Search results

This paper draws upon the Schumpeterian statement that effective change only comes from within. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether this notion can be applied to personal life and practices displayed by certain individuals wishing to innovate themselves by recombining given personal resources with the purpose of establishing a new person enterprise.

The approach used in this article is to conceptually propose and argue a reading of entrepreneurship as the agency of an innovative subject, embedded in a Foucauldian technology of the self based on self‐care and self‐knowledge.

The analysis leads to the finding that the individual who challenges (or resists) destiny, or a given personal order, and manages to establish a new personal order, is entrepreneurial in so far as s/he changes the way of doing things, or a static way of living.

The paper suggests theoretical implications for further research. The use of Schumpeter to analyse personal practices as a form of entrepreneurship reinforces the notion of entrepreneurship beyond the business context and opens up research possibilities in a variety of fields and ways, for example, research capable of linking ethics and entrepreneurship, self‐reflexivity and entrepreneurship, and subjectivity and entrepreneurship.

The article is original in that it bids to extend the theory of entrepreneurship to perspectives that are clearly embedded in personal life for the sake of self‐development. Its value is that it allows for a transcending of both the economic and social notions of entrepreneurship, enabling us to outline a third dimension to the literature, which we call a person enterprise.

This paper aims to examine the process by which the social entrepreneurial identity can be constructed through narrative, concentrating specifically on the construction of the identity of the ideologically inclined social‐activist entrepreneur.

A case study approach is employed of a social‐activist entrepreneur who established a refugee help centre in a major Australian city. The data are presented through the genre of allowing the narrator to enjoy the primary voice in the form of an extended narrative.

The findings show how the social entrepreneur constructs his identity through crafted divisions based on oppositional and appositional principles of setting apart (a claim of separation) and bringing together (a claim of similarity). It is emphasised how the impact of the particular audience and the possibility of narrative omissions can both influence the narrative product as it is constructed by the social entrepreneur.

The analysis has implications for our manner of understanding how ideologically inclined social entrepreneurs can experience the tension of lacing together potentially contrasting discourses while maintaining the overall integrative nature of their narrative.

The findings possess value and originality by making two major contributions to the extant literature. First, we challenge the central tendency in the literature to concentrate on dominant discourses by analysing the manner in which ideological social entrepreneurs construct their identity through their joint crafting of the discourses of “Me” and “Not‐Me”, and the non‐discourse of “Suppressed‐Me”. Second, we add to the literature on how informants deal with the tension of managing conflicting discourses by analysing the concept of “discourse suppression” as the narrative tendency of social activist entrepreneurs.

The purpose of this paper is to examine distinctions between embeddedness and belonging in ethnographic fieldwork to make sense of a researcher's identity position in the field.

A confessional ethnographic narrative was retrospectively crafted from field notes from a 12-month fieldwork period. This narrative is presented and critically discussed to problematize the author's remembered sense of place and temporality in the field.

Regardless of whether a researcher “longs to belong” in the field, the paper finds that the research and the researcher belongs to the field. The temporality of an ethnographer's being in the field causes its inhabitants, the research participants to assign him/her a distinct and hybrid identity position.

It is recognized that the research presented is bound by nostalgia. However, such reflexive intersubjectivity must be accounted for in ethnography. The identity position of a researcher influences the research process and outcomes. And that identity is not at the discretion of the researcher.

Adopting the trope of habitus and postcolonial principles, this research illustrates the criticality of reflexive intersubjectivity in ethnography to positioning the researcher as “Other,” not the research participants. For organizational ethnographers, and qualitative researchers more widely, to recognize this ethical consideration has consequences for how fieldwork is practiced and reported.