepreneurs. The focal point, however, is on challenging and changing the attitudes and mindset of the students, aiming at personal development and enhancing interest in entrepreneurial behaviour and skills. One of the university teachers described this as: It is to work more creatively, and in different ways, to push my students to become more driven, to attain a more, well, dynamic mindset [. . .]. And I want my students in this case to find their strengths. What am I good at and in what way will I teach.

Based on the above quote, it seems clear for whom the entrepreneurship education is created, that is, students in teacher education. However, at the same time the education and teaching situations are continuously discussed and emphasise the links to the students’ future work as educators. As one of the teachers expressed it, the focus is to: [. . .] think about how they [the students] in their turn can develop different non-cognitive skills among their pupils.

The course seems to tackle learning outcomes at three different levels: the individual, the course level and the teacher education programme level.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 132

22/08/2018 10:08



Entrepreneurship in teacher education ­133

Following the main objective stated by the teachers (entrepreneurship in the broader perspective), the first learning outcome concerns the students’ personal development. What this means is, however, not defined. This is obvious from the interviews, where one of the university teachers expressed more of a wish that this will be significant for the students: I hope and believe this has strengthened some of them. And we have got comments [. . .]. ‘I was going to drop out, but now I want to continue.’ And from the evaluation I see that many write that ‘I want to work like this in the future’ [. . .]. Then of course there are those who will not care at all.

Moreover, the learning outcomes in relation to personal development are not stated in the course study guide. Actually, not even the concepts of entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial learning are mentioned. Instead the teachers justify the inclusion based on two broader goals at the course level: children’s or adolescents’ development and learning. The teachers themselves indicated that this caused a clarity problem, but they still felt they could work the way they wanted. The entrepreneurial elements are assessed through a task which the students perform during their workbased training. They must plan and carry out an entrepreneurial element with pupils, which they then show and/or present to their fellow students and discuss the successful and less successful aspects. The elements are further assessed and graded at the end of the course in the form of an academic report, in which they address, among other things, the entrepreneurial learning aspects. As noted above, the teachers focus on the broader perspective of entrepreneurship, using the term entrepreneurial learning or approach. The theoretical references to traditional entrepreneurship theory are few, and the university teachers instead of using entrepreneurship theories would rather try to link it to similar concepts and theoretical references from education literature. As one of the participating teachers said: Entrepreneurship is to me the narrow picture of us simply educating students to possibly start and run a business and [. . .] the broader perspective, as in entrepreneurial learning, is perhaps more how I approach it, from education.

The pedagogy builds on a high level of activity and participation from the students, including bringing interactive and practical methods to the classroom rather than lecturing or reading and discussing entrepreneurship research. Exercising entrepreneurial skills (such as courage, initiative, tolerance for ambiguity and collaboration) and engaging in enterprising activities are central. The lessons are thus arranged to let the students be active, practical and reflective. There are exercises designated to let the

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 133

22/08/2018 10:08

134

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

students try new things, develop new ideas and expand their mindset, individually and in collaboration. One teacher expressed a risk that students later on only remember that it was fun. The teachers felt that some students are reluctant to engage in this, expecting more traditional teaching: They do not get the answers immediately, instead they have to think and reflect before I give the answer. And there are some [students] sometimes who find this difficult and state that ‘Hey, are you not supposed to tell me what the answer is?’ [. . .]. They have not yet understood that one can develop an interest and curiosity by letting [people] think for themselves first . . . [a]nd take off from their knowledge base.

In the classroom the teachers try to create a varied and creative atmosphere, both spatial and in content. ‘Mini-lectures’ are mixed with both simpler and playful props, new technology was used (for example, short movies and YouTube clips), and creative exercises. A core idea is that the students themselves are to find their own entrepreneurial approach instead of being fed with solutions or methods. However, there is an embedded challenge: Sometimes we discuss how we work. There is a minor danger in that. [On one occasion], university teacher X had given them an example [of] an entrepreneurial method [. . .] a team map where you sit in groups and draw attention to each individual’s strengths. I think 10 of the students then later [when they were to choose an entrepreneurial method themselves], used the team map. And then I feel, that this is not what we aim for. So there’s a danger in giving too obvious examples.

The Course from the University Students’ Perspective The students started the course with a substantial majority acknowledging the relevance of business entrepreneurship in school. Of the 33 students, 24 were positive and 5 partially positive to the inclusion of entrepreneurship. Their motive for this was mainly their future pupils’ needs to become creative, innovative, driven and problem-solving. Several students pointed out the societal and economic need for creative entrepreneurs creating companies, and the need for innovative employees. Moreover, 25 of the 33 students perceived entrepreneurship as positively charged, 6 considered the concept both positive and negative, and 2 found it negatively charged. From the focus group interviews with students a duality was more explicit. During the conversations some of the students showed a somewhat more sceptical view of entrepreneurship in a business sense. And one student even claimed entrepreneurship has no relation to business at all:

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 134

22/08/2018 10:08



Entrepreneurship in teacher education ­135 To me, there are no economic connotations to [being] an entrepreneur and apply[ing] entrepreneurial learning.

However, in the same conversation one of the other students instead persistently advocated the importance of business, maintaining that the market economy, whether we like it or not, forces us to be productive to receive economic freedom. During the course in entrepreneurship more students became aware of the broader definition of entrepreneurship and the concept of entrepreneurial learning, and seemed to adapt more towards favouring this perception: I was totally uninterested in starting a business. When we talk about entrepreneurial learning it is a completely different thing, then it is creativity and innovation and these good concepts that you feel that ‘Wow, this is something I would like to feel and help my pupils feel’, but which I never got when I was in high school.

The students in the focus group interviews discussed the training sessions and the content. They stated that they had understood that the education was both practical and theoretical but emphasised the practical. Their descriptions of the design and focus of the lessons were similar to those of the teachers. The students were not certain of the theoretical links in relation to entrepreneurship. Some, though, could see the relations to the educational philosophers Dewey and Vygotsky. They described the lessons as interesting, inspiring, positive and playful. Overall, the students’ perceptions about learning outcomes in relation to the course were vague. The focus group interview students talked a little bit about the connections to the curriculum, about goals to teach their future pupils to become creative and innovative and open to changes. They further perceived they had gained new ideas on how to use entrepreneurial learning in their future work. There were statements that it has helped them to think outside the box, exercise cooperation and understand the need for flexibility. They described that they have increased their understanding about entrepreneurship education, especially that it can have a broader meaning in education. One student said: I will definitely focus my education on foster entrepreneurs, but I myself will also take this to heart and think more entrepreneurially in my teaching and won’t be so afraid to try new things.

Many also referred to it as fun and positive; however, some students perceived that the fun and play took over and noted that the entrepreneurship education was ‘more entertaining than educating’. Thus, not all

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 135

22/08/2018 10:08

136

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

the students were happy about how the modules were structured. Some expressed a desire to get more time, traditional lectures and clear directions on what to study and what they needed to do to pass the exam. Others explained that they had an anxiety towards working this way in their profession, since they were afraid of making their future pupils fail (and thus themselves as teachers). This fear is closely attached to the question of grades. They wanted to be convinced that if they worked entrepreneurially with the pupils, they (also) will pass their future exams. Or, as expressed by one student: I have not explicitly learnt ‘this is how you work, to make pupils learn [in this new way] to get a good grade’.

Even so, the students felt this will affect their work as future teachers; in the written evaluation 25 of 30 students wrote that they will use what they have learnt. The reasons for this are primarily to help the pupils develop creativity and cooperation skills. Working entrepreneurially will help them offer a varied, flexible, entertaining, creative learning situation. One student wrote: I want to spur my [future] pupils to believe in themselves and their capacity. To dare to try, be curious and ask questions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In this section we will first generally discuss the results using Fayolle and Gailly’s (2008) teaching model framework to structure around the why, for whom, what, how and for which results. After this we will discuss three important tensions in depth. But to comment first on the ontological level, the university teachers felt that entrepreneurship education in this context should align with the broader approach to entrepreneurship as described by Jones and Iredale (2010) and Komulainen et al. (2011). Education in entrepreneurship is mainly about embedding aspects of entrepreneurship, such as some of the suggested entrepreneurial skills, for example, being creative, bold, active, networking, into the pedagogic learning environment. The education thus favours a focus on personal development and learning ‘through’ entrepreneurship while relating it to pedagogical methods in line with Kyrö (2008), rather than ‘about’, or ‘for’ entrepreneurship (Henry et al., 2005; Jamieson, 1984). All in all, this makes sense as the teacher’s goal of learning through entrepreneurship is not becoming an entrepreneur, but to

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 136

22/08/2018 10:08



Entrepreneurship in teacher education ­137

become more entrepreneurial. The university teachers’ ambition is to form a situation where they and their students are co-creators of knowledge in contrast to a traditional learning situation where the teacher is perceived as an expert knowing it all and delivering the answers. Instead the education is about attaining an entrepreneurial approach, through students’ personal development. In the university teachers’ perception, the reason for entrepreneurship education in teacher education programmes – that is, the why dimension in Fayolle and Gailly’s (2008) model – are both linked to an underlying economic motive from politics and to give the students basic knowledge about entrepreneurship as well as the above mentioned entrepreneurial mindset. The primary target group, that is, for whom the entrepreneurship education is designed, is the students attending the course, but here there are also some nested challenges which we will turn to shortly. For which results the entrepreneurship education aims at are uncertain and unclear, due to weak links to and invisible stated learning outcomes in both the policy documents and study guide. Even if the university teachers’ goal is that their students achieve an entrepreneurial approach, this is not visible in the formal documents or assessments. These instead steer mainly towards traditional teaching and assessments. For instance, according to the study guide the students will learn to identify and report (for concepts and theories), analyse and value (how to utilise children’s and adolescents’ knowledge), define and develop (a critical approach to IT as a didactic tool) and show skills in academic writing and good oral presentation. The what dimension is affected by the university teachers’ ontological perspectives and their desire to work with their students’ personal development and entrepreneurial mindset. Further, they favour theoretical references from education over entrepreneurship references and use educational research and practice as the entrance ticket to entrepreneurship. They focus on what they refer to as entrepreneurial learning within the broader approach to entrepreneurship, which according to researchers such as Otterborg (2011) and Falk Lundkvist et al. (2014) is related to pedagogical and didactical issues and on developing entrepreneurial skills, for example, developing self-confidence, courage, creativity, flexibility, communication and cooperative capabilities. Discussing the pedagogy, how the entrepreneurship education is being taught, from the empirical material it is clear that the teachers would rather emphasise progressive teaching methods. The content and teaching methods though do not sit well with the above presented assessments procedures or grading, which is a cause for confusion among the students. Also, some of the progressive methods meet resistance among some of the students since they claim to prefer traditional lectures, and see the current approach as ‘more entertaining than educating’.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 137

22/08/2018 10:08

138

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

From observations of the lessons the education could be said to be based on ‘learning by doing’ and ‘learning by showing’. Inspired by proponents of progressive teaching, such as Dewey (1916), the education is practical and experimental, which aligns with suggestions from Haara et al. (2016) that teacher education students should be allowed to interpret, experiment and reflect on entrepreneurship in relation to education. Further, the project that the university students perform within the course has similarities with, and in a way provides, empirical findings in relation to Tiernan’s (2016) and Pepin’s (2012) work. In both these studies, the suggested necessary themes for students learning how to be enterprising included planning, action and continuous reflection. These themes also constitute major parts of the course element ‘project work’ in our study, which is further considered as both an appreciated and useful element by the students. The lectures, however, are few and short, and the classes are set up to be playful, active and alternating. Thus, although group discussions also take place, which Mwasalwiba (2010) suggests are one of the most common features in entrepreneurship education, another very common method in entrepreneurship education, lectures, are non-existent in our studied context. The focus of the teacher education programme on progressive teaching methods and teaching ‘through’ entrepreneurship in this instance indicates a disparity vis-à-vis the engineering and business schools, where according to research from Pittaway and Edwards (2012) the traditional teaching methods and the focus on ‘about’ are still massive. When analysing the empirical material different possible tensions became visible related to some of the questions and dimensions of Fayolle and Gailly’s (2008) model. These tensions are presented and discussed below in relation to the empirical findings under three subsections: vague formal goals nurture guerrilla tactics, dual target groups, and don’t mention the B-word. Vague Formal Goals Nurture Guerrilla Tactics This tension concerns the why dimension, that is, the objectives and goals of the entrepreneurship education. The charge lies in what is formulated in formal documents as against what happens in practice. Within the studied teacher education, entrepreneurship is somewhat seen as a square peg in a round hole, meeting resistance in the same way as found in research at the university level by Seikkula-Leino et al. (2015). Thus, there are also challenges here with legitimacy, language and content, as previously found at other educational levels (Axelsson et al., 2018; Komulainen et al., 2011; Korhonen et al., 2012; Leffler, 2009, 2014). It is in the teacher’s power to include or exclude this new concept. The

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 138

22/08/2018 10:08



Entrepreneurship in teacher education ­139

study guide for the course does not include either the concept of entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial learning nor does it express a course objective or learning outcome related to it. Thus, in practice the teachers choose to view entrepreneurship as being embedded in another vague and woolly objective which declares that the students after finishing the course will be able to ‘analyse and assess how to utilise children’s and adolescents’ different knowledge and experiences to stimulate and support development and learning’. What happens is that the teachers promote their own formulated informal goals: to work with entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial learning mainly through students’ personal development, practising entrepreneurial skills. These informal objectives derive from the teachers’ own knowledge of the overriding goals and content in the national Strategy for Entrepreneurship in Education (Government Offices of Sweden, 2009) and the national curricula (The Swedish National Agency for Education, 2010, 2011, 2013). Sensing an opportunity to include these aspects of entrepreneurship, they stick the informal objective to the vague generally worded formula; the possibility is there and the teachers act on it. This could be perceived as teacher guerrilla tactics. Similar to guerrilla marketing where unconventional market activities aim to achieve maximum results with minimal resources, the teachers use whatever means they have to maximise their small, but in their eyes promising, opportunity to include entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial learning in the students’ education. Thus, they are acting entrepreneurially in line with an effectual approach (Sarasvathy, 2001) to promote their version of entrepreneurship. Therefore also in this context, as previously revealed in research by Leffler and Svedberg (2013), enthusiastic individuals have great impact on the focus. In this case, with the teachers’ broader focus of entrepreneurship they seem to have chosen to advocate the suggestion from Sarasvathy and Venkataraman (2011) that entrepreneurship is about unleashing the potential of each human. Dual Target Groups At a first glance, it seems obvious for whom the entrepreneurship education is created. The primary target group is students on the teacher education programme. Derived from the formal objectives in the study plan, it is about teaching and preparing students for their future professional work with pupils. In that sense the students are the ‘carriers’ of knowledge; they gain knowledge only to transfer it, in the next step, to their pupils. This is much like the situation when consultants are being taught about entrepreneurship which they later teach their customers, acting as a vessel or as a means for transferring knowledge. This is a more traditional way of teaching entrepreneurship – a way to train the trainer.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 139

22/08/2018 10:08

140

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

However, entrepreneurship education in teacher education is much more complex. First, during the education the students attending are not the only ones in focus. Parallel with this and constantly discussed is how the entrepreneurship education will affect, and be taught to, the students’ future pupils. Thus, the entrepreneurship education is constantly relating to two levels. Secondly, as already stated, the teachers’ own formulated goal is about achieving a changed mindset and personal development. In this superior goal the students themselves and their transformation are in focus, in this respect much in line with the thoughts from Svensson et al. (2017) arguing for the necessity of the transformative teaching mode for entrepreneurship education. This is based on the teachers’ ontological perspective. To be able to teach entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial learning, the students as learning subjects must try, practise and learn themselves first. The individual’s growth is a part of the education. Here entrepreneurship implicitly brings a transformative view on learning. If I am not a learning individual, seeking my potential, and am willing to change, grow and transform as an individual, how can I in turn help other people to develop? Thus, the objective to develop a dynamic mindset (Dweck, 2012) and become an entrepreneurial learning individual concerns dual target groups, both teacher education students and their forthcoming pupils. Moreover, this entrepreneurship education is not about training the trainer but about transforming the transformer. Don’t Mention the B-Word Teaching entrepreneurship education in teacher education programmes poses specific challenges. Since the entrepreneurship course is being taught within teacher education and by educated teachers, the self-evident starting point is education and learning, rather than entrepreneurship. As the empirical material shows, this is at the expense of traditional entrepreneurship, despite the fact that this arguably constitutes the roots of entrepreneurship theory (Landström et al., 2012). The tension regarding content, that is, the what dimension, is thus related to the B(usiness)-word. Previous research has shown that established teachers are ambiguous and sometimes hostile towards teaching entrepreneurship with business connotations (Komulainen et al., 2011; Korhonen et al., 2012). They, as they also do in the teacher education programme, transform entrepreneurship education into a learning approach or entrepreneurial learning (Axelsson et al., 2018; Falk Lundqvist et al., 2014). Thus, there is an imbalance of the content on business entrepreneurship

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 140

22/08/2018 10:08



Entrepreneurship in teacher education ­141

in favour of the broader interpretation (as presented by, for example, Otterborg, 2011 and Komulainen et al., 2011). Perhaps an explanation for this is embedded in the research which points out the difficulties with teachers’ lack of education and experience in entrepreneurship (Fayolle, 2013; Haara et al., 2016). But the reasons for this, according to the university teachers, are not that they are reluctant to accept the narrow concept of entrepreneurship. Instead they see this as a way of catching the students’ interest by linking it closely to educational aspects. Further, they are afraid that an emphasis on business might create resistance among the teacher education students. However, this study suggests that this might be built on a partial misconception. Before the course started, the vast majority of the students already expressed a positive attitude to entrepreneurship as a business concept being part of the curricula and taught at school. Thus, these students’ initial values towards business are positive and they see no major conflict in the school setting. Hence, perhaps the teachers are unnecessarily avoiding the B-word. To conclude, the goal with raising these tensions is not to spread despondency. Entrepreneurship can have a crucial role in teacher education, not only to establish entrepreneurship as a subject, but also to provide future teachers with tools as well as helping to reassure them for their forthcoming role of building entrepreneurial capabilities. Since many teachers today lack entrepreneurship education and/or practical experience (Fayolle, 2013; Seikkula-Leino et al., 2015), if it is included in education for the up and coming teachers, this might be a gamechanging factor for entrepreneurship’s future in the whole educational system. To discuss and create a knowledge base for entrepreneurship already within the teacher education programmes provides an important opportunity to precede tensions among teachers as suggested by, for example, Komulainen et al. (2011), Korhonen et al. (2012) and Leffler (2014). In this study, by in-depth investigation and with various research materials we have been able to provide new insights from novel attempts on how entrepreneurship is included in a teacher education programme and possible tensions following this work. Undoubtedly, further research is necessary to continue building knowledge on how entrepreneurship is conceptualised and developed, both from additional teacher education programmes, as well as other non-business context within the university. It would also be relevant to follow up how teacher education programme students make use of their knowledge on entrepreneurship in their forthcoming deeds as teachers, and also if the now prevailing tensions among teachers then change and evaporate.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 141

22/08/2018 10:08

142

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

REFERENCES Axelsson, K., L. Höglund and M. Mårtensson (2018), ‘Is what’s good for business good for society? Entrepreneurship in a school setting’, in U. Hytti, R. Blackburn and S. Tegtmeier (eds), The Dynamics of Entrepreneurial Contexts: Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 54–75. Ball, C. (1989), Towards an ‘Enterprising’ Culture. A Challenge for Education and Training, Paris: OECD. Berglund, K., B. Johannisson and B. Schwartz (eds) (2012), Societal Entrepreneurship: Positioning, Penetrating, Promoting, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Cope, J., and G. Watts (2000), ‘Learning by doing. An exploration of experience, critical incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial learning’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 6 (3), 104–24. Dewey, J. (1916), Democracy and Education. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, New York: Simon and Schuster Inc. Dweck, C. (2012), Mindset: How You Can Fulfil Your Potential, London: Hachette. Falk Lundqvist, Å., P.-G. Hallberg, E. Leffler and G. Svedberg (2014), Entreprenöriellt lärande: i praktik och teori [Entrepreneurial Learning: In Practice and Theory], Stockholm: Liber AB. Fayolle, A. (2013), ‘Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 25 (7–8), 692–701. Fayolle, A. and B. Gailly (2008), ‘From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 32 (7), 569–93. Gibb, A. (1987), ‘Enterprise culture: Its meaning and implications for education and training’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 11 (2), 2–38. Gibb, A. (1999), ‘Can we build “effective entrepreneurship” through management development?’, Journal of General Management, 24 (4), 461–87. Gibb, A. (2002), ‘In pursuit of a new “enterprise” and “entrepreneurship” paradigm for learning: Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 4 (3), 233–69. Gorman, G., D. Hanlon and W. King (1997), ‘Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: A ten-year literature review’, International Small Business Journal, 15 (3), 56–77. Government Offices of Sweden (2009), Strategy for Entrepreneurship in the Field of Education, Västerås: Edita. Haara, F.O., E.S. Jenssen, I. Fossøy and I.K.R Ødegård (2016), ‘The ambiguity of pedagogical entrepreneurship – the state of the art and its challenges’, Education Inquiry, 7 (2), 183–210. Hannon, P.D. (2013), ‘Why is the entrepreneurial university important?’, Journal of Innovation Management, 1 (2), 10–17. Henry, C., F. Hill and C. Leitch (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship education and training: Can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I’, Education+ Training, 47 (2), 98–111. Hjorth, D. and C. Steyaert (2004), Narrative and Discursive Approaches in Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 142

22/08/2018 10:08



Entrepreneurship in teacher education ­143

Hoppe, M., M. Westerberg and E. Leffler (2017), ‘Educational approaches to entrepreneurship in higher education: A view from the Swedish horizon’, Education and Training, 59 (7–8), 751–67. Hytti, U. and C. O’Gorman (2004), ‘What is “enterprise education”? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries’, Education + Training, 46 (1), 11–23. Jamieson, I. (1984), ‘Education for enterprise’, in A.G. Watts and P. Moran (eds) CRAC, Cambridge, MA: Balinger, pp. 19–27. Johannisson, B. (2010), ‘The agony of the Swedish school when confronted by entrepreneurship’, in K. Skogen and J. Sjovoll (eds), Creativity and Innovation: Preconditions for Entrepreneurial Education, Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press, pp. 91–105. Johansen, V. and T. Schanke (2013), ‘Entrepreneurship education in secondary education and training’, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57 (4), 357–68. Jones, B. and N. Iredale (2010), ‘Enterprise education as pedagogy’, Education + Training, 52 (1), 7–19. Jones, M.V., N. Coviello and Y.K. Tang (2011), ‘International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis’, Journal of Business Venturing, 26 (6), 632–59. Kitzinger, J. (1994), ‘The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants’, Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 103–21. Klapper, R. and D. Refai (2015), ‘A Gestalt model of entrepreneurial learning’, in D. Rae and C. Wang (eds), Entrepreneurial Learning: New Perspectives in Research, Education and Practice, London: Routledge, pp. 156–77. Komulainen, K., P. Naskali, M. Korhonen and S. Keskitalo-Foley (2011), ‘Internal entrepreneurship: A Trojan horse of the neoliberal governance of education? Finnish pre-and in-service teachers’ implementation of and resistance towards entrepreneurship education’, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 9 (1), 341–74. Korhonen, M., K. Komulainen and H. Räty (2012), ‘Not everyone is cut out to be the entrepreneur type: How Finnish school teachers construct the meaning of entrepreneurship education and the related abilities of the pupils’, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56 (1), 1–19. Kuratko, D.F. (2005), ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends and challenges’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577–98. Kyrö, P. (2008), ‘A theoretical framework for teaching and learning entrepreneurship’, International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 2 (1), 39–55. Landström, H., G. Harirchi and F. Åström (2012), ‘Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base’, Research Policy, 41 (7), 1154–81. Leffler, E. (2009), ‘The many faces of entrepreneurship: A discursive battle for the school arena’, European Educational Research Journal, 8 (1), 104–16. Leffler, E. (2014), ‘Enterprise learning and school subjects – A subject didactic issue?’, Journal of Education and Training, 1 (2), 15–30. Leffler, E. and G. Svedberg (2013), ‘Entrepreneurship – a concern for Teachers but not for Teacher Education?’, Survey presented at the NERA 41st Conference, Reykjavik, Iceland, 7–9 March. Mäkimurto-Koivumaa, S. and P. Belt (2015), ‘About, for, in or through entrepreneurship in engineering education’, European Journal of Engineering Education, 41 (5), 512–29.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 143

22/08/2018 10:08

144

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Merton, R.K., M. Fiske and P. Kendall (1990), The Focused Interview. A Manual of Problems and Procedures, 2nd edn, New York: The Free Press. Mwasalwiba, E.S. (2010), ‘Entrepreneurship education: A review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators’, Education + Training, 52 (1), 20–47. Neck, H. and P. Greene (2011), ‘Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers’, Journal of Small Business Management, 49 (1), 55–70. O’Connor, A. (2013), ‘A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes’, Journal of Business Venturing, 28 (4), 546–63. Otterborg, A. (2011), Entreprenöriellt lärande. Gymnasieelevers skilda sätt att uppfatta entreprenöriellt lärande, doctoral thesis, Jönköping: Jönköping University: Högskolan för lärande och kommunikation. Pepin, M. (2012), ‘Enterprise education: A Deweyan perspective’, Education + Training, 54 (8/9), 801–12. Peterman, N.E. and J. Kennedy (2003), ‘Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28 (2), 129–44. Pittaway, L. and C. Edwards (2012), ‘Assessment: Examining practice in entrepreneurship education’, Education + Training, 54 (8/9), 778–800. Rae, D. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurial learning: A narrative-based conceptual model’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12 (3), 323–35. Ruskovaara, E. and T. Pihkala (2015), ‘Entrepreneurship education in schools: Empirical evidence on the teacher’s role’, The Journal of Educational Research, 108 (3), 236–49. Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001), ‘Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency’, Academy of Management Review, 26 (2), 243–63. Sarasvathy, S.D. and S. Venkataraman (2011), ‘Entrepreneurship as method: Open questions for an entrepreneurial future’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35 (1), 113–35. Seikkula-Leino, J., E. Ruskovaara, H. Hannula and T. Saarivirta (2012), ‘Facing the changing demands of Europe: Integrating entrepreneurship education in Finnish teacher training curricula’, European Educational Research Journal, 11 (3), 382–99. Seikkula-Leino, J., T. Satuvuori, E. Ruskovaara and H. Hannula (2015), ‘How do Finnish teacher educators implement entrepreneurship education?’, Education + Training, 57 (4), 392–404. Sharma, A. and C.W. Anderson (2007), ‘Recontextualization of science from lab to school: Implications for science literacy’, Science and Education, 18 (9), 1253–75. Silverman, D. (2010), Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook, 3rd edn, London: Sage Publications. Svensson, O., M. Lundquist and K. Williams Middleton (2017), ’Transformative, transactional and transmissive modes of teaching in action-based entrepreneurial education’, paper presented at the 3e conference in Cork, Ireland, 8–10 May. The Swedish National Agency for Education (2010), Curriculum for the Preschool, Lpfö98, revised 2010, Stockholm: Edita. The Swedish National Agency for Education (2011), Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and the Recreation Centre 2011, Stockholm: Ordförrådet AB.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 144

22/08/2018 10:08



Entrepreneurship in teacher education ­145

The Swedish National Agency for Education (2013), Curriculum for the Upper Secondary School, Stockholm: Fritzes. Tiernan, P. (2016), ‘Enterprise education in initial teacher education in Ireland’, Education + Training, 58 (7/8), 849–60. Timmons, J.A., D.F. Muzyaka, H.H. Stevenson and W.D. Bygrave (1987), ‘Opportunity recognition: The core of entrepreneurship’, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 109–23. Tynjälä, P., A. Virtanen, U. Klemola, E. Kostiainen and H. Rasku-Puttonen (2016), ‘Developing social competence and other generic skills in teacher education: Applying the model of integrative pedagogy’, European Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (3), 368–87. West III, G.P., E.J. Gatewood and K.G. Shaver (2009), Handbook of UniversityWide Entrepreneurship Education, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 145

22/08/2018 10:08

9. ‘We’re the biggest student movement in Finland since the 1970s!’: a practice-based study of student Entrepreneurship Societies Piritta Parkkari and Krista Kohtakangas INTRODUCTION Focusing on student Entrepreneurship Society (ES) organizations in Finland, this chapter follows the practice-based studies approach in order to gather a better understanding of organizations that work to promote entrepreneurship. The few studies done on these organizations have portrayed them as extracurricular, informal, non-accredited, student-led organizations that aim to promote entrepreneurship by arranging various activities around entrepreneurship (Pittaway et al., 2011; Pittaway et al., 2015). The first ES was established in Finland around 2008; by 2017, there were already close to 20 such organizations spread across the country (StartupFinland, 2017), with at least one in nearly all cities containing a higher education campus (Viljamaa, 2016). Previous research has noted that Finnish ESs reflect the growing interest in start-up entrepreneurship and start-up companies, a trend that began in the late 2000s (Lehdonvirta, 2013). These organizations have been portrayed as representatives of growth entrepreneurship, bringing the spirit of California’s Silicon Valley to Finland (Mannevuo, 2015). They have even gained the reputation of being a student-led entrepreneurship movement engaged in a wider cultural change reflecting national attitudes towards start-up activities and entrepreneurship in general (Graham, 2014). Researchers (Johannisson, 2011; Steyaert, 2007) have called on entrepreneurship research to adopt the practice theory approach (Schatzki et al., 2001). The emerging stream of Entrepreneurship as Practice has focused on utilizing practice theories to understand what entrepreneurs do and how they do it (Anderson and Ronteau, 2017), ultimately producing several reconceptualizations of entrepreneurship. These new concepts 146

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 146

22/08/2018 10:08



A practice-based study of student Entrepreneurship Societies ­147

include seeing entrepreneurship as an unfolding of everyday practices (De Clercq and Voronov, 2009) or as an everyday, hands-on, ongoing practice of creatively organizing people and resources (Johannisson, 2011). Entrepreneurship as Practice scholars have applied different practice theories, particularly those by Giddens and Bourdieu, to topics such as transnational entrepreneurs (Terjesen and Elam, 2009; Patel and Conklin, 2009), legitimation (De Clercq and Voronov, 2009), context (Chalmers and Shaw, 2017), resourcing (Keating et al., 2013) and growth (Anderson et al., 2010). The studies have shed light on various aspects related to engaging in entrepreneurship, but there is a lack of studies that utilize real-time, naturally occurring data (Chalmers and Shaw, 2017; Johannisson, 2011) while focusing on the phenomenon of entrepreneurship beyond individuals labelled as entrepreneurs practising entrepreneurship. We aim to understand the meanings constructed for Entrepreneurship Society organizations in Finland and the ideals that emerge as these organizations come together to work on their cooperation. Studying this phenomenon is important because such investigation opens up discussion regarding the effects of activities done around entrepreneurship in terms of (re-)producing the meanings of entrepreneurship. Theory-wise, we draw upon practice-based studies (PBS) (Corradi et al., 2010; Gherardi, 2011, 2012, 2015; Nicolini, 2009, 2012). PBS is one way to engage with the general social scientific ‘practice turn’ (Schatzki et al., 2001), which emphasizes the power of practices in producing the social world. PBS sees social life as an ongoing production: situated, everyday actions are consequential in the production of social life (Corradi et al., 2010; Feldman and Orlikowski, 2011; Gherardi, 2009, 2012). As such, we experiment with how much can be understood about organizations working to promote entrepreneurship (ESs) based on a single get-together event. Even a single event can be meaningful, allowing insight into how different practices intertwine and produce a variety of effects when practitioners carry practices into a particular setting (Reckwitz, 2002). Having briefly introduced the research, we now turn to outlining the PBS approach to entrepreneurship before presenting our empirical study and results. The chapter concludes with a discussion of our findings.

THE PRACTICE-BASED STUDIES APPROACH TO ENTREPRENEURSHIP Within PBS, the term practice can denote the object of empirical analysis or even reflect a common-sense definition of ‘what people really do’ or ‘being closer to reality’ (Gherardi 2009; Corradi et al., 2010). We adopt

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 147

22/08/2018 10:08

148

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

another understanding: practice as a way of seeing, an epistemology (Gherardi, 2011, 2015). We approach practice as the locus for the production and reproduction of social relations and focus our research on the emergence of relations through ongoing interaction (Corradi et al., 2010; Gherardi, 2011). We believe that social reality consists of practices and thus is brought into being through everyday activity (Feldman and Orlikowski, 2011). Practices include several interconnected elements: ‘forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, “things” and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge’ (Reckwitz, 2002, p. 249). Individuals carry out practices, but they also serve as carriers of practices (Reckwitz, 2002), which means that practitioners carry various practices even into ephemeral occasions. However, it is important to note that practices are not individual property – they are always social practices (Nicolini, 2009, 2012). They are institutionalized, but only exist to the extent to which they are enacted and re-enacted (Nicolini, 2012). Practices constitute the horizon within which all discursive and material actions are made possible and acquire meaning (Nicolini, 2009). Thus, we approach entrepreneurship as a discursive, social and material phenomenon, gaining different meanings and forms in and through various practices. Practices cannot be understood in isolation because they are interconnected, forming unique ‘textures’ of practice’ (Gherardi, 2012, p. 156). One practice can serve as a resource for another. Meanwhile, certain practices might anchor, control or organize others, exerting more power and endurance in shaping or constraining social arrangements (Gherardi, 2012).

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS PRACTICE Entrepreneurship as Practice research utilizes a variety of interpretations when it comes to practice and theoretical traditions. Previous studies have highlighted some of the benefits of practice theories. For example, structuration-oriented studies (Jack and Anderson, 2002; Chiasson and Saunders, 2005; Sarason et al., 2006) highlight a key point of practice theories: that human action is guided by structure and that structure is created by action. Such research has been shifting our understanding of entrepreneurship away from a decontextualized activity towards an acknowledgment of its social embeddedness. For their part, Bourdieusian studies (De Clercq and Voronov, 2009; Anderson et al., 2010; Terjesen and Elam, 2009; Patel and Conklin, 2009) highlight that whilst practices are

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 148

22/08/2018 10:08



A practice-based study of student Entrepreneurship Societies ­149

hard to change and have strong effects on individuals, practice theories do indeed leave space for individual initiative, creativity and improvisation (Nicolini, 2012, p. 4). To date, other practice theories have gained less attention in Entrepreneurship as Practice research; nonetheless, a few important studies have taken novel approaches to practice theory research. For example, Chalmers and Shaw (2017) built a framework based upon insights from ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and broader ‘practice turn’ in organization studies in order to analyze the endogenous construction of entrepreneurial contexts. Keating et al. (2013) drew on Schatzki’s practice theory and adopted a practice-based perspective as an epistemological stance to resourcing. Bruni et al. (2004) also applied practice as epistemology, considering how gender and entrepreneurship are culturally produced and reproduced in social practices. These studies have helped dismantle entrepreneurship as a heroic economic activity, focusing more on entrepreneuring as social action (Johannisson, 2011). We build on these studies by adopting practice as epistemology, aiming to understand the phenomenon of Entrepreneurship Society organizations. In particular, we rely on the works of Silvia Gherardi and Davide Nicolini to augment the theoretical variety used in empirical studies within Entrepreneurship as Practice. By utilizing real-time, naturally occurring, ethnographic empirical material that illustrates what goes on around entrepreneurship, our approach seeks to answer calls for studies that focus on phenomena that are actually done and that treat even single episodes of in situ practice as important (Johannisson, 2011, 2014; Chalmers and Shaw, 2017).

METHODOLOGY Our study is based on an ethnography (Cunliffe, 2010; Van Maanen, 2011) of an Entrepreneurship Society organization (StartingUp, pseudonym) and its network in Finland, conducted by the first author between September 2013 and December 2016. This ethnography primarily focused on StartingUp’s activities, but it also included the first author’s attendance at ten events, where representatives from multiple ESs gathered to work on their cooperation or met each other as part of a start-up related event. Here, we focus on one such event: a weekend-long get-together organized by StartingUp in Finland in 2015. There, people from 12 out of the almost 20 Finnish ESs came together to work on their cooperation and spend time together. The event had about 40 participants (around 30 men and ten women), who were aged between 20 and 30. One man was over 50. Most of the participants were Finnish, but there were six nationalities present

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 149

22/08/2018 10:08

150

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Table 9.1  Empirical material Type of empirical material

Number/length

Photographs Video recordings Audio recordings Notes

298 Approximately one hour Approximately eight hours Handwritten field notes, 11 pages of written-up notes right after the event Facebook event, organizers’ planning documents, PowerPoint slides, drawings and writings from workshops

Documents

altogether. The official language of the event was English, and thus, the quotations used here are in their original form. This gathering was the second time the yearly event was organized. The first author took part in the first event and knew that the get-together would provide interesting glimpses into the phenomenon of ESs. Our empirical material consists of photographs (taken by both the first author and a photographer taking part in the event), audio recordings, video recordings, documents and field notes constructed by the first author (see Table 9.1). As the first author was responsible for many of the event’s practical matters, few field notes were taken during the event itself. However, notes were written up and gaps filled immediately following the event. The extensive audio-visual material compensates for shortcomings in the field notes. Johannisson (2014) argues that the researcher needs to be familiar with the context of the practices under study in order to make sense out of the experiences. When the event took place, the first author briefly explained to participants that she was performing three roles, serving as one of the main organizers of the event (the host), as the former president of the board of StartingUp (the association organizing the event), and as a researcher documenting the event. The event participants considered her as ‘one-of-us’ (Cunliffe and Karunanayake, 2013) – and so did she. Her roles affected the way the event proceeded, but the insider position guaranteed access to the private event and allowed the collection of rich, real-time empirical material. Because of her organizer and ES activist role, she could understand the event from the point of view of the studied communities’ practices, which is valued in PBS (Gherardi, 2012; Nicolini, 2012). The second author was given access to recorded material, and she examined the material more inductively as an ‘outsider’, also helping the first author to distance herself from the empirical material.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 150

22/08/2018 10:08



A practice-based study of student Entrepreneurship Societies ­151

As for ethical considerations, we orally requested the event participants’ permission to conduct research at the beginning of the event, and many participants were already familiar with the first author’s research, having served as subjects. The participants were sent a draft version of this chapter during the research. To protect the participants and their anonymity, we have given them pseudonyms. Because many participants were inebriated during the evenings, video and audio recordings focused on the daytime programme. However, the practice of getting drunk is very common in the context of Finnish student activities and is largely accepted. We will later interpret the studied event as a cottage weekend, and drinking alcohol is often an important part of that practice, too.

ANALYSIS Our analysis process included multiple rounds of both authors examining the material separately before coming together to watch and listen to the empirical material and discuss interpretations. The first author provided the second researcher with more details and background stories to frame the observations because she had ethnographic understandings of the studied organizations. These understandings were discussed – and challenged – during the collaborative analysis. For example, she held a preconception that ES organizations in Finland work to promote entrepreneurship – in particular growth-seeking, team-based and technologyoriented start-ups – as a viable career choice for students and other young professionals. However, she came to see that sometimes entrepreneurship is just a good excuse for ES people to come together (and often get drunk); thus, the idea of ‘entrepreneurship’ can produce a sense of belonging and togetherness within ESs. She realized that the people involved are interested in entrepreneurship to varying degrees, and only some of them have their own companies. Practice-based approaches view the basic unit of analysis as practices, not individuals (Nicolini 2012, p. 7). According to Nicolini (2012, p. 219), practice theoretical studies must start by zooming in on the details of how a practice is accomplished in a specific place. Following this procedure, we first looked for what was going on during the get-together event: who was present and why, what they did and what kinds of settings and artefacts were apparent. From the broad focus on how the event was discursively and materially accomplished, we moved to a narrower focus on two key practices enacted during the event: ‘being a student’ and ‘being part of the start-up scene’. We analysed how the meanings of ESs were constructed as these practices became intertwined and what ideals emerged. In our results,

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 151

22/08/2018 10:08

152

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

we first set the scene by showing how the event enacted the practice of having a cottage weekend and by illustrating the practices exercised at the event by participants. Then, we deepen our analytical gaze to show how the meanings and ideals were constructed.

RESULTS Accomplishing a Get-Together Event When we look at the sayings and activities of people attending the get-together event, we see that they were carrying out (Reckwitz, 2002) the Finnish practice of having a cottage weekend. The participants themselves described the event as a cottage weekend. Per the norm at a cottage venue, there was a common space for working and lounging, and most importantly, there was also a sauna, used in the evenings with women going first and men afterwards. The event included a relaxed atmosphere, and people broke into laughter easily. Like many corporate cottage weekends, the event also included some formal sessions: presentations, workshop-style group work and community discussions on Saturday and Sunday morning. The get-together event lasted from Friday evening until Sunday morning, a common time frame in the practice of a cottage weekend, giving the event an ephemeral sense. Generally speaking, cottage weekends allow at least partial detachment from everyday life and offer opportunities for developing cooperation and spending time together without interruption. Only certain people are invited to join a cottage weekend: particular friends or specific members of an organization who often occupy an elite position within it. Invitations for the get-together event stated the following: ‘We invite all ES-actives and people interested in becoming active members of the Finland-wide Entrepreneurship Society family’ (event’s Facebook event page). However, only three participants from each ES in Finland could attend due to space restrictions. There were 12 different ESs present, and most participants were either on the board of their ES association, or at the very least, active members. Thus, the cottage-weekend event constructed the participants as having ‘elite’ positions within the ES network. Some people already knew each other from previous events and happenings where ‘ES-people’ (field notes) had met each other. When participants first encountered one another, they began by asking about what was happening in the other’s ES, such as the events they had lined up. When we further consider who attended the event and what they were

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 152

22/08/2018 10:08



A practice-based study of student Entrepreneurship Societies ­153

doing, we see that they also exercised other practices within the setting (Reckwitz, 2002). Because the participants were members of their local ES organizations, they engaged in the practices and ideals of their communities. Most notably, the participants practiced ‘being a student’ through their young bodies, clothing and ways of being. The participants appeared to be competent students as they quietly listened to the presentations, made comments at appropriate moments and participated in group work with ease. They were either higher education students or graduates. Most of them were business students, but a few were studying IT or social sciences. Some also had begun their working lives. The difference between students and non-students only emerged in certain conversations, such as when Mathias said, ‘Our people come from a small group of 3000 students.’ Keith, the only older participant (from a different ES) responded, ‘You’re actually students; in our case we’re business people and so on.’ Although the ESs are mainly student organizations, it seems that actual student status is not required to join. Nonetheless, within the event, one must enact practices related to ‘being a student’, such as drinking, rough humour, group work and talking about changing the world. The one older man did not stand out from the crowd; he engaged in the drinking, group work and discussions actively. Most of the participants engaged in heavy drinking; when people first arrived on Friday, they were given beer and cider. People began opening their bottles again on Saturday afternoon, some even in the morning. There were drinking games, which are popular at student parties, and with these antics came crude jokes. Participants took beers and ciders along with them to the sauna on both nights. Attending the event required quite a bit of stamina, given that the nights went on till late and Saturday included a full day of work. Saturday’s first speaker, Kaisa, started her presentation by saying, ‘I hope all of you have slept for more than three hours, since I haven’t. Luckily, I don’t know if I’m still drunk or hungover.’ The participants’ visible clothing and artefacts during the event show us that they also exercised practices related to ‘being a member of the Finnish start-up scene’. We saw jeans, t-shirts and logoed hoodies of different ESs and Slush, the major Finnish start-up and technology conference. Many people also had start-up related stickers on their laptops and notebooks. The participants referred to the ‘start-up scene’ and ‘start-up ecosystem’ in Finland and talked about start-up related events. In the evenings, the participants engaged in ‘pitching karaoke’. Silicon Valley, the ‘Mecca of start-ups’, popped up multiple times during the event; early on, someone came up with the idea of sending the board presidents from each ES on a trip to Silicon Valley, one of the ideas that the community decided to

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 153

22/08/2018 10:08

154

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

continue with after the event. Thus, Silicon Valley emerged as an ideal location to go to and learn. A few attendees challenged the hegemonic role of Silicon Valley and suggested visits to India or other alternative places, but these suggestions did not receive much support. By looking at the practices enacted during the event, we come to understand that the practice of having a cottage weekend forms a ‘horizon’ (Nicolini, 2009) for interpreting the actions and interactions that take place. This practice intertwines with ‘being a student’ and ‘being a member of the Finnish start-up scene’. Of course, multiple other practices were enacted during the event, but we interpret the aforementioned practices to be the most meaningful for understanding the ESs. The Meanings of the Entrepreneurship Societies During her presentation, Kaisa began to talk about the network of Finnish ESs as a student movement, ‘You are a part of the biggest student movement since the 70s. I really think that this is true. Finland hasn’t seen this kind of a student movement in national or even in like a local level in decades.’ Other participants described the ES network as a movement as well, discussing ways of developing their movement and getting it noticed. Wanting to share the movement with the whole country emerged as an important objective when, for example, Mathias answered a question about why the ESs seek to do large-scale events together. He stated major events are important ‘because we want to share kind of to the whole nation there’s this movement going on’. Our interpretation holds that, within the get-together event, the ESs are constructed as a student-led social movement. In referring to themselves as a (student) movement, the ESs compare themselves with the student movements of the 1960s and 1970s that were political in nature. Thus, they seem to draw upon a political agenda and the notion of enacting social change. The discussions construct an image that now, in the late 2010s, the ESs are emerging after a long period of nothing noteworthy happening amongst students – and it is entrepreneurship that is on their agenda. Talking about the ESs as a movement is also a rhetorical tactic that presents the group as a serious, large-scale collective actor and not ‘just’ students fiddling around. During Sunday’s concluding discussion, Pekka commented that ‘ESs have a purpose, and they are a tool for change, and if we can make the change happen, we don’t need any ESs.’ However, he did not specify the change to be brought into fruition. The first author asked the participants, ‘Do you guys think ESs should do something in order to help start-ups, help new entrepreneurs? (. . .).’ ‘Why?’ Jane replied, ‘There’s a lot of us – There’s something but you don’t really know what it is. We bring it out of

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 154

22/08/2018 10:08



A practice-based study of student Entrepreneurship Societies ­155

people, bring out the spirit.’ It seems that having a gut feeling about what the ESs do is sufficient for many participants to feel as though they are participating in an important change. We interpret that the urge to make a change in the world is an integral part of ‘being a student’: students are expected to want to be different than previous generations and to want to change the world for the better. Thus, talking about making a change – even if the actual ‘change’ is unclear – is important in enacting being a student. Making a change discourse is also present in the start-up culture as entrepreneurs talk about changing the world rather than doing business (Egan-Wyer et al., 2017). Change also seems to be inherent in the ESs themselves, because when it comes to being involved in ES activities, Kaisa noted that ‘none of us should get stuck and do this for like more than three years’. Most of the event’s participants had been involved in ES activities for less than two years, and those staying active longer were considered veterans on the scene. This feature constructs the ESs as ideally ever-changing communities; like being a student, ESs represent a transitory phase in their lives. Therefore, rather than staying engaged until the desired change is achieved, people involved in the ‘ES movement’ are expected to be briefly active before becoming engaged with other issues and allowing new active people to join the ES community. Students emerged as the movement’s main target group when Anton asked, ‘But who are we showing it to? I think what we need is more exposure to students, like young students, who don’t know about the option of becoming an entrepreneur.’ This idea came up again in Mikko’s comment: One idea we had in [our ES] as our mission is to get people to think about entrepreneurship as a real possibility. Since when you ask about students (. . .) what do you want to do when you grow [up], a really few people say they want to be entrepreneurs (. . .). But target group [for ESs] could be like higher education students who aren’t erm, they are entrepreneurial, but they don’t know it yet.

Here, the main goal of ESs is constructed as promoting entrepreneurship as a viable career option for higher education students. Through this comment, entrepreneurship becomes understood as something latent within an individual that can be awoken through different activities. Waking up these entrepreneurial latencies then emerges as the role of ESs. Whilst participants might have uttered different opinions about what kinds of events to organize and whose attention they wanted to attract, they agreed on the basic premise that entrepreneurship should be promoted. This tacit agreement reproduces the prevalent belief in the goodness of entrepreneurship. During a discussion on the Finnish ES’s shared webpage, participants

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 155

22/08/2018 10:08

156

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

shared the kinds of events and activities put on by their ESs, illustrating differences between the organizations. Tuomas, from an ES that has been operating for over five years, noted that they organize activities producing high-quality new companies, such as hackathons, workshops and a summer start-up accelerator programme. Mathias, from a newer ES commented, ‘I see our role as more inspirational, showing them first steps towards becoming an entrepreneur, trying to give them the skills. I don’t think we need to start to create a bigger network to facilitate early stage start-ups (. . .).’ Here, Mathias departs from the usual student lingo and uses the language of the start-up scene when he mentions ‘facilitating early stage start-ups’. Some of the ESs engage in more structured ways of helping new entrepreneurs, such as organizing start-up accelerator programmes; nonetheless, the meaning of ESs generally is constructed as serving as an inspiration for others interested in entrepreneurship – not a pragmatic tool for actual guidance or resources. During the cottage weekend, Kaisa’s presentation constructed the rationale for ESs’ activities: Start-ups can have an economic impact. From my point of view, this is not why you do stuff. You don’t do this [activities of ESs] for media or society. You do this for yourselves, start-ups and entrepreneurially minded folks. (. . .) You’re not doing this because people need to have jobs, you’re doing this because it’s fun (. . .) [You] get connections, learn stuff you wouldn’t have possibilities to do elsewhere.

Currently in Finland, media and politicians are placing a great deal of hope in start-ups when it comes to producing economic growth and new jobs (Lehdonvirta, 2013). Here, Kaisa’s comments depart from the discourse on entrepreneurial outcomes, with enjoyment and learning emerging as reasons for participating in ESs. The ESs emerge as being there for students by students, but also as serving start-ups and ‘entrepreneurially minded people’. The ultimate aim here is not to produce jobs or economic growth, but to engage in ESs because they are fun. This line of thinking seems to depoliticize the ‘ES movement’ as personal gains are portrayed as more important than making a change. Negotiating Cooperation: Emerging Ideals ES organizations in Finland do not officially form a network: they are all independent associations working alone, and there is no larger organization behind them. However, they do have a common website and a Facebook group that is hidden from the public and only available to key members of each ES. The purpose of the cottage weekend was stated in

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 156

22/08/2018 10:08



A practice-based study of student Entrepreneurship Societies ­157

the event’s Facebook invitation: ‘to strengthen our nationwide network of Entrepreneurship Societies’ and ‘to work on and challenge what ESs are about and what we can do together’. During the event, participants agreed on a few positive actions: seeing each other more often, having some common platforms for sharing information, attracting attention to the whole movement and organizing or at least coordinating common events. During his presentation and discussion on the shared website for the ESs of Finland, Matti said the following: Now is a good time to start collaborating on things with others. (. . .) Since the focus [has] been on local ESs, we could make it a nationwide, and we could make it an official movement. I’m not speaking about like some head organization, generating some higher-level institution, no nothing like that. It’s more just working together more.

The sense of wanting to work together and formalize cooperation to gain more attention for the student movement emerges here, but it is immediately countered by the clarification that Matti is not suggesting some ‘head organization’; that is, he wanted to make sure that his proposal would not be viewed as too formal and bureaucratic. A similar discussion emerged again during an ideation exercise when Nhat suggested an idea to brand the ESs as one society with many branches. Maija responded, ‘Oh, be like [a major student organization] and have like different guilds?’ Ville reacted, ‘Yeah. That’s not very radical, but it’s, plus I don’t like centralized organizations, sounds very un-startuppy.’ Here ‘startuppy’ is used as an antidote to reject ideas that sound too ‘bureaucratic’. We interpret that ideals such as striving to be non-hierarchical and agile have roots in the start-up culture (Egan-Wyer et al., 2017) and values like sharing resources, looking for a structure for cooperation and constantly learning reflect ‘being a student’. It seems that contradictions are important in producing meanings for the ESs because these kinds of conversations recur frequently: ESs emerge as simultaneously searching for practices through which to formalize their cooperation while rejecting formal cooperation practices, such as having an umbrella organization. During a discussion on events that individual ESs and their network could organize, Mikko suggested having an event related to the upcoming parliament elections. Antero interrupted him and said, ‘Why do we need some kind of f***ing politics?’ Mikko tried to explain that they ‘make all the rules’, but Antero interrupted again to say, ‘That’s f***ing with bureaucracy; we don’t have time for that.’ Thus, while Mikko tried to explain that politicians are the ones making the rules and laws that affect entrepreneurs, Antero discredited it as ‘bureaucracy’, something that the ESs do not want to deal with. Matti, too, followed by saying, ‘But I don’t want to get really

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 157

22/08/2018 10:08

158

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

deep into politics; that’s something I would like to personally keep my hands off. (. . .) And they’re [politicians] not really relevant to us either, since that’s so long their stuff and they get so little done in my opinion.’ Here, politicians are diminished for not getting enough done, which constructs ‘getting things done’ – and getting them done fast – as the ideal for ESs. Furthermore, ‘politics’ emerges as a swear word and antithetical to what the ESs want to do. In essence, ‘politics’ seems to be understood just as party politics. Refraining from politics is interesting given that they talk about themselves as a ‘movement’ and compare themselves to the student movements of 1970s. Such comparisons produce the network as political, but here, all things political are rejected. Of course, one could argue that the act of rejecting politics is in itself a political act and that the actions of the ESs could be seen as political. During Kaisa’s presentation, Alice commented, ‘I can honestly say I haven’t learned sh*t from school, I’ve learned everything from [ES], from doing the work.’ Here, higher education is referred to in derogatory terms, and the vague ‘doing’ emerges as the alternative appreciated by participants. Valuing ‘doing stuff’ reproduces the canonical understandings of entrepreneurship as doing something, not just talking. The ability to get things done also is valued by the people who join ES organizations. When talking about ‘the sh*tty mistakes ESs make’ during her presentation, Kaisa claimed, ‘You’re all associations so it’s all democratic, but I don’t see ESs should be so democratic, that everyone gets an equal share. You should get depending on how much you do, get noted for hard work or potential.’ This comment shows that the ES organizations are operating as registered associations, which for Kaisa, comes with democratic practices. She counters them by constructing ‘earning one’s worth’ as the ideal to follow. She reaffirmed that people taking part in the get-together fit this ideal by saying, ‘I think all of you who are here are talented, have a strong learning curve, are passionate; that’s why you are here and that’s what you should require from people that get involved. Your only capital here is people. If people are rotten, aren’t passionate, don’t work their asses off, what do you have?’ Here, an entrepreneurial stereotype emerges as an ideal ES actor: one who has lots of potential, ‘gets things done’ and demonstrates passion.

DISCUSSION This chapter has engaged with the practice-based studies approach (Corradi et al., 2010; Gherardi, 2011, 2012, 2015; Nicolini, 2009, 2012) to gather a better understanding of organizations that work to promote

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 158

22/08/2018 10:08



A practice-based study of student Entrepreneurship Societies ­159

entrepreneurship. We argue that if we are interested in entrepreneurship as a practice, it is not just the practices of people labelled as entrepreneurs that matter. The PBS approach allows us to interpret how the discursive and material accomplishment of doing things around entrepreneurship, such as having Entrepreneurship Society organizations, contributes to the meanings and roles that entrepreneurship assumes in different social arenas with varying effects. Through an ethnographic study, the chapter focused on student Entrepreneurship Society organizations in Finland. It sought to illuminate the meanings constructed for these organizations and the ideals that emerge when they come together to work on their cooperation. By drawing on the PBS approach, we were able to use empirical material from just a single event to uncover the nuances of the ES phenomenon. We cannot generalize and assume that we know everything there is to know about the studied ES organizations. However, our study provides insight into how the intertwining of various practices produces meanings for organizations that promote entrepreneurship while reproducing understandings of entrepreneurship. Our study ‘zoomed in’ (Nicolini, 2009, 2012) on the discursive and material accomplishment of a single event, which is of course only part of what the practice theoretical approach could do. We suggest that future Entrepreneurship as Practice studies utilize Nicolini’s suggestion to also ‘zoom out’ (Nicolini, 2009, 2012) in order to see either how practices related to entrepreneurship are enacted elsewhere or to see their interconnections to other textures of practices, thus demonstrating how the local contributes to the generation of broader effects. The few studies done on student Entrepreneurship Societies and clubs have classified them as extracurricular, informal entrepreneurship education. They have argued that people’s main motivation for engaging in them is to enhance their curricula vitae and prospects for employment even though these organizations are generally known for raising awareness about starting businesses. Furthermore, researchers emphasize that ESs simulate important aspects of entrepreneurial learning, such as learning by doing (Pittaway et al., 2011, 2015.) Our research affirms that we can recognize the studied organizations as student- and other volunteer-led communities that promote entrepreneurship by organizing events and activities around entrepreneurship. However, we paint a more nuanced picture of ESs. We move beyond personal motivations and learning experiences to the manifold meanings of the organizations themselves and what they can tell us about entrepreneurship. Our results show that the studied get-together event for developing the cooperation between Finnish ESs was enacted within the practices

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 159

22/08/2018 10:08

160

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

of ‘being a student’ and ‘being a part of the start-up scene’ while also engaging in the practice of having a cottage weekend. In and through the enactment of these practices, the ES organizations were constructed as a student movement that aims to wake up entrepreneurial latencies within students. The participants of the event described themselves as a student movement, but whether the ESs are a social movement is a matter beyond the scope of this chapter. Contradicting ideals emerged within the studied get-together event as the practices became intertwined. The intertwining of different practices is not always harmonious (Gherardi, 2012) and while we noticed tensions about which ideals to follow, it seems that the co-existence of varying ideals is part and parcel of the dynamic phenomenon of ESs. Egan-Wyer et al. (2017) too showed how the meanings of entrepreneurship and making sense of entrepreneurial life in a start-up culture were actually made possible through tension and contradiction, an idea that supports our findings: it is not a matter of choosing one ideal, but productively drawing on many. Multiple contradictions are important in constructing the meanings of ESs. The ES organizations are constructed as a serious movement seeking to change the world, but at the same time, they are more about having fun and developing oneself. The event itself embodies having fun by enacting student practices, such as getting drunk and doing inspiring group work. In fact, doing things around entrepreneurship also comes across as a positive ‘excuse’ for bringing young people from all around the country together to have fun and feel a part of something important and bigger than themselves. Based on this event, starting new ventures appears to be a part of being a student – at least that is the idea that ESs are trying to get across to peers. The ideal actor who takes part in ESs implicitly is capable of performing ‘being a student’, while being an entrepreneurial person who ‘gets things done’; such individuals have potential and passion – they are not just seeking great employability, as claimed by previous research (Pittaway et al., 2011). Though ‘doing stuff’ is appreciated, the ESs position themselves as promoting entrepreneurship by inspiring people rather than explicitly providing help or resources for nascent entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial ‘doing’ emerges as the way one should and could make a change, although what ‘doing’ and ‘getting things done’ mean is not delineated fully. In fact, little space is given to negotiating the meaning of entrepreneurship, allowing the concept to emerge as self-evident: it should be promoted, and it is something inherent in people, in need of being brought out. The participants talking about themselves as a student movement reflect a political connotation and a social change agenda. At the same time, they denounce anything overtly ‘political’. Bureaucracy and hierarchy

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 160

22/08/2018 10:08



A practice-based study of student Entrepreneurship Societies ­161

are portrayed as unwanted, too, but at the same time, the ESs are looking for ways to improve their cooperation. Within the studied event, the participants emerge as a group of young (or young-minded) people that are disillusioned by politics, but who still wish to change the world. Valuing ‘doing’ implies a belief that by focusing on entrepreneurial spirit, one can circumvent the power of existing practices like ‘politics’, ‘bureaucracy’ and ‘hierarchy’. ‘Politics’ has become a swear word, which seems to reflect that being a student in today’s world is not about seeking to change society through political activity. ES people won’t likely be organizing protests or manifestations; rather, they will work through unspecified entrepreneurial ‘doing’. Because the ESs aim to inspire students in entrepreneurship, it seems that the ideal way of ‘doing’ is through new ventures, in particular those seen as start-ups. Within the ESs, start-ups are seen as high-growth, innovative, technology-oriented ventures led by a team, as the first author’s larger ethnography has shown. For us, the belief in entrepreneurial doing and business activity over political activity indicates how the entrepreneurship discourse and ideology (Jones and Spicer, 2009; Kenny and Scriver, 2012) is gaining ground in Finland. In fact, because the ESs enact practices such as pitching competitions, accelerator programmes and entrepreneur speeches, they seem to be important actors in further dispersing this discourse and ideology. Similarly, Costa and Saraiva (2012) noted how entrepreneurship discourse operates within Brazilian student-led Junior Enterprises to uphold the hegemony of capitalism. Potential future research could study how the entrepreneurship discourse operates (Kenny and Scriver, 2012) and travels amongst different practices and textures of practices (Gherardi, 2012) in order to understand, for example, how promoting entrepreneurship is emerging as an important issue worth considering in new contexts. The ESs themselves raise important questions related to different aspects of the entrepreneurship phenomenon: how, why and with what consequences are students themselves producing entrepreneurship education? How do they realize their aim of promoting entrepreneurship in and through their everyday practices? How is the demarcation between ‘politics’ and ‘doing’ done within ESs and with what consequences? What is the relationship between these kinds of organizations, the capitalist system and neoliberal ideology? We leave these questions for future research and encourage the adoption of practice theories in a wide array of empirical settings.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 161

22/08/2018 10:08

162

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

REFERENCES Anderson, A.R., S.D. Dodd and S. Jack (2010), ‘Network practices and entrepreneurial growth’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26 (2), 121–33. Anderson, A.R. and S. Ronteau (2017), ‘Towards an entrepreneurial theory of practice; emerging ideas for emerging economies’, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 9 (2), 110–20. Bruni, A., S. Gherardi and B. Poggio (2004), ‘Doing gender, doing entrepreneurship: An ethnographic account of intertwined practices’, Gender, Work and Organization, 11 (4), 406–29. Chalmers, D.M. and E. Shaw (2017), ‘The endogenous construction of entrepreneurial contexts: A practice-based perspective’, International Small Business Journal, 35 (1), 19–39. Chiasson, M. and C. Saunders (2005), ‘Reconciling diverse approaches to opportunity research using the structuration theory’, Journal of Business Venturing, 20 (6), 747–67. Corradi, G., S. Gherardi and L. Verzelloni (2010), ‘Through the practice lens: Where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading?’, Management Learning, 4 (3), 265–83. Costa, A.S.M and L.A.S. Saraiva (2012), ‘Hegemonic discourses on entrepreneurship as an ideological mechanism for the reproduction of capital’, Organization, 19 (5), 587–614. Cunliffe, A.L. (2010), ‘Retelling tales of the field. In search of organizational ­ethnography 20 years on’, Organizational Research Methods, 13 (2), 224–39. Cunliffe, A.L. and G. Karunanayake (2013), ‘Working with hyphen-spaces in ethnographic research: Implications for research identities and practice’, Organizational Research Methods, 16 (3), 364–92. De Clercq, D. and M. Voronov (2009), ‘Toward a practice perspective of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial legitimacy as habitus’, International Small Business Journal, 27 (4), 395–419. Egan-Wyer, C., S.L. Muhr and A. Rehn (2017), ‘On startups and doublethink – resistance and conformity in negotiating the meaning of entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 1–23. Feldman, M.S. and W.J. Orlikowski (2011), ‘Theorizing practice and practicing theory’, Organization Science, 22 (5), 1240–1253. Gherardi, S. (2009), ‘Introduction: The critical power of the “practice lens”’, Management Learning, 40 (2), 115–28. Gherardi, S. (2010), ‘Telemedicine: A practice-based approach to technology’, Human Relations, 63 (4), 501–24. Gherardi, S. (2011), ‘Organizational learning: The sociology of practice’, in M. Easterby-Smith and M. Lyles (eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Malden, Oxford, Melbourne and Berlin: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 43–65. Gherardi, S. (2012), How to Conduct a Practice-Based Study. Problems and Methods, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Gherardi, S. (2015), ‘How the turn to practice may contribute to working life studies’, Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 5 (3a), 1–13. Graham, R. (2014), ‘Creating university-based entrepreneurial ecosystems. Evidence from emerging world leaders’, MIT Skoltech Initiative, June 2014.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 162

22/08/2018 10:08



A practice-based study of student Entrepreneurship Societies ­163

Jack, S.L. and A.R. Anderson (2002), ‘The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process’, Journal of Business Venturing, 17 (5), 467–87. Johannisson, B. (2011), ‘Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring’, Small Business Economics, 36 (2), 135–50. Johannisson, B. (2014), ‘The practice approach and interactive research in ­entrepreneurship and small-scale venturing’, in A. Carsrud and B. Brännback (eds), Handbook of Research Methods, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 228–58. Jones, C. and A. Spicer (2009), Unmasking the Entrepreneur, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Keating, A., S. Geiger and D. McLoughlin (2013), ‘Riding the practice waves: Social resourcing practices during new venture development’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38 (5), 1207–35. Kenny, K. and S. Scriver (2012), ‘Dangerously empty? Hegemony and the construction of the Irish entrepreneur’, Organization, 19 (5), 615–33. Lehdonvirta, V. (2013), ‘Helsinki spring: An essay on entrepreneurship and cultural change’, Research on Finnish Society, 6, 25–8. Mannevuo, M. (2015), ‘Affektitehdas. Työn rationalisoinnin historiallisia jatkumoita’ [‘Affect factory: rationalisation of labour in historical continuums’], doctoral dissertation, Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, ser. C., tom. 406, Turku: Turku University Press. Nicolini, D. (2009), ‘Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections’, Organization Studies, 30 (12), 1391–418. Nicolini, D. (2012), Practice Theory, Work, and Organization, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Patel, P.C. and B. Conklin (2009), ‘The balancing act: The role of transnational habitus and social networks in balancing transnational entrepreneurial activities’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33 (5), 1045–78. Pittaway, L., J. Gazzard, A. Shore and T. Williamson (2015), ‘Student clubs: Experiences in entrepreneurial learning’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 27 (3–4), 1–27. Pittaway, L., E. Rodriguez-Falcon, O. Aiyegbayo and A. King (2011), ‘The role of entrepreneurship clubs and societies in entrepreneurial learning’, International Small Business Journal, 29 (1), 37–57. Reckwitz, A. (2002), ‘Toward a theory of social practices. A development in culturalist theorizing’, European Journal of Social Theory, 5 (2), 243–63. Sarason, Y., T. Dean and J.F. Dillard (2006), ‘Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and opportunity: A structuration view’, Journal of Business Venturing, 21 (3), 286–305. Schatzki, T.R., K. Knorr-Cetina and E. von Savigny (eds) (2001), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, London: Psychology Press. StartupFinland (2017), ‘Societies’, accessed 1 March 2017 at www.startupfinland. com/societies/. 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), 453–47. Terjesen, S. and A. Elam (2009), ‘Transnational entrepreneurs’ venture internationalization strategies: A practice theory approach’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33 (5), 1093–1120.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 163

22/08/2018 10:08

164

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Van Maanen, J. (2011) [1988], Tales of the Field. On Writing Ethnography, 2nd edn, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Viljamaa. L. (2016), ‘Yrittäjyyden tukemisen hyvät käytänteet korkeakouluissa’ [‘Good practices in supporting entrepreneurship in higher education’], Opetusja Kulttuuriministeriön Julkaisuja [Publications of the Ministry of Culture and Education], 14.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 164

22/08/2018 10:08

10. Narrating entrepreneurial identities: how achievement motivation influences restaurateurs’ identity construction Magdalena Markowska and Friederike Welter INTRODUCTION The concept of entrepreneurial identity is critical in understanding how people construct their entrepreneurial selves, how they create a suitable context in which to act and how they rebuild their self-narratives when their goals change (Farmer et al., 2011). Constructing one’s identity can be represented as a continuous process of internalizing views of oneself stemming from specific entrepreneurial roles and lived experiences in a cogent life path. Particularly constructing one’s entrepreneurial identity expresses what must be done to become the person that one desires to be (Thornborrow and Brown, 2009). Several viewpoints have been used in the existing literature to investigate entrepreneurial identity construction. Identity work, for example, involves constructing and reconstructing identity (e.g., Beech, 2011; Down and Warren, 2008; García and Welter, 2013; Hytti, 2005; Ibarra, 1999), the artefacts that people employ to fashion and present themselves (e.g., Boje and Smith, 2010; Ibarra and Barbulescu, 2010; McAdams, 2006; McLean et al.,2010) or the outcomes of identity construction (Anderson and Warren, 2011; Hoang and Gimeno, 2010). Several researchers have highlighted the multifaceted nature of entrepreneurial identity (Fauchart and Gruber, 2011), arguing that this nature can be grounded in role identity (Cardon et al., 2009) or social identity (Fauchart and Gruber, 2011) or a combination of both (Powell and Baker, 2014). Although there has been increased scholarly interest in entrepreneurial identity construction, so far knowledge about what initiates the development of entrepreneurial identity is limited. Researchers have investigated a 165

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 165

22/08/2018 10:08

166

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

variety of motives for building an identity: self-esteem, continuity, distinctiveness, belonging, efficacy and meaning (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Vignoles et al., 2006). The distinctiveness motive, for example, underlines the need that some people have to be different from others, belonging concentrates on feeling valued and accepted and the efficacy motive stresses the need for competence and control. Based on these findings some may assume that motives change little over time, but research (Mainiero and Sullivan, 2005) has shown that people’s targets and motivations can change considerably over their lifespan, and to date our knowledge on how these changes affect identity building is limited. Thus our research investigates how entrepreneurs relate to these alterations when building their identities as entrepreneurs. We analyse how seven celebrity restaurateurs narrate the construction of their entrepreneurial identities. Celebrity restaurateurs are starred chefs who own and manage their restaurants. Because they engage in the constant development of new products and services and introduce new revenue streams or production methods, they possess characteristics of innovative entrepreneurs. Consequently these restaurateurs’ need to actively create narrative entrepreneurial identities and potentially deal with identity conflicts between their identities as a chef and as an entrepreneur makes this context suitable for our purpose. Our data shows that motivation affects entrepreneurs’ level of need for belonging and need for distinctiveness and, as a result, the construction of their entrepreneurial identity. More specifically we find that strong learning motivation is closely linked to more emphasis on distinctiveness, whereas strong performance motivation emphasizes the need for belonging and hence identity aspects that demonstrate similarity to others. We also find a close relationship between restaurateurs’ career stage and their emphasis on either the need for belonging or the need for distinctiveness. Finally we identify three narratives underlying initial career choices: dream follower, serendipitous craftsman and forced opportunist. We extend the current understanding of the entrepreneurial identity construction process by linking motivation and identity and by showing how this relationship evolves over time. While we investigate the construction of entrepreneurial identities, this process is likely to be generalizable to identity construction in general. The remainder of the chapter is structured as follows. We begin by presenting extant research on narrative entrepreneurial identity construction and achievement motivation and explain our methods. We then present and discuss our findings in light of current knowledge. Finally we offer concluding remarks.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 166

22/08/2018 10:08



Narrating entrepreneurial identities ­167

ENTREPRENEURIAL IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION Entrepreneurial Identity – Role Identity, Social Identity or Both? Entrepreneurial identity answers the questions ‘who am I as an entrepreneur’ and ‘who do I want to be’, and it can be expressed in various ways. Identity can be understood as a role an individual adopts in a social structure (Stryker and Burke, 2000) or as social in-group/out-group membership (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Researchers initially believed that individuals adopt one of the two perspectives (role identity or social identity), but recent explorations of identity have suggested that the two approaches do not necessarily compete and that some individuals can have a single dominant identity whereas others may have multiple dominant identities. In the context of entrepreneurship researchers have demonstrated that entrepreneurial identity can be expressed as either a structural role identity or a social identity that reflects perceived in-/out-group membership or both (Fauchart and Gruber, 2011; Powell and Baker, 2014). Entrepreneurial role identity reflects a set of accepted behavioural norms and expectations that help define the role of entrepreneur; the identity is shaped by interactions with others in the social structure (Stryker, 1980). For example the content of an entrepreneur’s role (e.g., how does one behave; what is expected, permitted, not allowed and so forth) is negotiated during interactions with customers, suppliers and other stakeholders. Individuals shape their behaviour to seek confirmation of valued roles through attempts to ‘elicit validating responses from others’ (Stryker, 1980: 63). Contrary to role identity, entrepreneurial social identity is often aspirational (Fauchart and Gruber, 2011) and reflects individuals’ perceptions and valuation of their desired membership in groups (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Powell and Baker (2014: 1407) suggest that social identities ‘create aspirations for founders to run their firms in ways that create the “role identities”’. Entrepreneurial social identity is based on beliefs, feelings, values and actions that reflect entrepreneurs’ basic social motivation (Brewer, 1991). Identification with social groups leads individuals to behave and act in ways that confirm their identities (Anderson and Warren, 2011; Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Warren, 2004). Consequently, although research agrees that entrepreneurial identity can be based either in one’s role or in group membership, we still do not understand what influences which identity and when. Narratives and Entrepreneurial Identity Construction Narratives enable individuals to both construct an identity and examine their identity development (McAdams, 1993) as well as make sense of their

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 167

22/08/2018 10:08

168

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

life (McAdams, 2001). In describing themselves individuals create their own narrative identity (McAdams, 2006; Pals, 2006). Narrative identity is ‘the product of narrative accounts of individuals’ past, present and future’ (Hytti, 2005: 598). These stories are interpretations and recollections of experiences rather than factual accounts of an individual’s past. Therefore the construction of an identity emerges through the continuous process of crafting stories (Bjursell and Melin, 2011; Harmeling, 2011; Hytti, 2005; Johansson, 2004) and making sense of the resulting narratives (e.g., García and Welter, 2013; Habermas and Bluck, 2000; McLean et al., 2007). Crafting narratives allows individuals to express their identity aims (Ibarra and Barbulescu, 2010) and present themselves in a favourable way (Goffman, 1959). The construction of an identity is a process of negotiation between the self and others and is bounded by cultural values (Ybema et al., 2009). Moreover, to become one’s desired self an individual must purposefully engage in constructing his or her identity story (Boje and Smith, 2010). Individuals’ freedom to choose and interpret the past, present and future shapes the development of their stories and content (McAdams, 2008). By plotting – that is connecting events, people, routines and habits – e­ ntrepreneurs shape their narrative identities (Ezzy, 1998). Additionally social relationships contribute to transforming the resulting narrative identities. For example, experiencing social approval may inspire an individual to become a founder entrepreneur (Farmer et al., 2011; Hoang and Gimeno, 2010). Simply put, new experiences and new interactions provide rationale for adapting one’s narrative identity; this means that narratives are constantly made and remade and that constructing an identity is an ongoing process (Bruner, 2004). In particular, narratives allow individuals to present how they discover and realize their desires, how they strive to achieve their goals over time and how they distil fragmented experiences and information into a coherent portrait (Boje, 2001). Intentionality is crucial for storytelling (McAdams, 2008) as it drives entrepreneurs to include or exclude elements they want to reveal in their identity stories. In other words, by analysing what they include or exclude from their narratives enables analysis of their motivation and identity. The Role of Motivation in Entrepreneurial Identity Construction Motivation drives and sustains action (Locke and Baum, 2012) and involves a spiritual longing to feel significant (Del Corso and Rehfuss, 2011). Individuals generally experience this sense of significance through their work – either from being evaluated positively by others or from

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 168

22/08/2018 10:08



Narrating entrepreneurial identities ­169

having sense of mastery of what they do. Their achievement motivation – defined as ‘the desire to achieve standards of excellence, for example, to improve, and to attain goals’ (Locke and Baum, 2012: 99) – can be reflected either in their motivation to learn and gain mastery or in their motivation to perform and produce good results (Dweck, 1999). While the learning orientation stresses the importance of gaining competence and acquiring new skills, the performance motivation is focused on receiving a positive external valuation of one’s skills, but the actual acquisition of skills is less important. The prevalent motivation will influence the effort individuals are likely to put in constructing and developing their identities (Gollwitzer and Kirchhof, 1998). Efforts in identity construction and reconstruction intensify when an individual’s current and aspired identity begin to diverge. Goffman (1976: 139) suggests that ‘given the stage that any person has reached in a career, one typically finds that he constructs an image of his life course – past, present, and future – which selects, abstracts, and distorts in such a way as to provide him with a view of himself that he can usefully expound in current situations’. Thus one of the main reasons for identity construction is ‘a striving to achieve a satisfactory concept or image of [oneself]’ (Tajfel, 1978: 61). Vignoles and colleagues (2006) argue that the needs for belonging, distinctiveness and efficacy as well as for continuity, self-esteem and meaning are key for the identity construction process to be triggered. The simultaneous needs to create a feeling of belonging as well as a feeling of being distinct are especially important for entrepreneurs (Shepherd and Haynie, 2009a). As Tajfel (1978) argues, these processes of unification and diversification proceed simultaneously. Consequently, the challenge of identity construction lies in establishing oneself as unique from others but in the context of close relationships, which requires belonging (McLean et al., 2010). In this regard Josselson and colleagues (2007: 3) assert that ‘relationships are central, from the very beginning of and throughout life, to the constitution and execution of the self’. Despite progress in understanding human motivation, most research in entrepreneurship has assumed that individuals’ motives remain stable and have consistent effects on entrepreneurial action over time (Shane et al., 2003). For example, studies have examined entrepreneurship as a profession that some choose rather than as a process (Carter et al., 2003; Katz, 1994), have investigated whether entrepreneurs are different from non-entrepreneurs (Chen et al., 1998; Segal et al., 2005) and have explored how entrepreneurs’ actions differ depending on their motivation (Schjoedt and Shaver, 2007; Sullivan et al., 2007). Given Shane and colleagues’ (2003) argument that extant studies have falsely assumed ‘that a given motivation influences all steps in the entrepreneurial process’ (p. 271) and Mainiero

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 169

22/08/2018 10:08

170

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

and Sullivan’s (2005) assertion that the motives driving individuals’ actions shift throughout their lives, there is a need for research adopting a dynamic view to explore how changes to motivations that drive entrepreneurial action influence entrepreneurs’ narratives of their entrepreneurial identities.

METHODOLOGY Research Setting, Sampling and Data Collection The empirical context of our study is celebrity restaurateurs – renowned chefs who own and manage starred restaurants. These high-profile chefs possess many characteristics of innovative entrepreneurs: apart from owning and managing a restaurant or multiple restaurants, they are actively engaged in developing new restaurant concepts, new dishes and new cooking methods; they write cookbooks; many of them have their own programmes on television and/or sell branded kitchenware; and so on. Additionally celebrity restaurateurs need to combine their professional identity with their entrepreneurial identity when managing their restaurants, making conflicts between these two identities likely to emerge. Finally, becoming a celebrity contributes to the active development of self-stories. To select suitable cases we searched for established chefs who actively engage in self-presentation through publications, social media and traditional media. Because identity crafting is likely to be influenced by the type of socialization, we adopted purposive sampling by selecting restaurateurs from three different educational backgrounds: self-taught cooks, former apprentices and graduates of culinary schools. This process resulted in seven cases: Ferran Adria, Rene Redzepi, Thomas Keller, Heston Blumenthal, Mario Batali, Bernard Loiseau and Gordon Ramsay (for an overview, see Table 10.1). We collected publicly available narratives written and/or published about the case restaurateurs. Our data comprises 13 books and 58 articles from both academic and more mainstream (i.e., press) sources. Research Approach and Data Analysis To address our research question and to build theory about identity construction we adopted a case study strategy, which enabled us to replicate, contrast and extend emerging theory (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007) as well as build theory that is accurate, interesting and testable (Eisenhardt, 1991).

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 170

22/08/2018 10:08

171

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 171

22/08/2018 10:08

Self-taught, a week’s work experience in Raymond Blanc’s kitchen, and a short time in Marco Pierre White’s kitchen Started culinary training at Le Cordon Bleu, apprenticeship with Marco Pierre White, culinary training in Italy College of Hotel Mgmt, then apprentice with Albert Roux and Marco Pierre White in London and Guy Savoy and Joël Robuchon in France Apprentice with Jean and Pierre Troigros

Heston Blumenthal

Note:  * = Michelin stars.

Bernard Loiseau

Gordon Ramsay

Mario Batali

Self-taught

Culinary school, apprentice with Ferran Adria and Thomas Keller Apprentice

Thomas Keller

Ferran Adria

Rene Redzepi

Education and experience

Table 10.1  Overview of case entrepreneurs

La Côte d’Or***, Saulieu, France

Restaurant Gordon Ramsay***, London, UK

Babbo*, New York, USA

The Fat Duck***, Bray, UK

French Laundry***, Napa Valley, USA

El Bulli***, Roses, Spain

Noma**, Copenhagen, Denmark

Focal restaurant

1982

1998

1993 (Po, first restaurant); 1998

1995

1986 (Rakel, first restaurant); 1994 (French Laundry)

1994

2004

Own restaurant since

Numerous books, line of frozen foods, opened three eateries in Paris, boutique shop

Owns numerous restaurants, TV persona (number of cooking shows), numerous books

Numerous books, consultancy and creativity workshop in Barcelona, sells kitchen equipment and innovations Numerous (cook)books, owns other restaurants (including Per Se, Bouchon & Bouchon Bakery), markets Limoges porcelain, food consultant in movies Owns other restaurants, numerous books, TV shows (including Heston’s Feasts, Heston Blumenthal: In Search of Perfection, commercials) Co-owns a number of restaurants with Joe Bastianich, numerous books, TV shows

Co-owner of another restaurant, pop-up restaurants, books

Entrepreneurial activities

172

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Our analyses include narrative analysis (McAdams, 2006, 2008) and first- and second-order analysis (Gioia et al., 2013). We began narrative analysis by identifying the constitutive elements of a story, including the setting, actors and their agentic powers, the action leading to a desired plot and theme(s) (i.e., the reason for and purpose of the narrative). After analysing how the narratives were constructed and how the actors rhetorically created their stories to make particular points, we then performed the first- and second-order analysis to identify relationships between the different elements and then illustrate them in a model. This process involved extracting textual elements from the documents, coding them and then grouping them into second-order themes and theoretical dimensions emerging from those themes (for an extract, see Figure 10.1). Adopting a narrative approach helps include temporality and causality in the analysis of identity construction. Narratives are self-representations (Goffman, 1959); they are subjective and enable the construction and communication of the self and one’s desired direction for the self. Inherent in a personal narrative is that it is not meant to be read ‘as an exact record of what happened’ (Riessman, 1993: 64); instead what becomes interesting is how the story is told. Individuals actively construct their own self-stories by selecting incidents and details, arranging time and sequence and employing a variety of codes and conventions that exist within a culture (Scholes, 1982). Employing others (e.g., ghost writers, journalists and so on) to tell their story may help individuals, particularly celebrities, to crystallize their self-story (Hytti, 2003). Although such narratives (told by third persons) may have added colour, they are not fabrications. In turn the resulting stories become part of individuals’ identity (McAdams, 2006); they legitimize their actions as well as make them accountable for their behaviour (Czarniawska, 1997). Both the content and the meaning of stories can evolve based on changes in worldviews (Boje, 1991).

RESULTS Constructing and reconstructing one’s identity is a continuous process. Individuals engage in identity construction to reflect their current status, development, direction and focus in life. Our analysis shows that restaurateurs engage in various activities and use different tools to adapt their identities to developments in their careers. More specifically we observed that our restaurateurs invoked their role identities to satisfy their need for belonging, while their social identities offered them possibilities to emphasize their uniqueness.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 172

22/08/2018 10:08

173

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 173

22/08/2018 10:08

Being part of the community (belonging)

Being different from others (distinctiveness)

Who I am

Serendipitous craftsman

Dream follower

Forced opportunist

Second-Order Themes

Narrating identity

Motivation for career choice

Theoretical Dimensions

Figure 10.1 Example of coding and transforming data from first-order codes to second-order themes to theoretical dimensions

Like most chefs I’m competitive and I like to get stuff right.

We are motivated above all by an aspiration to excellence (...) Our cooking values tradition, builds on it, and along with tradition is part of the ongoing evolution of our craft (...) we embrace innovation.

Normally, the road to becoming a chef begins with an apprenticeship in which the cook learns on the job, starting with the most basic skills of food preparation. Instead of being taught by the greats, I learnt from their cookbooks.

I am not a celebrity chef, I am a real cook. I hate being bracketed with gimmicky TV ever-presents like waggish Wozza (Anthony Worrall Thompson) and spiky-haired Gazza (Gary Rhodes).

I have never stopped being a chef and I will get back to the kitchen with El Bulli DNA.

When I am excited, I am like a kid in a sweet shop./I am still excited about perfection./ Not having money gave me a hunger for success.

I called up my friend Przemko, he was out of work, and I asked him if he wanted a job and he said ‘yeah’. So we went and partied that night. We both had a job. We were going to become chefs.

I was sixteen when my parents took me to the three star Michelin restaurant L’Oustau de Baumaniere in Provence in 1982. It really was a coup de foudre – love at first sight. I fell in love with cooking and the idea of being a chef.

When I turned 15, I left school having failed to make the minimum grade. With little direction I enlisted at the local culinary school.

Bernard was ultra-sensitive, he had a virtually incredible clarity of vision (...) He was the only one of us who dreamt of having three stars one day.

It was football, not cooking that was my first real passion.

I wanted to be Spanish banker – I loved the idea of making a lot of money and living a luxurious life in Madrid.

First-Order Categories

174

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Narratives of Initial Career Choices By analysing our restaurateurs’ narratives we identified three different narratives used to explain their initial career decision – in this case the decision to become a chef: dream follower, serendipitous craftsman and forced opportunist. These types of narratives differ in how the restaurateurs’ initial career choice is aligned with their desires and career visions (see Table 10.2). More specifically, while dream followers emphasize that their career choice reflects their childhood dream, forced opportunists argue that they initially had a different career in mind that was thwarted by their particular circumstances, so they instead chose to become chefs and do their best. Finally, serendipitous craftsmen highlight an unexpected critical event that motivated their career decision (e.g., a sensory experience in a gourmet restaurant). Dream followers emphasize that being a chef, climbing the career ladder and gaining recognition and accolades as a great chef have been their dream for a long time. For example, Bernard Loiseau ‘lived and breathed cooking to such a degree that he never switched off’, and he was always focused on being the best. Guy Savoy, now a renowned chef and a fellow apprentice from Troigros times remembered that ‘Bernard was ultra-sensitive, he had a virtually incredible clarity of vision (. . .) He was the only one of us who dreamt of having three stars one day’ (Guy Savoy, cited in Loiseau, 2003). On the other hand, forced opportunists eagerly describe how they intended to follow a different career, how cooking was not their primary career goal, but they were forced to change their initial career goals due to unforeseen circumstances. For example, Mario Batali chose a cooking career after being thrown out of his dormitory, and Gordon Ramsay became a chef because his dreams of having a football career ended as the result of an injury. As Mario Batali elaborated, ‘I wanted to be a Spanish banker – I loved the idea of making a lot of money and living a luxurious life in Madrid’, but when he was thrown from his dorm, becoming a dishwasher and quickly progressing through the different stages of cooking career meant that his life and his aspired career had changed (Buford, 2007: 7). Interestingly while these three narratives refer to the restaurateurs’ initial career choice of becoming a chef, they did not discuss their subsequent career development or their decision to become a restaurateur in detail. It seems implicit in all the stories that becoming an entrepreneur and restaurant owner was a natural next step in each chef’s career, something that becomes inevitable if one has talent. Finally, serendipitous craftsmen stress that they were not actively

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 174

22/08/2018 10:08



Narrating entrepreneurial identities ­175

Table 10.2  Types of identity narratives used to explain career choice Identity

Characteristics

Examples

Illustration

Dream follower

Emphasis on  fulfilling a childhood career dream

Bernard  Loiseau

Serendipitous craftsman

Emphasis on a  critical event that led them to choose the particular career; for example, an encounter with a hero/role model, an experience that forces them to re-evaluate their priorities in life Emphasis on the  need to change one’s desired career due to some unexpected/ uninviting circumstances that made pursuing the initial career impossible

Heston  Blumenthal, Thomas Keller, Ferran Adria, Rene Redzepi

‘Bernard was ultra sensitive, he had a virtually incredible clarity of vision, so much so that we already believed that our desires were in the realms of the possible. He was the only one of us who dreamt of having three stars one day’ (Loiseau, 2003) ‘I was sixteen when  my parents took me to the three-star Michelin restaurant L’Oustau de Baumaniere in Provence in1982. It really was a coup de foudre – love at first sight. I fell in love with cooking and the idea of being a chef’ (Blumenthal, 2009, p. 22)

Forced opportunist

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 175

‘“I wanted to be a Spanish Gordon  Ramsay,  banker – I loved the idea Mario Batali of making a lot of money and living a luxurious life in Madrid”’ but when he was thrown from his dorm, becoming a dishwasher and quickly progressing through the different stages of cooking career meant that his life and his aspired career has changed’ (Buford, 2007: 7) ‘It was football, not  cooking that was my first real passion’ (Ramsay, 2007: 41)

22/08/2018 10:08

176

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

thinking about a cooking career until an important event occurred that made them aware and highly interested in such a career. For example, Heston Blumenthal stated that it was not until his family went to France and visited a starred restaurant that he started to think seriously about a career as chef and restaurateur: ‘I was sixteen when my parents took me to the three-star Michelin restaurant L’Oustau de Baumaniere in Provence in 1982. It really was a coup de foudre – love at first sight. I fell in love with cooking and the idea of being a chef’ (Blumenthal, 2009: 22). Similarly, Rene Redzepi (2010) noted that he began considering a cooking career during a cooking competition in his school years at which he realized that it mattered how food tasted and looked: It was back then when I was 15, because I remember we were dressing this plate, and you know, the chicken was there and I thought okay I’ll slice it, it would be easier to eat . . . And then, eh, my partner Michael, he was just about to put the cashew nut sauce on the meat and I said stop, because there was a perfect little space right there for the sauce and then we put the sauce there. And that’s – I was really like wow, where did that come from? You know, I’ve never had a reaction like that before, where I actually – what does it matter, you know? Well it does matter, I know now, but I didn’t know where it came from. So I think that was a period where I thought okay, this is . . . I’m gonna see what can come out of this. (Rene Redzepi in ABC news)

In addition, Ferran Adria mentioned that he initially did not have any particular interest in cooking and what brought him to cooking was the idea of making money to have fun. It was not until much later that he realized that cooking and innovation could become his passion: Sex was what drove him, aged 18, to get a job in a regular everyday restaurant in Castelldefels, on the coast just south of Barcelona. Initially he bore the title of junior assistant cook, a grand way of saying ‘dishwasher’. But he didn’t care. He had no more interest in cooking at the time than he had in gardening or bricklaying. The point was to make enough cash to spend a whole summer in Ibiza, which meant meeting girls . . .   He worked in the kitchens, serving 3,000 conscripts until he got his big break, a job as chef to the admiral in the Mediterranean port town of Cartagena. He became head of the kitchen, leading a team of five, and suddenly found himself making meals for cabinet ministers and, on one occasion, even the King of Spain. Until that point he had no special affection for cooking . . . The decisive final steps came . . . when he attended a course in Cannes given by Jacques Maximin. ‘There was one thing Maximin said to us that has always stayed with me,’ Adrià told me once. ‘Someone asked him, what is creativity? And he replied, “Creativity is not copying”. So simple and so obvious, I suppose, yet that was a key moment for me. Because until then I had always copied, but from that moment on everything changed. I understood something I had never understood before. I passed from being a technician to a creator.’ (Carlin, 2006)

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 176

22/08/2018 10:08



Narrating entrepreneurial identities ­177

Achievement Motivation and Entrepreneurial Identity Construction Often one’s career choice reflects his or her underlying motivations and goals. Our restaurateurs’ stories about their career choice vary significantly in terms of the source of their career motivation and expectations. While some of them talked about discovering and following a calling, others emphasized the rationality, coincidence or serendipity of their career choice. The dream follower narrative reflects the deep desire to pursue a given cooking career and the wish to be at the top of it. For example, Bernard Loiseau wanted to be a renowned chef and had a clear vision for achieving it: he focused on performance. What counted for him was his restaurant’s ranking and patrons’ and restaurant critics’ perceptions of it. Loiseau always had to be the best and make his hotel restaurant perfect even at the cost of missing time with his children. As recounted on his website, ‘He was determined to climb the career ladder. From the time of his first star in 1977, he had already set his sights on his second, which he won in 1981. It was then that the Loiseau personality exploded onto the culinary stage’ (http://www.bernard-loiseau.com/uk/bernardloiseau-parcours-distinctions.​ php). Since external appreciation was what was important to Loiseau, his learning and mastery of skills was reduced to areas he knew would bring him this recognition. This tendency was visible in two regards. First, he did not appear to innovate with food, and many of his dishes remained on the menu for many years. Loiseau believed these dishes were ‘perfect’, and in the past they brought him recognition, which became subject to increasing condemnation from restaurant critics. Second, even if he was concerned about finances and the damage a lost Michelin star would do to his business, he never prioritized financial aspects of the restaurant over the possibility of receiving positive – and often free – publicity and praise, and he often offered ‘sybaritic rustication’ on the house in expectation of positive articles about his restaurant (Chelminski, 2006: 153). Similarly, the forced opportunist narrative emphasizes the need for external valuation of one’s skills and the search for continuous comparison with others. This feature is particularly evident in Gordon Ramsay’s narratives when he measured his own success through the success of others – for example, comparing the number of Michelin stars received and/or held: ‘Alain Ducasse has got three sets of three-starred restaurants, in New York, Monaco and Paris. So it’s definitely possible. That’s my goal. And Thomas Keller, the American chef, has two lots of three stars. So, if anything, I feel I’m lagging behind. I am under-achieving’ (Ramsay, 2007).

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 177

22/08/2018 10:08

178

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

For him it was not enough that he received his very first Michelin star within a year of becoming a head chef and partial owner at Aubergine; it is not enough that he currently possesses 14 Michelin stars across his restaurant empire: he still feels disappointment that others are doing better. Similarly, this emphasis on being the best, being the most efficient and/or holding records in various categories is also apparent with Mario Batali, who claimed that he holds the record for making the most pizzas in an hour. This need to confirm one’s own worth and receive recognition can spread outside the kitchen, filling these individuals with pride. For example, Gordon Ramsay was greatly touched when meeting Queen Elisabeth II and receiving from her hands the OBE award in recognition of his contribution to the nation’s food industry. Again, this appreciation emphasizes the focus on performance and external valuation of skills: ‘The award [OBE] means a huge amount to me; it’s just a little outside confirmation of how far I have come, that I am doing OK’ (Ramsay, 2007: 273). Contrary to dream followers and forced opportunists, serendipitous craftsmen’s stories emphasize their desire to learn and master skills. For example, driven by the desire to learn from the best, Rene Redzepi actively approached competence development and successfully sought a stage at El Bulli and later French Laundry. Also, Blumenthal’s passion for food and willingness to understand the intricacies of the cooking process have led him to actively search for projects and tasks that enable him to develop further competencies – for example, his TV series In Search of Perfection in which he attempts to recreate ‘the perfect’ version of a number of classic dishes. Further in his pursuit of perfection he has often engaged with scientists and other industry experts in activities that help him reach his version of perfection – the ultimate performance level. Talking about his trials to build the perfect tandoori oven, Heston Blumenthal (2007: 113) explained, ‘Like most chefs I’m competitive and I like to get stuff right. I like to master technical details and practical problems.’ Furthermore, the individuals who used this narrative stressed the particular challenge they needed to overcome to arrive where they were at the moment. For example, looking back at his story, Keller ‘had no formal training and no extended mentoring. He learned just about everything by figuring it out by himself’ (Ruhlman, 2000: 265). Similarly, Heston Blumental argued the following: Normally, the road to becoming a chef begins with an apprenticeship in which the cook learns on the job, starting with the most basic skills of food ­preparation – peeling and picking and plucking and bone-chopping and topping and tailing

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 178

22/08/2018 10:08



Narrating entrepreneurial identities ­179 and straining and rinsing – and eventually moving onto mentorship of sorts by observing (and possibly getting an earful [from]) a great chef at work. Although I didn’t realize it at the time, I’d effectively embarked on my own unconventional apprenticeship. Instead of being taught by the greats, I learnt from their cookbooks; and I got something of the buzz of the kitchen from those ‘great chefs’ books as I pored over their grainy, black-and-white photos . . .   When I left school at eighteen I took a decision that could have steered my life in a different direction (at the very least I would have been a very different kind of chef). I decided to apply for a proper apprenticeship in a professional kitchen . . . I got one reply . . . a week’s probation at Raymond Blanc’s Le Manoir aux Quat’Saisons. If my self-training of the previous two years was judged to be good enough, I would be working at one of the best restaurants in the country! (Blumenthal, 2009: 27–8)

Consequently, we observe that the motivation driving these restaurateurs – whether they were seeking external validation of their skills or following an internal need to develop competence and share their knowledge – translated to how they construct their career identities. More specifically, while more internally driven restaurateurs focused more on acquiring new competencies, hence enriching the content of their careers, the more externally motivated restaurateurs engaged in more activities geared towards advancing their careers in terms of movement and external accolades. In other words, serendipitous craftsmen appear to stress and be driven by mastery needs; they strive for excellence in every aspect of their work and experiment much more to be able to offer their customers new experiences and new products, innovate with their own production methods and avoid boredom and excessive routine. For forced opportunists and dream followers, on the other hand, although the acquisition of skills is important for their overall performance, their focus – and driving force – is outcomes and others’ perceptions of their achievements (see Table 10.3).

DISCUSSION The basic premise of this chapter is that entrepreneurial identity construction is a complex and ongoing process. While others have explored the identity construction process itself, we focus on exploring the relationship between achievement motivation and narrative entrepreneurial identity construction. First, this chapter suggests that including achievement motivation is key for understanding the process of identity construction. More specifically, analysing restaurateurs’ narratives highlights the relationship between achievement motivation and emphasis on the need for belonging

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 179

22/08/2018 10:08

180

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 180

22/08/2018 10:08

Mastery

Performance

Dream follower

Serendipitous craftsman

Motivation

Identity

The narrative emphasizes the desire to learn and acquire skills and/or overcome a particular challenge, for example, no formal training. As a craftsman the individual actively searches for opportunities to develop further.

The narrative emphasizes both the search for perfection as well as the need for external valuation of the skills and search for constant comparison with others.

Description of typical behaviours

Table 10.3  Initial choice of narrative and motivation

‘He was determined to climb the career ladder. From the time  of his first star in 1977, he had already set his sights on his second, which he won in 1981’ (www.bernard-loiseau.com/uk/ bernardloiseau-parcours-distinctions.php) ‘Someday, I will get three stars’ (Bernard Loiseau in Echikson,  2003) ‘He lived and breathed cooking to such a degree that he never  switched off. He always had to be the best. He didn’t even want to spend time with the children because the whole day long he wanted to be in the hotel restaurant to make sure everything was perfect’ (Bernard Loiseau’s wife in an interview with Cripps, 2009). ‘Normally, the road to becoming a chef begins with an  apprenticeship . . . Instead of being taught by the greats, I learnt from their cookbooks; and I got something of the buzz of the kitchen from those “great chefs” books as I pored over their grainy, black-and-white photos’ (Blumenthal, 2009: 27). Thomas Keller ‘had no formal training and no extended  mentoring. He learned just about everything by figuring it out by himself’ (Ruhlman, 2000: 265)

Illustration

181

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 181

22/08/2018 10:08

Forced opportunist

Performance

Mastery

The narrative emphasizes the need for external valuation of the skills and search for constant comparison with others.

The narrative emphasizes the search for perfection but the elements of external evaluation and comparison become visible as well.

‘My life, like most people’s, is about keeping the wolf from the  door. It’s about hard work. It’s about success. Beyond that, though, something else is at play. Is it fear? Maybe. I’m as driven as any man you’ll ever meet. (. . .) When I think about myself, I still see a little boy who is desperate to escape, and anxious to please’ (Ramsay, 2007: 8). ‘Alain Ducasse has got three sets of three-starred restaurants, in  New York, Monaco and Paris. So it’s definitely possible. That’s my goal. And Thomas Keller, the American chef, has two lots of three stars. So, if anything, I feel I’m lagging behind. I am under-achieving’ (Ramsay, 2007). Mario Batali claims that he holds the record for making the most   pizzas in an hour. ‘The award means a huge amount to me; it’s just a little outside  confirmation of how far I have come, that I am doing OK’ (Ramsay, 2007: 273).

182

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

and/or distinctiveness in narrative identity constructions. For example, serendipitous craftsmen, who are motivated by learning goals, emphasize the need to do things their way and to do things properly, so the need for distinctiveness is more prevalent in their narratives. In contrast dream followers and forced opportunists are motivated by performance goals and thus emphasize the need to belong to a group of high performers. Simply put, achievement motivation is likely to influence whether an individual will build his or her identity stressing similarity to or distinction from his or her profession and its members. Interestingly, prior research on entrepreneurial identity construction has pointed to situations in which some individuals are likely to engage in identity work to reflect the current entrepreneurial discourse, whereas others look for opportunities to make the discourse their own (for example, Anderson and Warren, 2011; Berglund, 2006; García and Welter, 2013) without providing an explanation for doing so. Our data suggests that this tendency may stem from their dominant motivation. Moreover, research has asserted that it is possible to be motivated by both learning and performance goals, which would suggest that such individuals construct their entrepreneurial identity to include both. Future research should explore this possibility further. Second, although extant literature has noticed that the need for belonging and the need for distinctiveness coexist (Brewer, 1991; Shepherd and Haynie, 2009b), we advance this literature by revealing a special link between belonging, distinctiveness, career stage and narrative construction of entrepreneurial identity. More specifically, we found that in their early narratives celebrity restaurateurs stressed the need to establish themselves as professionals first and convince others that they belonged in the industry by emphasizing behaviours aligning with the norms and standards of being a chef. With time as the restaurateurs received recognition and became more efficacious in their roles, they actively engaged in stressing their own distinctiveness and the uniqueness of their restaurants and offerings. Because simultaneously gaining legitimacy and stressing the novelty and uniqueness of an offering can be difficult, the restaurateurs used temporal separation of focus when constructing a more coherent entrepreneurial narrative. For example, as legitimacy is built by referencing existing social narratives and specific cultural norms (Brown, 2006), restaurateurs embedded their narrative identities in a larger – often ­mainstream – cultural discourse to achieve their goal (Rao et al., 2003). While our findings come from a sample of high-profile restaurateurs, we believe they can be generalized to other craftspeople and professionals who wish to pursue an entrepreneurial path after they have established themselves as professionals.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 182

22/08/2018 10:08



Narrating entrepreneurial identities ­183

CONCLUSION The process of identity construction is complex and ongoing. Our findings suggest that including motivation is key to understanding the active construction of identity over time. Further, we identified three basic narratives used to explain entrepreneurial identity construction: dream follower, forced opportunist and serendipitous craftsman. Entrepreneurs actively construct these narratives to emphasize how they arrived at the current stage of their career and to distinguish themselves from other potentially similar representatives of their profession. More specifically, we found that early in their careers our restaurateurs focused more on constructing narratives that satisfied their need for belonging to the profession. Only once they were established themselves did they engage more actively in building narratives that expressed their need for distinctiveness.

REFERENCES Anderson, A. and L. Warren (2011), ‘The entrepreneur as hero and jester: Enacting the entrepreneurial discourse’, International Small Business Journal, 29 (6), 589–609. Beech, N. (2011), ‘Liminality and the practices of identity reconstruction’, Human Relations, 64 (2), 285–302. Berglund, K. (2006), ‘Discursive diversity in fashioning entrepreneurial identity’, in C. Steyaert and D. Hjorth (eds), Entrepreneurship as Social Change. A Third Movements in Entrepreneurship Book, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Bjursell, C. and L. Melin (2011), ‘Proactive and reactive plots: Narratives in entrepreneurial identity construction’, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 3(3), 218–35. Blumenthal, H. (2007), Further Adventures in Search of Perfection. Reinventing Kitchen Classics, London: Bloomsbury. Blumenthal, H. (2009), The Fat Duck Cookbook, London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Boje, D. (1991), ‘The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (1), 106–26. Boje, D. (2001), Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research, London: Sage. Boje, D. and R. Smith (2010), ‘Re-storying and visualizing the changing entrepreneurial identities of Bill Gates and Richard Branson’, Culture and Organization, 16 (4), 307–31. Brewer, M. (1991), ‘The social self: On being the same and different at the same time’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 (5), 475–82. Brown, A. (2006), ‘A narrative approach to collective identities’, Journal of Management Studies, 43 (4), 731–53. Bruner, J. (2004), ‘Life as narrative’, Social Research, 71 (3), 691–710. Buford, B. (2007), Heat: An Amateur’s Adventures as Kitchen Slave, Line Cook, Pasta-Maker and Apprentice to a Butcher in Tuscany, London: Vintage.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 183

22/08/2018 10:08

184

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

Cardon, M., J. Wincent, J. Singh and M. Drnovsek (2009), ‘The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion’, Academy of Management Review, 34 (3), 511–32. Carlin, J. (2006), ‘If the world’s greatest chef cooked for a living, he’d starve’, The Guardian, 11 December, accessed 14 May 2018 at https://www.theguardian.com/ observer/foodmonthly/futureoffood/story/0,,1969713,00.html. Carter, N., W. Gartner, K. Shaver and E. Gatewood (2003), ‘The career reasons of nascent entrepreneurs’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 13–39. Chelminski, R. (2006), The Perfectionist: Life and Death in Haute Cuisine, New York: Gotham Books. Chen, C., P. Greene and A. Crick (1998), ‘Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers?’, Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 295–316. Cripps, C. (2009), ‘Bernard Loiseau: He lived and breathed cooking’, Independent, 15 April 2009, accessed 14 May 2018 at https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/ food-and-drink/features/bernard-loiseau-he-lived-and-breathed-cooking-16692​ 33.html. Czarniawska, B. (1997), ‘A four times told tale: Combining narrative and scientific knowledge in organization studies’, Organization, 4 (1), 7–30. Deci, E. and R. Ryan (2000), ‘The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determinism of behavior’, Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), 227–68. Del Corso, J. and M.C. Rehfuss (2011), ‘The role of narrative in career construction theory’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79 (2), 334–9. Down, S. and L. Warren (2008), ‘Constructing narratives of enterprise: Clichés and entrepreneurial self-identity’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 14 (1), 4–23. Dweck, C. (1999), Self-Theories. Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development, Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis/Psychology Press. Echikson, W. (2003), ‘Death of a chef. The changing landscape of French cooking’, The New Yorker. Annals of Gastronomy, 12 May, accessed 14 May 2018 at http:// www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/05/12/death-of-a-chef. Eisenhardt, K. (1991), ‘Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic’, Academy of Management Review, 16 (3), 620–27. Eisenhardt, K. and M. Graebner (2007), ‘Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges’, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1), 25–32. Ezzy, D. (1998), ‘Theorizing narrative identity’, Sociological Quarterly, 39 (2), 239–52. Farmer, S., X. Yao and K. Kung-Mcintyre (2011), ‘The behavioral impact of entrepreneur identity aspiration and prior entrepreneurial experience’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35 (2), 245–73. Fauchart, E. and M. Gruber (2011), ‘Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship’, Academy of Management Journal, 54 (5), 935–57. García, M.-C. D. and F. Welter (2013), ‘Gender identities and practices: Interpreting women entrepreneurs’ narratives’, International Small Business Journal, 31 (4), 384–404. Gioia, D.A., K. Corley and A. Hamilton (2013), ‘Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology’, Organizational Research Methods, 16 (1), 15–31.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 184

22/08/2018 10:08



Narrating entrepreneurial identities ­185

Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth, UK: Pelican Books. Goffman, E. (1976), Asylums, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Gollwitzer, P.M. and O. Kirchhof (1998), ‘The willful pursuit of identity’, in J.  Heckhausen and C. Dweck (eds), Motivation and Self-Regulation across the Life Span, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 389–423. Habermas, T. and S. Bluck (2000), ‘Getting a life: The emergence of the life story in adolescence’, Psychological Bulletin, 126 (5), 748–69. Harmeling, S. (2011), ‘Contingency as an entrepreneurial resource: How private obsession fulfills public need’, Journal of Business Venturing, 26 (3), 293–305. Hoang, H. and J. Gimeno (2010), ‘Becoming a founder: How founder role identity affects entrepreneurial transitions and persistence in founding’, Journal of Business Venturing, 25 (1), 41–53. Hytti, U. (2003), ‘Stories of entrepreneurs: Narrative construction of identity’, doctoral dissertation at Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Turku, Finland. Hytti, U. (2005), ‘New meanings for entrepreneurs: From risk-taking heroes to safe-seeking professionals’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18 (6), 594–611. Ibarra, H. (1999), ‘Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (4), 764–91. Ibarra, H. and R. Barbulescu (2010), ‘Identity as narrative: Prevalence, effectiveness, and consequences of narrative identity work in macro work role transitions’, Academy of Management Review, 35 (1), 135–54. Johansson, A. (2004), ‘Narrating the entrepreneur’, International Small Business Journal, 22 (3), 273–93. Josselson, R., A. Lieblich and D.P.McAdams (2007), The Meaning of Others: Narrative Studies of Relationships, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Katz, J. (1994), ‘Modelling entrepreneurial career progressions: Concepts and considerations’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19 (2), 23–40. Locke, E. and R. Baum (2012), ‘Entrepreneurial motivation’, in R. Baum, M. Frese and R. Baron (eds), The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, New York: Psychology Press, pp. 93–112. Loiseau, D. (2003), Bernard Loiseau mon mari, Hauts de Seine: Michel Lafon. Mainiero, L. and S. Sullivan (2005), ‘Kaleidoscope careers: An alternate explanation for the “opt-out” revolution’, The Academy of Management Executive, 19 (1), 106–23. McAdams, D.P. (1993), Stories We Live By: Personal Myths and the Making of the Self, New York: William Morrow. McAdams, D.P. (2001), ‘The psychology of life stories’, Review of General Psychology, 5 (2), 100–22. McAdams, D.P. (2006), Identity and Story: Creating Self in Narrative, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McAdams, D.P. (2008), ‘Personal narratives and the life story’, in O. John, R. Robins and L. Pervin (eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 242–64. McLean, K., A. Breen and M. Fournier (2010), ‘Constructing the self in early, middle, and late adolescent boys: Narrative identity, individuation, and wellbeing’, Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20 (1), 166–87.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 185

22/08/2018 10:08

186

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

McLean, K., M. Pasupathi and J. Pals (2007), ‘Selves creating stories creating selves: A process model of self-development’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11 (3), 262–78. Pals, J. (2006), ‘Narrative identity processing of difficult life experiences: Pathways of personality development and positive self-transformation in adulthood’, Journal of Personality, 74 (4), 1079–1110. Powell, E. and T. Baker (2014), ‘It’s what you make of it: Founder identity and enacting strategic responses to adversity’, Academy of Management Journal, 57 (5), 1406–33. Ramsay, G. (2007), Roasting in Hell’s Kitchen: Temper Tantrums, F-Words, and the Pursuit of Perfection, New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Rao, H., P. Monin and R. Durand (2003), ‘Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy’, The American Journal of Sociology, 108 (4), 795–843. Redzepi, R. (2010), Noma. Time and Place in Nordic Cuisine, London: Phaidon. Riessman, C. (1993), Narrative Analysis (Vol. 30), London: Sage Publications. Ruhlman, M. (2000), The Soul of a Chef: The Journey toward Perfection, New York: Penguin Books. Schjoedt, L. and K. Shaver (2007), ‘Deciding on an entrepreneurial career: A test of the pull and push hypotheses using the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics data1’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31 (5), 733–52. Scholes, R. (1982), Semiotics and Interpretation, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Segal, G., D. Borgia and J. Schoenfeld (2005), ‘The motivation to become an entrepreneur’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 11 (1), 42–57. Shane, S., E. Locke and C. Collins (2003), ‘Entrepreneurial motivation’, Human Resource Management Review, 13 (2), 257–79. Shepherd, D. and J.M. Haynie (2009a), ‘Birds of a feather don’t always flock together: Identity management in entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (4), 316–37. Shepherd, D. and J.M. Haynie (2009b), ‘Family business, identity conflict, and an expedited entrepreneurial process: A process of resolving identity conflict’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33 (6), 1245–64. Stryker, S. (1980), Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version, Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings. Stryker, S. and P.J. Burke (2000), ‘The past, present, and future of an identity theory’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284–97. Sullivan, S., M. Forret, L. Mainiero and S. Terjesen (2007), ‘What motivates entrepreneurs? An exploratory study of the kaleidoscope career model and entrepreneurship’, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 12 (4), 4–19. Tajfel, H. (1978), ‘Social categorization, social identity and social comparison’,  in H. Tajfel (ed.), Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the  Social  Psychology of Intergroup Relations, London: Academic Press, pp. 61–76. Tajfel, H. and J. Turner (1979), ‘An integrative theory of intergroup conflict’, in W. Austin and S. Worchel (eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole, pp. 33–47. Thornborrow, T. and A. Brown (2009), ‘Being regimented: Aspiration, discipline

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 186

22/08/2018 10:08



Narrating entrepreneurial identities ­187

and identity work in the British Parachute Regiment’, Organization Studies, 30 (4), 355–76. Warren, l. (2004), ‘Negotiating entrepreneurial identity. Communities of practice and changing discourses’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5 (2), 25–37. Vignoles, V., C. Regalia, C. Manzi, J. Golledge and E. Scabini (2006), ‘Beyond self-esteem: Influence of multiple motives on identity construction’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (2), 308–33. Ybema, S., T. Keenoy, C. Oswick, A. Beverungen, N. Ellis and I. Sabelis (2009), ‘Articulating identities’, Human Relations, 62 (3), 299–322.

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 187

22/08/2018 10:08

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 188

22/08/2018 10:08

Index Aaboen, L. 3–4 Aadland, T. 3–4 ability to innovate 12 ‘about’ design, entrepreneurship education 103, 104, 115, 117, 126, 138 absorption capacity 11, 16, 63, 64 achievement motivation 5, 169, 177–9, 179–82 active learning 113–14 actor–opportunity nexus 28 adaptation 13, 96, 97 Adria, F. 171, 175, 176 advisory services 74, 75, 85 age of business, social capital and growth (study) 70–71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 Aldrich, H.E. 60 alliances 16, 28 Alta 29; see also speed of innovation (study) Amezcua, A. 77 Anderson, A. 75 Arges 28–9; see also speed of innovation (study) Armario, J. 90 artefacts and identity work studies 165 learning communities 42, 45, 54, 55 market orientation and 87 student ES event 153 Arzubiaga, U. 12 aspirational social identity 167 attitudes 11, 112, 114, 125, 127, 131, 132, 141, 146 autonomy (learning) 2, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56 Axelsson, K. 4 Aylward, D. 2

Baker, T. 167 balanced and replenished brokers 2, 45, 54, 56 Batali, M. 171, 174, 175 Beamish, P.W. 90 ‘being part of the start-up scene’, entrepreneurship societies (study) 151, 153–4, 155, 160 ‘being a student’, entrepreneurship societies (study) 151, 153, 154, 155, 157, 160, 161 Belarouci, M. 2–3 beliefs 9, 11, 131, 155, 161, 167 belonging ES and sense of 151 and identity construction 5, 166, 169, 172, 179–82, 183 Berglund, K. 124 Blanc, C. 66 Blumenthal, H. 171, 175, 176, 178–9 board composition/functioning, and innovation 12 Borges, C. 65, 66 “born global” firms 89, 95, 97 Boschma, R. 27, 33 boundary elements, learning communities 2, 44–5, 51–2, 52–3, 54–5, 56 boundary spanning 44, 52, 53 Bourdieusian studies 148–9 brokering, learning communities 2, 43–5, 56; see also boundary elements; catalyst; strategy; structure Bruni, A. 149 bureaucracy 160–61 business, and entrepreneurship education 110, 111, 125, 126, 127, 134–5, 140–41 189

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 189

22/08/2018 10:08

190

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

business performance MO, marketing capability and (study) 3, 84–97 discussion and conclusions 94–7 methodology 90–92 results 92–4 theoretical framework 85–90 see also firm performance; growth business support structures 75, 76 Cadogan, J. 97 Canadian micro firms, community learning (study) 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 capability knowledge sharing and 26 see also marketing capability; social capabilities capacity social capital and growth (study) 75 to innovate, as a research issue 11, 15 capital as a substitutes/complements for innovation 14 see also social capital career choice ES and promotion of entrepreneurship as a 151 and narratives of identity construction 166 see also dream followers; forced opportunists; serendipitous craftsmen career stage, and identity construction 166, 169, 174, 182, 183 case studies, in entrepreneurship education 113, 126 case study designs celebrity chefs’ identity construction 170–83 entrepreneurship in teacher education 4, 123–41 rural tourism micro learning 2, 41–56 speed of innovation 2, 24–38 catalyst, learning communities 43, 48, 52 Cavusgil, S. 90, 95 celebrity chefs’ identity construction (study) 5, 166

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 190

conclusion 183 discussion 179–82 methodology 170–72 results 172–9 Chakrabarti, A.K. 26 Chalmers, D.M. 149 champions, learning communities 43, 45, 56 change entrepreneurship education and 108, 114 entrepreneurship societies and 154–5, 160 channel-bonding 96 Chapman, C. 91 chrono-context, and family firm innovation 11 close others, over-reliance on 42 clusters 66–7 geographical proximity and 27 and growth 3, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78–9 resource-based determinants 15 wood industry, Ostrobothnia 85 co-creators, of knowledge 137 cognitive proximity 2, 27, 31, 32–3, 34, 35, 36, 37 cohesiveness 64, 76 collaboration 9, 29, 41, 43, 46, 48, 49, 50, 55, 56, 133, 134 collaborative learning 42–3 communication entrepreneurship education 137 learning communities 43–4, 51, 52, 53 community of practice perspective 41–2, 44, 56 competence development and identity construction 166, 169, 178, 179 market orientation and growth 87 micro firm learning communities 2, 44, 54, 56 competent brokerage 56 competitive advantage 2, 7, 9, 14, 24, 42, 88, 89–90, 96 competitive edge 63, 67 competitiveness 1, 26, 41, 66, 77, 86, 89 competitiveness hub 66

22/08/2018 10:08



Index ­191

competitor orientation 86 compulsory entrepreneurship education 128 compulsory school education, entrepreneurship in 127 consultant-led exercises 50, 53 context, importance of 25, 60 contextual impact, of education 4, 114, 115 continuity, and identity construction 166, 169 cooperation clusters and 66 student ES 156–8, 161 cooperative ethos 44 cooperative skills 126, 137 Cope, J. 103, 126 Costa, A.S.M. 161 cottage weekend, student ES (study) 152–4, 156, 159–60 country descriptions, entrepreneurship education 108 courage 126, 133, 137 crafting identity narratives 168, 170 creative thinking 33 creativity 64, 76, 126, 135, 136, 137, 149, 176 cross-fertilization, clusters and 66 Cuevas-Rodriguez, G. 69 cultural discourse, identity embedded in 182 culture entrepreneurial trust-based 29 and market orientation 87 organizational 9, 10 start-up 155, 157, 160 customer knowledge 32 customer orientation 86, 88 customer relationship management 88–9 customer value 88 customer-linking 96 customers, and external learning 26, 31–2 Davids, M. 31 Davidsson, P. 38, 63 Day, G. 88, 96 De Massis, A. 1, 9, 11, 12 Debrulle, J. 63, 64, 69, 75

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 191

decision-making incubators and growth (study) 77 innovation research issues 14, 15, 16 learning communities 53 speed of innovation study 33 development speed (product) 26, 31–4, 36 Dewey, J. 126, 135, 138 Dhanaraj, C. 90 Diamantopolous, A. 97 didactic issues 4, 106, 124, 126, 129, 137 digitalization 15 distinctiveness, and identity construction 5, 166, 169, 172, 182, 183 doing, ES and entrepreneurial 5, 158, 160, 161 domestic firms, MO, marketing capability and growth 3, 93–4 dream followers, and identity construction 5, 174, 175, 177, 179, 180, 182 dynamic capabilities (DC) 88 dynamic mindset 140 early years firms, growth and social capital (study) 2–3, 60–79 conclusion 78–9 discussion 75–8 methodology 67–70 results 70–74 theoretical background 61–7 Ebbers, J.J. 65 economic motive, entrepreneurship education 132, 134, 137 education research, importance of 1 see also entrepreneurship education educational level, entrepreneurship education 128, 129 Swedish study 131, 137–8 Edwards, C. 126, 138 efficacy, and identity construction 166, 169 efficiency (cluster) 67 Egan-Wyer, C. 160 emotional attachment, and family firm innovation 11 employment 26

22/08/2018 10:08

192

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

engineering, entrepreneurship education in 108, 110, 111 enterprising education 125 enterprising skills 123, 125 entrepreneurial identity, multifaceted nature 165, 167 entrepreneurial identity construction 5, 165–83 motivations 5, 166, 168–70, 177–9 narratives 165, 167–8 research 165–6 see also celebrity chefs’ identity construction (study) entrepreneurial intention 106, 112 entrepreneurial latencies, ES and awakening of 5, 155 entrepreneurial learning 126, 130, 131, 133, 135, 137, 139, 140, 159 entrepreneurial policy (NFID) 67–8 entrepreneurial skills 106, 112, 123, 126, 132, 133, 136, 137, 139 entrepreneurship ES and promotion of 159, 160, 161 as a mindset 125 motivation 169–70 as practice 5, 146–7, 148–9 practice-based studies 147–8 in preschool, compulsory and secondary school 127 relational networks and 61 resource-based view of firm and 90 entrepreneurship discourse 5, 161 entrepreneurship education activities 103, 104, 110, 111, 129 design, see ‘about’ design; ‘for’ design; ‘through’ design main approaches 123 methods 103, 126, 127, 128, 138, 139 multidimensional typology 104 objectives 4, 103, 113, 114, 139 see also ‘about’ design; ‘for’ design; ‘why’ question purpose of 126 typology (study) 3–4, 103–18 analysis of programmes and courses 109–13 conclusion, implications and future studies 116–18 development of a systematised 113–16

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 192

literature review 105–7 trends in literature 107–9 see also teacher education Entrepreneurship Education Conference (ECSB) 106, 115 entrepreneurship education research 3, 4, 6 university-level 125 entrepreneurship ideology 5, 161 entrepreneurship modules 115, 129 entrepreneurship programmes/courses 103, 104, 106–7, 109–13, 116, 117, 126, 128 entrepreneurship research 1 European 2–3, 6 practice theory approach 146 epistemology, practice as 149 ethnographic studies entrepreneurship programmes and change 108 student entrepreneurship societies 5, 149–61 European Commission 42 European entrepreneurship research 2–3, 6 evaluation studies, entrepreneurship education 108–9 evolution, of learning communities 44, 45, 51, 53, 54 experimentation 88, 127, 138, 179 export market orientation 97 exports, share of, and growth 84 external context, speed of innovation studies 24, 26, 35, 38 external enablers 37, 38 external learning 26 external social capital (ESC) 3, 61, 62, 63–4, 65, 69, 70, 71–2, 73, 74, 75, 78 external validation 167, 169, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181 Fahy, J. 89 Falk Lundqvist, A. 126, 137 family firms 8–9 focus of previous research 8 innovation research 1, 7, 8, 17 solving the innovation paradox 12–13

22/08/2018 10:08



Index ­193

temporal evolution of innovation 10–11 tradition and innovation 9–10 family and friends internal social capital 62, 64 over-reliance on, as learning allies 42 family ownership 11, 12 family-driven innovation perspective 12 Fayolle, A. 4, 106, 109, 112, 116, 124, 128, 129, 131, 136, 138 Filion, L.J. 65, 66 financial constraints, overcoming 14 financial resources 15 Finland growth and internationalization (study) 3, 84–97 discussion and conclusions 94–7 methodology 90–92 results 92–4 theoretical framework 85–90 PBS of student entrepreneurship societies 146–61 analysis 151–2 discussion 158–61 methodology 149–51 outline of approach 147–9 results 152–8 teacher entrepreneurship education 128 firm performance and family firm R&D investment 12 innovation as contributing factor 1, 7 SMEs poor innovative 13 see also business performance; growth firm proactiveness 11 Fisher, J. 91 flexibility 15, 26, 27, 88, 97, 126, 135, 136, 137 Foley, A. 89 ‘for’ design, entrepreneurship education 103, 104, 115, 117, 126 ‘for which results’, entrepreneurship education 106, 109, 110–11, 112, 128, 129, 137 ‘for whom’ question, entrepreneurship education 106, 109, 110–11, 112, 128, 129, 137, 139 forced opportunists, and identity

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 193

construction 5, 174, 175, 177, 179, 181, 182 forest sector (Finland) internationalization of SMEs 85–6 MO, marketing capability and growth (study) discussion and conclusions 94–7 methodology 90–92 results 92–4 François, V. 2–3 Frederiksen, S.H. 115 French clusters 66 Frenken, K. 31 frequency of support, and growth (study) 71 funding and community learning 48 French clusters 66 and growth (study) 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 Gailly, B. 4, 106, 109, 112, 116, 124, 128, 129, 131, 136, 138 Gedajlovic, E. 60, 62, 78 geographical proximity cluster relations 66–7 speed of innovation (study) 2, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 get-together event, student ES (study) 147, 152–4, 156, 159–60 Gherardi, S. 149 Ghoshal, S. 62 Gibb, A. 123, 126 global mindset 97 globalization 15, 25, 89, 97 goals learning community study 2, 51, 54 narrative identities and 168 Goffman, E. 169 González-Benito, O. 94 Govindarajan, V. 91 Granovetter, M.S. 62 Green, P.G. 113 group discussion 113, 126, 138 group work 110, 111, 112, 115, 116, 152, 153, 160 growth entrepreneurship education and 125 innovation as contributing factor 1, 7 knowledge sharing and 26

22/08/2018 10:08

194

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

social capital and (study) 2–3, 60–79 conclusion 78–9 discussion 75–8 methodology 67–70 results 70–74 theoretical background 61–7 and start-ups, Finland 156 see also business performance; firm performance growth entrepreneurship 146 Growth for Wood Product Industry 90–91 Gudergan, S. 89, 95 Haara, F.O. 127, 138 Haase, H. 104 Hägg, G. 116 Harker, M. 88, 91 Hesterly, W.S. 76 Heston Blumenthal: In Search of Perfection (television series) 171, 178 hierarchy, ES students and 160–61 high proximity 31, 32, 33–4, 35, 36 high-tech start-ups, social capital and growth 63, 64, 66 Hite, J.M. 76 Hjorth, D. 124 holistic personal development 127 Homburg, C. 87 Honig, B. 63 Hooley, G. 88 ‘how’ question, entrepreneurship education 106, 109, 110–11, 112, 113, 128, 129, 137 Hult, T. 87 human resource management 14 Hurley, R. 87 Hytti, U. 126 idea generation and screening, speed of innovation (study) 2, 31–2 ideals, ES and emergence of 5, 147, 151, 153, 156–8, 159, 160 identity, see entrepreneurial identity; organizational identity identity work 165, 182 immersion, university incubators 65 impact of education 114–15 incremental innovation 15

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 194

incubators 65–6 and growth 3, 72, 73, 74, 76–7, 79 independent action 126 inertia 9 inflexibility 9, 15, 52 informal goals, entrepreneurship education 139 informal learning, student societies 4–5 information, see knowledge information and communication technology 25 and growth (study) 73, 74 information networks, and cluster efficiency 67 initiative 13, 126, 133, 149 innovation as a firm asset 7 internal social capital 64 research 6 firm-level 1, 2 see also family firms; small and medium-sized enterprises importance of 1 rural–urban typology 25 see also speed of innovation (study) innovation paradox (family firm) 12–13 Innovation Regional Strategy, Nord–Pas-de-Calais 67 ‘innovation through tradition’ model 9–10 inside-out capabilities 88, 96 institutional context 12, 60, 64–7, 76–7; see also clusters; incubators institutional proximity 33, 37 integration capabilities 88 intentionality, narrative identities 168 interconnected elements, of practices 148 interfunctional coordination 86–7 internal entrepreneurship 126 internal incubator marketplace 65 internal social capital (ISC) 3, 61, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75–6 internationalization 89–90 costs 96 ESC and growth 63 internationalized SMEs global mindset 97

22/08/2018 10:08

MO, marketing capability and growth 3, 92, 93, 94, 95 internships 104, 114, 115 interpretation, in education 127, 138 intra-family succession 11 intra-organisational links 64 investment in R&D 11, 12, 13 inward focus 42 Iredale, N. 125, 136 Ireland 128 Ireland, R. 89 Jain, R. 87, 89 Jaworski, B. 86 job creation 65, 68, 70, 76, 156 Joensuu-Salo, S. 3 Johannisson, B. 150 Johansen, V. 125 Jones, B. 125, 136 Jørgensen, J.B. 2 Josselson, R. 169 Junior Enterprises (Brazil) 161 Keating, A. 149 Keller, T. 171, 175, 177, 178 Kelliher, F. 2, 54, 56 Kern Entrepreneurship Education Network (KEEN) 107 Kessler, E.H. 26 Kettunen, S. 3, 84, 85 Kihn, L.-A. 91 Klapper, R. 125 Knight, G.A. 90, 95 know-how 64, 85, 86, 148 knowledge co-creators of 137 ESC and access to 63 internationalization and additional 96 micro firm learning communities (study) 41–2, 43, 45, 54, 56 practices and 148 speed of innovation (study) 31–3, 34, 37 see also past knowledge; tacit knowledge knowledge base, teacher entrepreneurship education 141 knowledge creation 4, 27 knowledge economy 89

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 195

Index ­195 knowledge exchange 52, 66, 75, 76 knowledge flows 2, 17, 54, 56 knowledge integration 33, 37 knowledge interactions 2, 33 knowledge sharing 26 knowledge spillovers 27, 28 knowledge transfer 32, 64, 139 knowledge variation 27 Kohli, A. 86 Kohtakangas, K. 5 Komppula, R. 88 Komulainen, K. 125, 136, 141 Korhonen, M. 141 Kuratko, D.F. 125 Kyrö, P. 136 Lafaye, C. 2–3 launching speed (product) 26, 34–6, 36 Lautenschläger, A. 104 Lave, J. 41, 55 leadership, learning communities 45, 52, 54 learning from market information 88 internationalization and growth as a process of 95 learning by doing 138, 159 learning by showing 138 learning community concept 42–3 see also micro firm learning communities (study) learning motivation 169 and identity construction 166, 177, 178, 180, 182 lectures 110, 111, 113, 115, 126, 134, 136, 137, 138 Leffler, E. 129, 139, 141 leverage of resources 14 Liao, S.-H. 94 life-long learning 126 limited resources 13, 14–15, 17 lock-ins 27 Loiseau, B. 171, 174, 175, 177 low proximity 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 McEvily, B. 67 macro-level education 109, 111, 132 Mainiero, L. 169–70

22/08/2018 10:08

196

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

manufacturing SME, see speed of innovation (study) market access, speed of innovation (study) 34–5 market development 90 market information, learning from 88 market intelligence, MO and 95, 96 market orientation (MO) 86–7 and business performance 84 SMEs, Finnish forest sector (study) 3, 84–5, 91, 92, 93, 94–6, 97 internationalized 90 and marketing capability 88–9, 95 as a resource 87, 90, 96 strategic level adoption of 88 market-sensing 96 marketing capability 88–9 and business performance 84 SMEs, Finnish forest sector (study) 3, 84–5, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 Markowska, M. 5 Marlow, S. 65 Martinez, M.A. 60 mastery motivation 169 and identity construction 177, 178, 179, 180, 181 Mathisen, L. 2 Maximin, J. 176 meaning, and identity construction 166, 169 membership configuration, micro community learning study 43, 48–50, 53 Merton, R.K. 131 method-focused learning, see ‘self-driving’ focus micro firm learning communities (study) 2, 41–56 brokering 43–5 collaborative learning 42–3 conclusion and recommendations 55–6 discussion and learning community model 52–5 empirical findings 48–52 methodology 45–8 micro-level education 109, 110–11, 132

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 196

microenterprises, MO and business performance 87 mindset entrepreneurship as a 125 entrepreneurship education and challenging of 132, 134, 137, 140 see also dynamic mindset; global mindset Moreno-Moya, M. 26, 30 Morgan, N. 95 Morgan, T. 87 motivations in entrepreneurial identity construction 5, 166, 168–70, 177–9 for entrepreneurship education 107 multiple case studies 38 rural tourism micro learning 2, 41–56 Munuera-Aleman, J.-L. 26, 30 Mwasalwiba, E.S. 113, 126, 138 Nahapiet, J. 62 narratives entrepreneurial identity construction 5, 165, 166, 167–8, 172 see also dream followers; forced opportunists; serendipitous craftsmen Narver, J. 87 Neck, H.M. 113 negative effects of external social capital 63–4 of market orientation 87 negotiation of identity 51, 168 in learning communities 44, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55 networks clusters and 67 and entrepreneurial activity 61 firm performance 63 geographical proximity and 27 incubators and development of 65, 66 and innovation 16, 37 new product development (NPD) 10, 24, 26, 87 Nicolini, D. 149, 151, 159

22/08/2018 10:08



Index ­197

non-economic goals, and family firm innovation 12 non-financial indicators, growth measurement 68 non-monetary activities 15 Nord France Innovation Développement (NFID) 67–8 Nord–Pas-de-Calais region social capital and growth (study) 60, 61 conclusion 78–9 discussion 75–8 methodology 67–70 results 70–74 Norway, see speed of innovation (study) O’Gorman, C. 126 older firms, social capital and growth 64, 76 ontological level, entrepreneurship education 128, 129 Swedish study 131, 136–7, 140 Oosterbeek, H. 115 open innovation 16–17 opportunistic behaviour 33, 75 opportunistic risks 63–4 opportunity development 38 “optimum” resource configuration 15 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 123 organisational context, social capital and growth (study) 63–4, 75–6 organizational culture 9, 10 organizational identity 9 organizational provision, of resources 15 Østergaard, S.J. 115 Ostrobothnia, see forest sector (Finland) Otterborg, A. 126, 137 outcome-focused learning, see participative learning outside-in capabilities 88 Parkkari, P. 5 participative learning 4, 113–14, 115, 116, 117 passive learning 4, 113, 115, 116, 117

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 197

past knowledge 9–10, 17 path dependence 9 Patton, D. 65 pedagogic issues 4, 106, 112, 126, 128, 129, 133, 137 peer learning 112, 117 Pelham, A. 87 Pepin, M. 126, 138 perceived utility of support (growth study) 60, 69, 70, 71, 78, 83 perfectionism, and narrative identity 178, 180, 181 performance motivation, and identity construction 166, 169, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182 peripheral participation, learning communities (study) 52, 53 personal development 126, 127, 132, 133, 136, 137, 139, 140 Pflesser, C. 87 Pirolo, L. 66 Pittaway, L. 103, 126, 138 plotting narrative identities 168 pôles de compétitivité, see clusters policy makers social capital and growth 77 speed of innovation 37 politics community learning study 50, 52 ES students and avoidance of 5, 157–8, 161 Porter, M.E. 66 Powell, E. 167 practice turn 147, 149 practice-based study, student entrepreneurship societies 147–61 analysis 151–2 discussion 158–61 methodology 149–51 outline of approach 147–9 results 152–8 practice(s) 147–8 pre-school entrepreneurship education 127 Presutti, M. 66 pro-active clusters 66 problem solving 64, 127, 134 product development 90; see also new product development; speed of innovation (study)

22/08/2018 10:08

198

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

profitability, MO and 87 progressive learning strategies 2, 53, 54, 56 progressive teaching methods 126, 137, 138 project work 138 proximity, and speed of innovation (study) 2, 25, 27–8; see also cognitive proximity; geographical proximity; institutional proximity; social proximity public institutions 64–5 Rae, D. 126 Ramsay, G. 171, 174, 175, 177–8 Ramsgaard, M.B. 115 recognition, motivation and identity construction 174, 177, 178, 182 Redzepi, R. 171, 175, 176, 178 Refai, D. 125 Regional Tourism Organisation (RTO) 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53 Reijonen, H. 88 Reinl, L. 2, 54, 56 relationship development 27, 31, 33 research and development (R&D) 11, 12, 13, 14 resource(s) from social capital 77–8 innovation research issues 14, 15, 16 market orientation as a 87, 90, 96 see also artefacts; limited resources resource constraints, connectedness and easing of 42 resource exploitation 63 resource-based view (RBV) 88, 90, 96 resource-constrained micro firms 2, 41, 43, 54 retention of employees 14 return on assets (ROA), MO and 95 rigidity 9 risk aversion 12 Robinson, S. 108 role identity 165, 167, 172 Rovelli, P. 1 rural context, speed of innovation (study) 2, 24–38 discussion and conclusions 35–8 findings 31–5 methodology 28–31

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 198

recent research 24 theoretical perspectives 26–8 rural tourism, micro firm learning (study) 2, 41–56 brokering 43–5 collaborative learning 42–3 conclusion and recommendations 55–6 discussion and learning community model 52–5 empirical findings 48–52 methodology 45–8 rural–urban typology, of innovation 25 sales growth, MO and 87 Saraiva, L.A.S. 161 Sarasvathy, S.D. 124, 139 Savoy, G. 174 Schanke, T. 125 scientific activities, social capital and growth (study) 74 secondary school entrepreneurship education 127 sectorial affiliation, and growth (study) 72, 73, 74 Seikkula-Leino, J. 128, 138 self-confidence 137 ‘self-driving’ focus, to learning 4, 114, 115, 116 self-employment, entrepreneurship education for 107, 112, 123 self-esteem, and identity construction 166, 169 senescence 9 serendipitous craftsmen, and identity construction 5, 174–6, 178, 179, 180, 182 services, social capital and growth (study) 74, 75 Shane, S. 38, 169 shared meaning 42, 44, 50, 53, 54 shared understanding 32, 33 Shaw, E. 149 significance, longing for 168–9 simultaneity bias 78 situated learning framework 42 size of firm, ISC and growth 76 size-specific resource constraints 2, 13, 24, 41, 54 skilled employees, retention 14

22/08/2018 10:08



Index ­199

Slater, S. 87 small groups, as learning sets 43 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 13 growth, see growth innovation performance 13 innovation research 1, 7, 13–14, 17 innovation with limited resources 14–15 open innovation 16 types of innovation 15 role in international markets 89 see also micro firm learning communities (study); speed of innovation (study) social capabilities 126–7 social capital, and growth (study) 2–3, 60–79 conclusion 78–9 discussion 75–8 methodology 67–70 previous research 60 results 70–74 theoretical background 61–7 social entrepreneurship 108 social identity 165, 167 social interactions 66–6 social proximity 2, 27–8, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 social relationships clusters and 66–7 and identity construction 168, 169 PBS approach 148 proximity and 27, 33 and social capital 60 see also external social capital; internal social capital; perceived utility of support see also networks; strong ties; weak ties socioemotional wealth, and innovation 12–13 Sorama, K. 3 Spain 107 speed of innovation (study) 2, 24–38 discussion and conclusions 35–8 findings 31–5 methodology 28–31 recent research 24 theoretical perspectives 26–8

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 199

Spillan, J. 87 Srivastava, R. 88 stakeholder engagement, community learning 46, 49 stakeholder influence, community learning 44, 51 stakeholder mapping exercise 49 Stam, W. 60, 62, 63, 64, 68, 75, 76, 78 start-up culture 155, 157, 160 start-up entrepreneurship 146, 156 start-ups, social capital and growth 63–4, 65, 66, 76, 77, 78 Sten, J. 65 Steyaert, C. 124 strategic capabilities 89 strategic level adoption of MO 88 Strategic Programme for the Forest Sector (Finland) 85 strategy(ies) competencies and internationalization 95–6 learning communities 44, 50–51, 52, 53, 54 taking advantage of cognitive proximity 37 Strategy For Entrepreneurship Education (Sweden) 123, 130, 139 strong ties 31, 62, 64, 75–6 structuration-oriented studies 148 structure, of learning communities 43–4, 48–50, 52, 53, 54 student contribution, entrepreneurship education evaluation 108–9 student entrepreneurship societies (Finland) establishment of first 146 practice-based study 5, 146–61 analysis 151–2 discussion 158–61 methodology 149–51 outline of approach 147–9 results accomplishing a get-together event 147, 152–4 the meanings of ES 154–6, 160 negotiating cooperation 156–8 student movement, ES network as a 5, 154, 157, 158, 160 student start-ups 114

22/08/2018 10:08

200

Entrepreneurship, innovation and education

student-centred impact, of education 4, 114, 115, 116 students learning approaches, see participative learning; passive learning; ‘self-driving’ focus perspective, Swedish HEI entrepreneurship education 134–6 societies and informal learning 4–5 sub-committees 43, 49 success (innovation) 15 succession (family firm) 11 Sullivan, S. 170 support agencies, learning community activity 43 support role, of incubators 65–6 sustained learning community activity 2, 42, 44, 45, 52–5, 56 Svedberg, G. 129, 139 Svensson, O. 127, 140 Sweden entrepreneurship in teacher education (study) 4, 124 discussion and conclusions 136–41 findings 132–6 methodology 129–32 strategy for entrepreneurship education 123, 130, 139 teacher education programmes 124 tacit knowledge 14, 34, 64 Tajfel, H. 169 target groups, entrepreneurship education 139–40 teacher education, entrepreneurship in 4, 123–41 literature review 124–9 Swedish study discussion and conclusions 136–41 findings 132–6 methodology 129–32 tensions 4, 127, 131, 138–41 teacher guerrilla tactics 139 teachers’ perspective, Swedish HEI entrepreneurship education 132–4, 137, 139 teaching model framework 4, 106, 109, 128, 129, 131, 136, 138

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 200

teaching models 113–14 temporal context, social capital and growth (study) 63–4, 75–6, 78 temporal evolution of innovation 10–11 territory traditions 10 testing phase, speed of innovation (study) 34 ‘textures’ of practice 148, 159, 161 ‘through’ design, entrepreneurship education 103–4, 115, 117, 126, 136, 138 Tiernan, P. 126, 128, 138 time-to-market, see speed of innovation tolerance 133 Tötterman, H. 65 tradition and innovation 9–10, 17 traditional teaching 113, 116, 125, 126, 137, 138 transaction costs 27 transactional teaching 127 transformative teaching 127, 140 transmissive teaching 127 trust 2, 29, 33, 36, 65, 75 United States 107 universities entrepreneurship education 103, 117–18, 126, 127 entrepreneurship education research 125 university incubators immersion in 65 support from 66 value creation 7, 9, 29, 88, 89, 114, 125 value perception, learning community membership 53 value of a resource 77–8 values and ideals 157 and identity construction 167, 168 market orientation and 87 and tradition 9 Venkataraman, S. 38, 124, 139 venture creation programmes 103, 104, 110, 111, 112, 114 vested interests 51

22/08/2018 10:08



Index ­201

Vignoles, V. 169 Vorhies, D. 88, 91 Watts, G. 126 weak ties 31, 62, 63–4, 67, 72, 75, 76 Welsh micro firms, community learning (study) 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 Welter, F. 5 Wenger, E. 41, 56 West III, G.P. 125 Westerberg, M. 4 ‘what’ question, entrepreneurship education 106, 109, 110–11, 112, 128, 129, 137, 140

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 201

‘when’ question, entrepreneurship education 113, 114, 125 ‘where’ question, entrepreneurship education 106 ‘why’ question, entrepreneurship education 106, 109, 110–11, 112–13, 128, 129, 137, 138 Wilden, R. 89, 95 willingness to innovate 12 Wright, M. 95 Yli-Renko, H. 63, 64, 75 Zaheer, A. 67

22/08/2018 10:08

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 202

22/08/2018 10:08

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 203

22/08/2018 10:08

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 204

22/08/2018 10:08

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 205

22/08/2018 10:08

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 206

22/08/2018 10:08

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 207

22/08/2018 10:08

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 208

22/08/2018 10:08

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 209

22/08/2018 10:08

M4590-HYTTI_9781788972291_t.indd 210

22/08/2018 10:08