Call for Papers – Special Issue for Organization

‘CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH’

Guest Editors:

Deirdre Tedmanson, University of South Australia (Australia); Caroline Essers, Radboud

University of Nijmegen, (Netherlands); Karen Verduyn, VU University in Amsterdam, (Netherlands)
and William B. Gartner, Clemson University (USA)

Deadline: 1st May 2011

[Entrepreneurship] can be seen as the study of sources of opportunities; the processes of

discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities; and the set of individuals who discover,
evaluate, and exploit them (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000: 218)

The purpose of this Special Issue of Organization is to explore the ‘taken for granted’ norms of
entrepreneurship scholarship as a whole including its ideologies, dominant assumptions, grand
narratives, samples and methods. Even though entrepreneurship is a very diverse phenomenon that
calls for divergence and multiplicity in understanding it, the majority of entrepreneurship research is
still functionalist in nature (Jennings et al, 2005). There seems to be a normative assumption that
entrepreneurship is a good thing and that ‘the more entrepreneurs the merrier’ (cf. Weiskopf and
Steyaert, 2009). Entrepreneurship has been increasingly eulogised in dominant neo-liberal policy
discourses, infiltrating seemingly unrelated aspects of social life in potent, but seemingly innocuous
ways (Armstrong, 2005) and few studies have aimed at ‘peeling away’ these ‘layers of ideological
obscuration’ (Martin, 1990).

This Special Issue seeks to interrogate this form of entrepreneurialism for how it privileges certain
forms of economic action, while implying other more collective forms of organization and exchange
are somehow problematic. We aim to explore how political and socio-cultural factors influence
entrepreneurial processes, identities and activities and to extend entrepreneurship research horizons by
highlighting new critiques and contexts that challenge neo-liberal orthodoxies.

Recently, Jones and Spicer (2009) have exposed the interconnections between conceptual and
political representations of entrepreneurship in an effort to reveal what lies behind the smiling mask.
Rindova et al. (2009) have suggested entrepreneurship scholarship move away from a focus on wealth
creation as a dominant motive for starting a venture. Pio (2005), Ahl (2004) and Essers and Benschop
(2007) have sought to give ‘voice’ to other entrepreneurial subjectivities than those traditionally
privileged, and to challenge the mystification of ‘the entrepreneur’ based on essentialist
conceptualisations of the archetypical male, ‘white’ entrepreneur. Calas, et al (2009) have used
feminist theoretical perspectives to argue for the opening up of new spaces that make room for a
Critical Entrepreneurship Studies (CES). Gartner (2005) and Hjorth and Steyaert (2009) have
explored the complexity of social dynamics involved. By reframing entrepreneurship studies as
‘social change’, critical scholars seek to shift boundaries and offer possibilities for more political and
transformative perspectives to emerge.
This Special Issue aims to make space for new critical, ethical and political perspectives on
entrepreneurship. We encourage reflexive analyses that illuminate the messy, heterogeneous and
problematic nature of entrepreneurship. We seek to build on previous and current critical efforts (e.g.
but not limited to: Nodoushani & Nodoushani, 1999; Ogbor, 2000; Armstrong, 2005; Steyaert, and
Hjorth 2007; Hjorth and Steyaert; 2009; Essers; 2009; Jones and Spicer, 2009; Calas et al, 2009) and
to bring this discussion more into the mainstream of organizational scholarship.

We see the following ‘modes’ as key themes in a critical scholarship that will open new spaces in
entrepreneurship research: the methodological - which highlights limitations of research method; the
deconstructive - where the focus is on offering alternative views of the same ‘reality’; the epistemic -
which includes reflecting on scholars’ own roles in ‘re-authoring’ entrepreneurial scripts; the
postcolonial - which looks at the imperialising effects of dominant discourses privileging the
Eurocentric archetypical entrepreneur as ‘supreme’, ‘white’ and male’; and the political-economic –
which aims to reveal the hegemonic effects of particular entrepreneurialism/s and the ideological
interests such interpretations serve. More social constructivist and reflexive approaches are also
welcome. We invite a wide variety of contributions which provide critical perspectives on
entrepreneurship by:

• Questioning ideologies/dominant assumptions/grand narratives in entrepreneurship;

• Deconstructing dominant stories: providing ‘other sides’ of dominant stories, as well as
shedding light on the ‘darker sides’ of entrepreneurship;
• Analyzing the discursively constructed identities of diverse groups of entrepreneurs in
relation to popular entrepreneurship discourse and other social meta-narratives;
• Re-examining the identification and selection of individuals to represent both ‘entrepreneurs’
and ‘non-entrepreneurs’ in research studies;
• Exploring the appropriateness of various quantitative and qualitative methodologies used in
entrepreneurship scholarship;
• Analysing the socio cultural dynamics of entrepreneurship scholarship;
• Critiquing the dominant ideologies that construct particular political economies of
entrepreneurialism

Above we have included only a few critical perspectives in entrepreneurship studies. We also
welcome other creative, interesting and innovative approaches that will contribute to field of Critical
Entrepreneurship Studies. We invite you to submit work along the lines above or to include any other
critical theme or turn that you consider relevant.

Submission: Papers must be submitted electronically by 1st May 2011 to SAGETrack at

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/organization

Papers should be no more than 8,000 words, excluding references, and will be blind reviewed
following the journal’s standard review process. Manuscripts should be prepared according to the
guidelines published in Organization and on the journal’s website:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?level1=600&currTree=Subjects&catLevel1=&prodId
=Journal200981

For further information, please contact one of the guest editors:

Deirdre Tedmanson (deirdre.tedmanson@unisa.edu.au); Caroline Essers (c.essers@fm.ru.nl) Karen
Verduyn (kverduyn@feweb.vu.nl) or William B. Gartner (gartner@clemson.edu)
References:
Ahl, H. (2004). The Scientific Reproduction of Gender Inequality; A Discourse Analysis of Research Texts on
Women's Entrepreneurship. Malmö: Liber AB.
Armstrong, P. (2005). Critique of Entrepreneurship: People ad Policy, Palgrave MacMillan, New York, NY
Calas, M., Smircich, L. & Bourne, K. (2009). Extending the boundaries: reframing ‘entrepreneurship as social
change’ through feminist perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 34(3).
Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. 2001. Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current research practice
and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25: 81–99.
Essers, C. and Benschop, Y. (2007). Enterprising Identities: Female Entrepreneurs of Moroccan and Turkish
Origin in the Netherlands. Organization Studies, 28(1), 49-69.
Essers, C. (2009). Reflections on the narrative approach; dilemmas of power, emotions and social location while
constructing life-stories. Organization, 16(2), 163-181.
Gartner, W. B. (2004). Achieving “Critical Mess” in entrepreneurship scholarship.” In J. A. Katz and D.
Shepherd (eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth. Greenwich, CT, pp. 199-216
Hjorth, D. and Steyaert, C. (Ed.) (2009). The Politics and Aesthetics of Entrepreneurship. A fourth Movements
in Entrepreneurship Book. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Jennings, P., Perren, L., and Carter, S. (2005). Guest Editors' Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on
Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2), 145-152.
Johnson, P. and J. Duberley (2003). Reflexivity in Management Research. Journal of Management Studies.
40(5). 1279-1304
Jones, C and Spicer, A (2009) Unmasking the Entrepreneur, Edward Elgar, London
Martin, J. (1990) Organizational Taboos: The Suppression of Gender Conflict in Organizations. Organization
Science, 1(4), p. 339-359.
Nodoushani, O. and Nodoushani, P.A. (1999) A Deconstructionist Theory of Entrepreneurship: A Note,
American Business Review, 17(1), 45-49.Ogbor, J. (2000) Mythicizing and reification in entrepreneurial
discourse: ideology-critique of entrepreneurial studies. Journal of Management Studies, 37(5), p. 605-635.
Perren, L. and P. Jennings (2005). Government Discourses on Entrepreneurship: Issues of legitimization,
Subjugation, and Power, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2), 173-184.
Pio, E. (2005). Knotted strands: Working lives of Indian women migrants in New Zealand. Human Relations,
58(10), 1277-1300
Rindova, V., Barry, D. and Ketchen, D. (in press). Entrepreneuring as emancipation. Academy of Management
Review, 34(3).
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of
Management Review, 25: 217–26.
Steyaert, C., & Hjorth, D. (2007). Entrepreneurship as social change. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Weiskopf, R. & Steyaert, C. (2009). Metamorphoses in entrepreneurship studies: towards affirmative politics of
entrepreneuring. In: Hjorth, D. & Steyaert, C. (Ed.) (2009). The Politics and Aesthetics of Entrepreneurship. A
fourth Movements in Entrepreneurship Book. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.