Theories and Assumptions of Entrepreneurship

Gartner, William B." "What Are We Talking About When We Talk About
Entrepreneurship?" Advances in Entrepreneurship 1 (2000): 3-16.

In an effort to build consensus as to the definition of entrepreneurship, Gartner conducts a

Delphi study utilizing quantitative methods and a purposive sample of academics
politicians and business leaders. Findings indicate the most important attributes to the
sample: (1) organization creation, (2) innovation, (3) acquisition and integration of
resources. The least important attributes among the sample were found to be (1) no-
growth business, (2) non-profit businesses, (3) personality characteristics of
entrepreneurs. After a factor/cluster analysis of entrepreneurship attributes, two main
viewpoints emerged from the total population: (1) the characteristics of entrepreneurship
(entrepreneur, innovation, growth, and uniqueness), (2) the outcomes of entrepreneurship
(creating value, for profit, owner-manager). Overall a general takeaway from the study
may be - the way we define entrepreneurship guides the kinds of questions we ask about
entrepreneurship.

Gartner, William B. “Who Is an Entrepreneur?" Is the Wrong Question."

Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice. 13, no. 14 (1989): 47-68.

Gartner believes that research which identifies what an entrepreneur does will tell one
more about the process of entrepreneurship than research focused on describing whom an
entrepreneur is. To that end, Gartner argues in favor of a behavioral approach to
entrepreneurship research rather than the trait approach. Gartner suggests that the latter
“trait approach” has led many researchers and business leaders to make assumptions
about who possesses the elusive and oft-romanticized DNA of an entrepreneur. Gartner
warns against the dangers of generalizing trait assumptions: essentially utilizing
prescriptive characteristics and qualities to rationalize the labeling of people as
entrepreneurs. In support of the behavioral perspective Gartner states, “You cannot
separate the dancer from the dance.” In Gartner’s view, entrepreneurs are recognized by
what they do.

Bull, Ivan and Willard, Gary. "Towards a Theory of Entrepreneurship." Journal of

Business Venturing 8 (1993): 183-96.

Bull and Willard propose guideline both for theory development and for gaining field
consensus. They begin by referencing William Bygrave’s observation that “…scholars
are still bickering over a working definition of entrepreneurship” (p.185). Instead of
proposing yet another definition, Bull and Willard argue in support of noted empirical
entrepreneurship scholar/researcher Joseph Schumpeter’s (1942) definition: “An
entrepreneur is a person who carries out new combinations, causing discontinuity.” They
argue that Schumpeter’s definition is both broad and specific enough for the diverse
concepts of entrepreneurship. Bull and Willard also suggest the existing literature be
grouped into five broad categories for classification purposes: (1) focus on the definition
of entrepreneurship, (2) trait approach, (3) success strategies, (4) formation of new
ventures, (5) effects of environmental factors on entrepreneurial actions.

Thoughts on Knowledge, Risk and Uncertainty

Aldrich, H., & Fiol, C. M. 1994. Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry
creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4): 645-670.

Aldrich and Fiol both identify and discuss common challenges and constraints of new
entrepreneurs/founders. The authors suggest that founders of entirely new activities must
work hard to gain creditability and legitimacy with customers/stakeholders/investors;
primarily because new firms by nature lack the familiarity and creditability that
established firms enjoy due to an existing relationship with the public. Concerning new
firms, the authors expand into a discussion on the need for sociopolitical legitimation
(p.648). They both discuss the role that social context plays in the emergence of
entrepreneurship opportunities and identify several entrepreneurship strategies for
developing sociopolitical legitimacy (p.649). They also identify “trust” as a key factor
that influences the development of opportunities (p.650). They go on to propose
strategies that entrepreneurs can utilize to develop cognitive and sociopolitical legitimacy
in various industries. Based on the discussion the authors conclude, “Generating and
sustaining trusting relationships are at the heart of overcoming low legitimacy” (p.664).

Hayek, F.A. 1945. The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35:
519-530.

Hayek leads the reader in a discussion on the utility of knowledge, exploring the way in
which knowledge is used to solve economic problems in society. Hayek asserts that the
problem of establishing a rational economic order is made difficult due to, “…dispersed
bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate
individuals possess” (p.1). Contextually, Hayek’s assertion supports the notion that
entrepreneurs encounter challenges in making economic decisions due in part to limited
access to key information. For example, Hayek suggests that budgeting is a planning
process (p.521), and posits that how one develops a budget is largely based on the
accumulated knowledge available at one point in time. Likewise, entrepreneurs may often
develop budgets and make financial decisions based on data generated from personal
assumptions at a specific point in time. However, there are practical challenges to making
decisions on the basis of limited but intimate knowledge of the facts of ones own
immediate surroundings (p.525). Thus Hayek explores both the centralization and
decentralization of economic knowledge (p.524), and discusses the pros and cons of
doing so.

Dequech, D. 1999. Expectations and confidence under uncertainty. Journal of Post

Keynesian Economics, 21(3): 415.

Dequech leads the reader in a discussion of fundamental uncertainty; stating that the
concept is often associated with “…situations in which at least some essential
information about future events cannot be known at the moment of decision” (pp.415-
416). Throughout the article, Dequech frames the concept (e.g. fundamental uncertainty)
through an ontological lens, often questioning it’s existence and consistency. Dequech
suggests, “…fundamental uncertainty need not imply complete ignorance” (p.416), as
arguably there are different degrees of fundamental uncertainty. To extend the discussion
further, Dequech analyzes related concepts such as expectation (p.417), confidence
(p.421) and creativity (p.421).

Janney, Jay J. and Dess, Gregory G. "The Risk Concept for Entrepreneurs
Reconsidered: New Challenges to the Conventional Wisdom." Journal of Business
Venturing 21 (2006): 385-400.

Janney and Dess posit that there are many concepts of “risk”, and as a result,
entrepreneurs may not measure assess or evaluate “risk” in the same way as managers do.
Nevertheless the authors identify and discuss three common “risk” concepts in
entrepreneurship: risk as variance, risk as downside loss, risk as opportunity. They posit
that among the three concepts, the majority of entrepreneurs perceive risk as downside
loss (e.g. missing the boat). They draw upon empirical theory to support their claims, and
suggest that more meaningful data on “risk” will emerge if sample groups are
homogenous and not idiosyncratic.

Thoughts on Opportunity Recognition

Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Shook, C. L., & Ireland, R. D. (January 01, 2010). The
Concept of "Opportunity" in Entrepreneurship Research: Past Accomplishments
and Future Challenges. Journal of Management, 42, 1, 40.

Short et al state, “Without an opportunity, there is no entrepreneurship” (pg.40). Short et

al provide the reader with an extensive literature review aligned with the concept of
opportunity. “This review is intended to consolidate past accomplishments and to set the
stage for future developments” (p.41). They provide a summary of conceptual articles on
opportunity (pp.43-46) and provide the reader with a summary of empirical articles for
reference (pp.48-52). They go on to expand on the identified themes in the opportunity
literature and suggest that future research directions on the concept may be informed
though disciplines outside of the entrepreneurship field.

Shane, S. (2000). "Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial

Opportunities." Organization Science, 11(4): 448-470.

Shane reviews existing perspectives on entrepreneurship, offering the reader a

differentiation on neoclassical psychological and Austrian schools of thought (p.449). He
then turns his focus towards advancing the study of entrepreneurship opportunities,
largely exploring a series of propositions (pp.451-452). In summary Shane argues that,
“…any given technological change will generate a range of entrepreneurial opportunities
that are not obvious to all potential entrepreneurs; entrepreneurs can and will discover
these opportunities without searching for them; and any given entrepreneur will discover
only those opportunities related to his or her prior knowledge” (p.449). He concludes by
reporting on the results of a research study whereby he utilized his proposed conceptual
framework to study entrepreneurial opportunities.

Ethics in Entrepreneurship

Francis T. Hannafey .(2003). Entrepreneurship and Ethics: A Literature Review

Journal of Business Ethics, 46, (2), 99-110.

Hannafey discusses a rarely discussed topic in entrepreneurship literature: ethics in

entrepreneurship practice. Hannafey rightly states, “Entrepreneurs today encounter
uniquely challenging ethical problems. They typically operate in stressful business
environments and they often struggle to find time and perspective for focused ethical
reflection. Entrepreneurs make choices and take actions that affect many persons, usually
without the moral guidance available in established organizations. Their decisions can
strengthen or seriously weaken a firm's future business viability. Working long hours and
sometimes isolated from others, entrepreneurs may not adequately consider the ethical
consequences of their own decisions and their firm's activities. Yet entrepreneurs face
complex ethical problems related to basic fairness, personnel and customer relationships,
honesty in communications, distribution dilemmas, and other challenges. Because of the
nature of startups, many of these ethical problems are often new to the young
organization” (p.99). In framing this discussion, Hannafey conducts a literature review,
draws on Gartner’s conceptual framework for new venture creation, and examines
leading issues in entrepreneurial ethics. Hannafey points out some of the harmful effects
that an entrepreneur's unethical decisions may have on established organizations, society,
customers and communities (p.102). Hannafey suggests that personal values and ethics
strongly influence how entrepreneurs’ act on the ethical problems they encounter (p.
102). Hannafey also points out some of the ethical challenges involved when using
family members to obtain capital: “An entrepreneur’s relationship with a family member
or personal friend will change if these persons become investors in the new venture – and
so likely will associated moral expectations” (pg.103). Perhaps in line with the writings
of Gartner on the need for homogenous samples, Hannafey suggests, “All entrepreneurs
are not alike, and neither are the ethical dilemmas they confront” (p.106).

Research Models and Conceptual Frameworks

Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of

research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 217-226.

This is a seminal article in entrepreneurship research. Shane and Venkataraman present

the field with a new conceptual framework for researching the phenomenon of
entrepreneurship. They argue that in the absence of a distinct conceptual framework for
studying the phenomenon of entrepreneurship (in all it’s frames), “entrepreneurship has
become a broad label under which a hodgepodge of research is housed” (p. 217). To that
end, they engage in an attempt to propose and justify a conceptual framework for future
entrepreneurship research scholarship and education; even going so far as to identify and
address critics concerns with the field to date (e.g. why study entrepreneurship?) (p. 219).
They begin the discussion by identifying definitional challenges. They assert that the
largest obstacle in creating a conceptual framework for the field has been the lack of
consensus on a definition of entrepreneurship (p. 218). They posit that most researchers
have framed entrepreneurship from an individual perspective: a perspective which (they
argue) leads researchers to focus on who the entrepreneur is and what he/or she does (p.
218). Shane and Venkataraman assert that by largely focusing on the traits and behaviors
of the entrepreneur, the field has largely ignored the role of opportunity in
entrepreneurship. To that end, Shane and Venkataraman propose an inclusive definition
of entrepreneurship (p.219) and argue in support. Utilizing this new definition as a guide,
they propose a conceptual framework for studying entrepreneurial opportunities: a
framework that (they argue) focuses on: the existence discovery and exploitation of
opportunities, the examination of the influence of individuals and opportunities, presents
a framework broader than new venture creation, complements research on the process of
new venture creation (p.219).

Gartner, William B. "A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of

New Venture Creation." Academy of Management Review 10, no. 4 (1985): 696-
706.

Gartner argues that the process of entrepreneurship leads to the creation of organizations.
To that end, Gartner proposes a framework for analyzing the process of new venture
creation (NVC). Gartner argues that (to date), sample populations in NVC research have
been sporadic and heterogeneous. Gartner suggests that what is needed most in research
on NVC is the identification of specific variables that describe how each venture was
created, as well as the selection of homogeneous sample populations. Gartner believes
that in doing so, differences and similarities among homogeneous samples may provide
researchers with more meaningful data.

Ma, Hao and Tan, Justin. "Key Components and Implications of Entrepreneurship:
A 4-P Framework." Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006): 704-725.

Ma and Tan posit that many researchers frame entrepreneurship based on who
entrepreneurs are and what they do. The authors posit that what is missing from
entrepreneurship research is a better understanding of why/when/how entrepreneurs do
what they do. To that end, the authors suggest a framework (non-exhaustive and
illustrative only) for researching what they believe are the major components of
entrepreneurship: the 4-P framework (pioneer – entrepreneur as innovator or champion of
innovation, perspective – entrepreneurial mindset, practice – entrepreneurial activities,
performance-outcomes of entrepreneurial actions and activities). The authors draw on
both the thoughts of entrepreneurship theorists and practical examples to provide support
for their suggested characteristics and sub-characteristics/qualities of entrepreneurs.
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J.B. 2010. Epistemology and Entrepreneurship: The
Philosophical Underpinnings of the Study of Entrepreneurial Opportunities.
Academy of Management Annals.

Alvarez and Barney assert that there are two approaches to studying opportunities in the
entrepreneurship literature: discovery opportunities - based on a critical realist
perspective, whereby opportunities are created by shocks to preexisting industries;
creation opportunities - based on an evolutionary realist perspective whereby
opportunities are created by entrepreneurs themselves. The authors contend that whereas
discovery opportunities already exist (waiting to be found by those unusually high alert
individuals or firms that have the ability to exploit them) (p. 559), creation opportunities
are not objectively real until they are socially constructed based on the perceptions and
beliefs of the entrepreneur him/herself (p.565). Although creation and discovery
opportunities may at times overlap, the authors posit that they can be researched and
identified separately. Thus the authors assert that the study of opportunities is more likely
to be characterized by, “…unresolved tensions without attempting synthesis”, and
research on opportunities characterized by “…multiple interpretations of the same
phenomena” (p.558). The authors offer the reader a table for referencing the theoretical
differences between these two concepts (discovery/creation) (p.559). The authors also
refer to the concept of perfect competition (sometimes called pure competition) (p.559): a
concept which they posit describes markets such that no participants are large enough to
have the market power to set the price of a homogeneous product (e.g. the opposite of a
monopoly). The authors assert that there is consensus on what constitutes an opportunity
in the entrepreneurship literature: that an opportunity exists when the conditions
necessary for perfect competition in a market do not exist (p.559). To that end, the
authors identify tools and strategies that entrepreneurs can use to do so (p.563). The
authors go on to expand the discussion; suggesting implications of such research. Key
takeaways revolve around the importance of “search” and risk-based decision-making in
the study of discovery opportunities, as well as guidance for teaching students to create
opportunities. Notably, the authors recognize the ability of the arts to help facilitate
learning associated with the study of creation opportunities (p.574).

Motivation of Entrepreneurs

Marcketti, S., Niehm, L., & Fuloria, R. (January 01, 2006). An Exploratory Study of
Lifestyle Entrepreneurship and Its Relationship to Life Quality. Family and
Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 34, 3, 241-259.

Marcketti et al examine the relationship between lifestyle entrepreneurship and life

quality. Contrary to popular opinion, profit may not be the primary motivation for all
entrepreneurs. Utilizing a systems theory perspective, they present twelve case studies of
lifestyle entrepreneurs and examine the underlying motivations. Key findings in this
qualitative study remind one that some entrepreneurs are neither wealth seekers nor
financially independent hobbyists. Some individuals (which the authors refer to as
“lifestyle entrepreneurs”) create new ventures and engage in entrepreneurship primarily
to improve their quality of life. Marcketti et al state, “Researchers have defined lifestyle
entrepreneurs as individuals who owned and operated businesses closely aligned with
their personal values, beliefs, interests, and passions” (p.241). Interestingly, this article
evidences (through qualitative data) that some lifestyle entrepreneurs do not have a desire
to expand business, even when it is possible to do so. The authors posit that business
expansion has the potential to decrease quality of life (e.g. extra time spent on increased
management responsibilities). The authors close by stating that “entrepreneurial ventures
described in this study offer a profile of entrepreneurs whose success is focused on their
concern for others, an orientation focused on families, and commitment to community
service rather than the basic offering of a service or product” (p.256).

Eikhof, D. R., & Haunschild, A. (2006). Lifestyle Meets Market: Bohemian

Entrepreneurs in Creative Industries

Together Eikhof and Haunschild analyze, “…how the gap between art and business,
between artists and self-entrepreneur is bridged” (p.234). For this qualitative study, the
authors focused on a purposive sample of German theatre artists, referring to them as
“bohemian entrepreneurs”, which the authors might define as artists who are “…involved
in the production of art for art’s sake and at the same time manage themselves as market
subjects” (p.243). Interviews focused on accounts of daily working life and subordination
of private life to work.

Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Arts Education

Pollard, V., & Wilson, E. (2014). The “Entrepreneurial Mindset” in Creative and
Performing Arts Higher Education in Australia. Artivate, 3 , 1, 3-22.

Pollard and Wilson discuss the role that emerging arts entrepreneurship education plays
in many creative and performing arts higher education programs; often used as an
intervention for increasing the employability of arts students. For example, the authors
state “Arts entrepreneurship is a relatively new discipline in creative and performing arts
higher education and is currently attracting attention due to the possibilities it affords to
address graduate employability issues. However, as an emerging area there is a need for
further research that attempts to clarify the meaning of arts entrepreneurship and explore
how it is currently practiced” (p.3). The authors call attention to the increasing pressure
on higher education institutes to improve graduate employment outcomes (p.4). The
authors engage in a discussion of some common approaches to (what might be called)
arts entrepreneurship education: new venture creation, skills for transitioning, the
development of an entrepreneurial mindset. Towards the latter focus, the authors suggest
“…the following five elements are integral constituent elements of an arts entrepreneurial
mindset: 1) capacity to think creatively, strategically, analytically and reflectively, 2)
confidence in one’s abilities, 3) collaborative abilities, 4) communication skills and 5) an
understanding of the current artistic context” (pg.14). To support the discussion and there
proposed components, the authors draw from not only an analysis of the literature, but
also from qualitative interviews with four selected arts educators who teach subjects
related to arts entrepreneurship in Victoria, Australia.
Beckman, Gary D. "‘Adventuring’ Arts Entrepreneurship Curricula in Higher
Education: An Examination of Present Efforts, Obstacles and Best Practices."
Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society 37, no. 2 (2007): 88-111.

Beckman conducted a national study funded by the Kaufman foundation in an effort to

outline best practices and curricular structures in arts entrepreneurship education. To that
end Beckman states, “The study had three goals: to survey present efforts in arts
entrepreneurship education, determine obstacles to the implementation of this curriculum,
and identify best practices” (p.88). Throughout this article, Beckman identifies and
discusses various (and previously unknown) elements, characteristics, educational
focuses and curricular components of arts entrepreneurship programs, such as:
differences from professional development activities (p.89); how arts entrepreneurship
education is delivered (p.90); two broad yet perhaps prominent curricular philosophies
(new venture creation and skills for transitioning) (p.91); disciplinary distinctions (p.92);
administrative perspectives (p.93); definition challenges (p.94); student observations
(p.95). Beckman goes on to suggest “best practices” based on his interviews (pp.99-100).
He also provides the reader with two curricular models for reflection: a business school-
based curricular model and a context-based curricular model of arts entrepreneurship
education (pp.97-98).

Bartleet, B.-L., Bennett, D., Bridgstock, R., Draper, P., Harrison, S., & Schippers,
H. (January 01, 2012). Preparing for Portfolio Careers in Australian Music: Setting
a Research Agenda. Australian Journal of Music Education, 1, 32-41.

Bartleet et al identify compelling evidence that suggests musicians’ support their artistic
careers through portfolio careers (pp.34-35). The authors identify a key benefit for
musicians who work within a portfolio career framework: “…to meet artistic needs
through freelance performing work, while simultaneously engaging in more financially
stable part-time work in music education or arts management” (p.35). Interestingly, the
authors posit that portfolio careers can help to ensure that artists’ time and energy is not
completely market driven (p.35). The authors go on to identify gaps in music education,
and discuss several suggested capabilities for 21st century creative professionals:
disciplinary agility, social networking, enterprise, self-management (pp.35-36).
Concerning the field of portfolio career studies, the authors advocate for more systematic
investigation into the lives of working musicians (p.37, p.39).

Essig, Linda. (2013). “Frameworks for Educating the Artist of the Future: Teaching
Habits of Mind for Arts Entrepreneurship.”Artivate, 1 , 2, 65-77.

Essig proposes a framework for the development of an entrepreneurial mindset. Essig’s

concept “habits of mind” draws upon theories developed by Gardner, Duening, Costa &
Kallick (p.65). To explore this concept contextually, Essig identifies a visual diagram of
her concept for analysis and discussion. Essig first identifies Gardner’s framework (noted
in Five Minds for the Future, 2008) (p.66) and then begins to map Duening’s, Costa &
Kallick’s frameworks on top of Gardner’s – ultimately proposing “a habits of mind
taxonomy as related to four phases of the entrepreneurial process”(p.71). Essig then turns
the discussion towards suggested pedagogical techniques for teaching through the
proposed framework. Essig goes on to discuss how each of the proposed components of
the proposed habits of mind framework may help to facilitate the development of an
entrepreneurial mindset.

Entrepreneurship as Self-Employment

Drucker, P. F. (March 01, 1999). Managing Oneself. Harvard Business Review, 77,
2, 64-74.

Entrepreneurs may seek environments that complement their passion for creativity
ideation and goal-oriented action. In such a case, effective management of oneself can be
a key factor that contributes to the realization of one’s own goals. Drucker's approach to
helping one realize his/her career or life goals involves understanding one’s own
strengths, knowing one’s own values, and understanding where one best belongs in the
world. Drucker provides the reader with practical advice for gaining answers to these
questions, and in addition, argues that people should work to increase skills they are
already good at - rather than skills they are not.

Gold, M., & Fraser, J. (January 01, 2002). Managing self-management: successful
transitions to portfolio careers. Work, Employment and Society, 16, 4, 579-597.

Gold and Fraser question the normative perception of the word “career” (as traditionally
defined by a movement up in pay scale, promotion, increasing authority, apparent
security and an eventual pension) (p.580). Instead, the authors reference the argument of
Waterman (1994), who posits that “…employability, rather than employment, is the key
to a career in the new economy” (p.582). Additionally the authors posit, “…the growth of
subcontracting or outsourcing of labor by organizations has promoted the spread of
portfolio working” (p.581), which they believe, “focuses explicitly on changes in the
nature of employment relationships (p.581). Interestingly, the authors also identify
criticism in research of portfolio career studies; pointing out that research conclusions
may often be focused on those that have successful portfolio careers as opposed to those
who do not (Bradley et al.) (p.582). The authors also point out barriers (e.g. race, gender,
disability and class) to obtaining and sustaining portfolio careers (pg.586). For example,
Gold and Fraiser posit that successful portfolio careers may depend heavily on ones own
degree of education, (safety net) income, access to professional networks and access to
social capital. To support this point the authors suggest, “Transitions into portfolio work
involve an anxious period during which organizational support dissolves and is replaced
by the individual’s own resources, skills, networks and entrepreneurial abilities, sustained
only by a range of safety nets, such as savings, the support of a working partner and
personal contacts. These factors may well restrict the potential of portfolio work for those
without such resources” (pg.594). The authors go on to identify limitations of the
organizational career (pg.583) and discuss how and why transitions to portfolio careers
may occur (pg.585). Based on the discussion, the authors summarize that “portfolio
workers are economically dependent on one or more organizations”, and point out that,
“they must assume direct responsibility for generating and sustaining goals and ambitions
that are significant for them without reference to a pre-established organizational pattern-
in short, for their own psychological success” (Mirvis and Hall, 1996) (pg.589).

Templer, A. J., & Cawsey, T. F. (January 01, 1999). Rethinking Career

Development in an Era of Portfolio Careers. Career Development International, 4,
2, 70-76.

Templer and Cawsey discuss the changing organizational realities that impact individuals
decisions to pursue portfolio careers. The authors begin the discussion by stating, “career
development, as traditionally envisaged, no longer matches the changed nature of
competitive advantage" (p.70). The authors’ discussion suggests that increased
globalization provides companies with an oversupply of accessible expertise and skillful
workers. Without a need for a large supply of skilled workers, companies are downsizing
in order to cut costs and maximize productivity. This is not a good position for the
average worker to be in. To address this reality, the authors present evidence that
suggests workers are developing a portfolio of skill sets and selling those skill sets to a
range of clients on a contract basis (p.71). This way of working empowers the worker by
giving him/her the freedom to compete for multiple contracts worldwide, to work on
multiple contracts at once, and to free up time to complete multiple contracts. Templer
and Cawsey provide the reader with a comparative table, which lists factors contributing
to the shift from position-centered careers to portfolio-centered careers (p.72). The
authors go on to identify the changes on the HR side that are necessary for employing
portfolio-centered workers (p.74).

Collin, R. (January 01, 2011). Lives on File: A Critical Assessment of the Career
Portfolio Genre. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32, 3, 329-
342.

Collin discusses school-based (high-school) career portfolio programs: programs that

teach students to employ certain kinds of ideologies and/or theories of what exists, what
is possible and what is desirable (Therborn, 1999)(p. 330). Collin states, “Students
involved in career portfolio programs are asked to keep and rearrange collections of their
work (e.g. papers, artwork, and artifacts from extracurricular activities) and to reflect
upon what their portfolios say about who they are, were, and will be as students, workers,
and citizens” (p.330). Collin goes on to examine this curricular model, particularly the
founding assumptions that often serve as the rationale for implementation. Throughout
the discussion, Collin examines related curricular assessments and instructional forms in
an effort to draw conclusions (p.341). Collin posits that the high school curricular model
“endorses a middle-class ideology of self cultivation and self-promotion and ratifies
middle-class ways of perceiving and responding to pressures of individualization”
(p.332).
 Entrepreneurship as Innovative Strategy in Non-Profit Organizations

Hull, C., & Lio, B. (January 01, 2006). Innovation in non-profit and for-profit
organizations: Visionary, strategic, and financial considerations. Journal of Change
Management, 6, 1, 53-65.

This article presents the reader with key challenges that non-profits may face when
attempting to innovate or create/adopt/consider a new way(s) of achieving its mission.
Hull and Lio point out that while innovation has been widely discussed and researched in
the for-profit context, little attention is given to innovation in the non-profit context,
which is often mission-driven as opposed to profit-driven. Whether in the non or for-
profit context, risk is required in order to achieve innovation. To that end Hull and Lio
position that non-profit organizations face significantly different operational challenges
than for-profit entities, which in turn may make non-profits adverse to risk taking and
thus opposed to innovation. Both for and nonprofit organizational differences are
discussed, including differences in vision, scope of impact, performance expectations,
strategic constraints, ownership and responsibility, markets, financial constraints,
revenues, incentives. The authors also discuss learning capacity, emphasizing that non-
profits often lack the learning capability (staff expertise) necessary for internal
innovations (p.62).

Kong, E. (September 01, 2008). The development of strategic management in the

non-profit context: Intellectual capital in social service non-profit organizations.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 3, 281-299.

Kong discusses the benefits of framing strategic planning in the non-profit context.
Although Kong admires the oft-used SWOT analysis, the author shares the opinion that
SWOT is often perceived as a general one-size-fits-all approach. Kong advocates for a
new strategic management approach based around intellectual capital, which (he argues)
may be more useful in addressing the needs of social service non-profit organizations.
Kong states, “The urgency of developing a new, more complex strategy management
technique which reflects the challenges and messy realities that non-profit leaders face
every day is increasingly pressing” (pg. 290). To that end, Kong identifies and discusses
many alternative strategic management approaches such as: industrial organization
framing, resource-based views and core competency, knowledge-based view, balanced
scorecard.

Nielsen, R.P. (1986). Piggybacking strategies for nonprofits: A shared costs

approach. Strategic Management Journal, 7 (3), 201-215.

Nielsen’s provides the reader with both a conceptual framework and great examples of
what is known in the nonprofit sector as “Piggybacking”, which the author defines as a
strategy whereby, “… an organization intentionally uses the profits or surpluses produced
from serving one demand-side consumer submarket constituency less related to the
organizations specialized mission in order to subsidize another consumer submarket
constituency more related to the specialized mission.”(p.203). Nielsen’s article suggests
that many nonprofit organizations are utilizing piggybacking strategies: both in order to
decrease their dependency upon public funding and to work towards self-subsidization. In
summary, piggybacking could refer to the creation of related for-profit businesses for the
purpose of subsidizing the income of a nonprofit mission. To that end the author suggests
criteria for determining an appropriate piggybacking strategy. Nielsen both identifies
potential positive and negative effects of piggybacking, and provides the reader with
several examples of existing nonprofits who utilize piggybacking strategies to support
their nonprofit missions. Key takeaways include but are not limited to: (1) piggybacking
strategies need to be properly aligned in service to the mission of the nonprofit (2) “…
joint cost based products are less likely to conflict with an institutions central mission”
(p.213).

Svensson, G., & Wood, G. (March 08, 2011). A model of cause-related marketing for
"profit-driven" and "non-profit" organizations. European Business Review, 23, 2,
203-214.

This article discusses the oft used Cause Related Marketing (CRM) strategy (e.g. for
every ticket you purchase, a percentage of the proceeds will be utilized to support a
specified mission). To facilitate the discussion the authors utilize a model (p. 206) to
deconstruct the type of partnership structure and shared outcomes necessary for
successful CRM strategy and mutual benefits. Perhaps for transparency sake, the authors’
discussion also suggests that Cause Related Marketing (CRM) is often about sales rather
than philanthropy; as donations facilitated by CRM strategies are contingent upon the
sales of certain products (p.204). Nevertheless, CRM strategies can be mutually
beneficial for both for-profit businesses and nonprofit organizations. One key benefit to
the for-profit driven partner may be the halo effect. Other key benefits to for-profit driven
partners may include but are not limited to, “… breaking through advertising clutter, low-
cost exposure, broader customer base, the ability to sway customers, positive publicity
and better employee relations” (p.207). The main benefit for the mission-driven partner
seems to be funding, (e.g. a percentage of the sales goes back to support the nonprofit
mission).

Money, K., Hillenbrand, C., Day, M., Magnan, G. M., & Corporate image and
reputation in B2B markets. (July 01, 2010). Exploring reputation of B2B
partnerships: Extending the study of reputation from the perception of single firms
to the perception of inter-firm partnerships. Industrial Marketing Management, 39,
5, 761-768.

Money et al discuss the importance of having a good business-to-business (b2b)

reputation. They suggest a framework for studying b2b partnerships, one that involves the
study of partners’ (1) mutual understanding, (2) flexible interaction and (3) synergy.
Evidence presented suggests that b2b reputations that are influential can have a very
positive effect on profits. Money et al reference that within successful b2b partnerships,
the whole is worth more than the sum of its parts. The authors posit that good b2b
reputations have several benefits, including but not limited to: increase in employee
loyalty, the support of stakeholders, increased supplier loyalty. Overall, the authors
emphasize that the core of a successful b2b partnership is mutual and equitable benefit(s)
between partners, oft facilitated by a clear understanding of each other’s agreed upon
responsibilities.

Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. (January 01, 2010). Building the co-creative
enterprise: give all your stakeholders a bigger say, and they'll lead you to better
insights, revenues, and profits. Harvard Business Review, 88, 10.)

Ramaswamy and Gouillart present the reader with a framework for facilitating co-
creation in the for-profit context. The authors argue that, “People are inherently creative
and want to engage with organizations; they don’t want to have products and processes
imposed on them” (p.102). To that end, the discussion advocates for the co-creation of
products and services, and suggests that co-creation creates value by constantly
enhancing experiences for all stakeholders. In support of this frame, the authors provide a
model for reflection and facilitation (p.103), as well as an example of a co-created
enterprise in India (p.107).

Walker, Chris. (2003) – “Arts and Non-Arts Partnerships: Opportunities,

Challenges, & Strategies.” (Urban Institute)

Walker identifies the potential benefits and liabilities associated with establishing
partnerships between arts and non-arts entities. Walker suggests, “Success depends on
each partner’s willingness and ability to live up to its part of the bargain” (p.2). Walker’s
study suggests that common benefits for arts groups often included greater public credit
for community involvement, connections to new communities of potential participants,
and wider opportunities to carry out creative works (mission). Walker’s study suggests
that common benefits for non-arts groups included better programs and better reputation
for being more effective in their community work (p.3). To aid the chances of successful
and sustainable partnerships, Walker stresses the importance of first assessing and
identifying potential liabilities before engaging in an arts/non-arts partnership. To that
end, he identifies some research directions: community reputation, constituent scope and
strength, organizational capabilities, mission and culture (pp. 5-6). Walker also suggests
assessing certain types of “partnership risks”, which he identifies as capacity risk,
commitment risk and corporate culture risk (p.10). Walker goes on to provide
recommendations for avoiding what is known as “the partnership tax”: defined as
unplanned or uncompensated costs brought on by the partnership. To that end Walker
states, “Prospective arts and non-arts partners are legitimately wary of entering into “bad
marriages” motivated mainly by grant seeking and therefore likely to fail when
unanticipated costs arise” (p.13).
 Entrepreneurship as Arts-Based Venture Creation

Preece, S. (2014). Social Bricolage in Arts Entrepreneurship: Building a Jazz Society

from Scratch. Artivate,3,1, 23-34.

Preece’s article provides the reader with a contextual example of “Bricolage”; a term that
refers to “a process whereby entrepreneurs with local knowledge and access to local
resources are best able to create enterprises using the materials at hand, rather than
overextending their efforts with externally directed attributes requiring unattainable
resources” (p.23). Preece advances social bricolage theory, suggesting that it involves (1)
creating something from nothing (a market or service emerging where there was
previously none), (2) using discarded, disused, or unwanted resources for new purposes,
(3) engaging hidden, untapped local resources others fail to recognize, value or use”
(p.24). Preece both provides a case study and a framework for analysis. Preece’s case
study perhaps identifies the utilization of bricolage strategies in the development of the
Grand River Jazz Society: a non-profit arts-based micro-enterprise that utilizes a unique
business arrangement with a for-profit hotel and local Jazz artists to sustain itself.

Markusen, A., Gilmore, S., Johnson, A., Levi, T., & Martinez, A. (2006). Crossover:
How artists build careers across commercial, nonprofit and community work
(Commissioned by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine
Foundation, and the Leveraging Investments in Creativity). Retrieved from
http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/prie/pdf/crossover.pdf

Markusen et al provide the reader with a comprehensive research study focused on

discovering how visual and performing artists build careers across commercial, non-
profit and community sectors. The study also includes 41 case studies. Cases consist of
entrepreneurs across the arts and creative sector(s): many of who have both experienced
and addressed common challenges and historical barriers to the creation production and
distribution of art. The study is guided by a theory on commercial, nonprofit and
community crossover: “In contemporary regional arts ecology, artists make their way by
choosing how to cultivate their talents, where to live and practice their art forms, and how
much time to devote to them, given their abilities to make a living and their degrees of
commitment” (p.91). The study points out that the U.S census commonly underestimates
employment across the arts and creative sector(s). For example, data in the appendix
suggests that the U.S Census bases employment/occupational data on one’s primary
occupation (p.94). Therefore, artists who work non-arts jobs for the majority of the week
to support their artistic careers are not counted in the U.S census. Given that the majority
of visual and performing artists are very likely to be self-employed (p.5), evidence
suggests that U.S Census data on artist employment may be greatly under-representative
of the national artistic workforce. In this comprehensive study, definitions were a key
part of guiding and framing research questions. Sample size is drawn from artists in Los
Angeles County and Bay area counties (p.7). Interviews were utilized to conduct follow-
ups. To summarize, “Research findings reveal broad crossover practice and artists’
desires to move more fluidly among sectors. They demonstrate that experience among
different spheres often enriches artists’ development, work quality, incomes and visions
of the possible” (p.9).

Entrepreneurship as Creative Placemaking

Webb, D. (2014). Placemaking and Social Equity: Expanding the Framework of

Creative Placemaking. Artivate, 3,1, 35-48.

Webb’s article provides the reader with a general understanding of creative placemaking
theory and practice; which leading creative placemaking theorists Anne Markusen and
Anne Gadwa have referred to as, “partnerships with public, private, non-profit, and
community sectors to strategically shape the economic, physical and social characteristics
of a place around arts and cultural activities” (p.26). However, Webb’s article criticizes
traditional creative placemaking strategies largely guided by economic outcomes:
strategies often validated by “higher property values and livelier streets” (p.37).
Alternatively Webb believes that successful creative placemaking should build
communities and build a better world with arts and culture at its core. Webb also
references Roberto Bedoya (Executive Director of Tucson Pima Arts Council) who warns
of the dangers of framing creative placemaking from a dominant mono-cultural
perspective. Ultimately, Webb advocates for an expanded framework for creative
placemaking; (1) placemaking that is guided by civic engagement activities that foster
cultural stewardship; (2) placemaking that spurs systemic social change and youth
empowerment; (3) placemaking that articulates a shared aesthetic of belonging” (p.46).

Ponzini, D., & Rossi, U. (January 01, 2010). Becoming a Creative City: The
Entrepreneurial Mayor, Network Politics and the Promise of an Urban Renaissance.
Urban Studies, 47, 5, 1037-1057.

Ponzini and Rossi make great points in this article, providing the reader with a critical
examination of “creative city theory”, as well as a case study (Creative Baltimore
Initiative) to evidence their conclusions. In summary, Ponzini and Rossi posit that
Richard Florida’s creative city theory is often utilized as a policy tool for “turbo
capitalism”, and despite political rhetoric, is not often “…generally linked to social
cohesion and inclusion objectives” (p.1052). Based upon their analysis of creative city
theory and the arguments of critics, the authors go so far as to liken creative city theory to
“…a fertile and seductive conceptual framework that can be fruitfully used for the
implementation of fast policies of local economic regeneration in a variety of urban and
regional contexts” (p.1041). The authors go on to reference missing links between
creative city theory and practice, which they argue, often results in implementation
problems at the regional and community levels.

Americans for the Arts. (2003). Building Creative Economies: The Arts,
Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development. Washington DC: Monograph.

The document provides a case study of a creative economy initiative for Appalachian
communities across the nation. In April of 2002, more than 300 individual artists and
representatives from state arts and heritage organizations came together in order to
discuss how Appalachian arts and heritage could be used to revitalize Appalachian
communities (pg. 3). Together, they “collectively” developed a strategic creative
economy plan involving such activities as asset-based community planning, coalition and
capacity building, the development of arts-business incubators, collaborative marketing,
funding alignment (etc). Unsurprisingly, a key factor in this successful initiative was
“community ownership”; a factor that may often be missing from the majority of creative
placemaking initiatives that prioritize economic outcomes. Lessons learned and best
practices are provided (p.5).

Entrepreneurship as Cultural Preservation

Bhattacharya, A. (2011). Heritage and creative enterprise. International Journal of

Intangible Heritage, 6, 99-104.

Bhattacharya’s article provides the reader with an example of Cultural Entrepreneurship

in action. The author references her work with Banglanatak: a social enterprise in India
whose mission is to relieve poverty by using culture-based approaches. Brought on by the
forces of globalization, the folk artists of Bengal felt they were losing their cultural
heritage. The author states, “A decade back these art forms were losing their traditional
audience. The young were not interested to learn them. Songs and dance styles were
being lost and a living heritage was dying” (p.101). To address these issues, Banglanatak
worked with 3,200 folk artists, involving them in the development of capacity building,
documentation, and marketing and professional development efforts. Unlike some
community revitalization efforts, Banglanatak’s process was participatory and not
prescriptive. As a result, cultural heritage tourism brought on by these activities not only
saved cultural traditions and improved economic conditions for community residents, but
also validated the cultural heritage experiences as authentic.