Bringing the practice theoretical and critical approach together

A key theoretical contribution of this study is combining critical research on entrepreneurship with a practice theoretical approach. I argue that operationalizing these two approaches in empirical research can be done (at least) by using these approaches to consider how and what.

First, the practice theoretical approach is operationalized as a theoretical ‘lens’

used for studying how the phenomenon of entrepreneurship stems from and transpires through the real-time accomplishment of ordinary activities (Nicolini and Monteiro, 2017). The practice approach sees that sociomaterial practices produce meanings of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial subjectivities and, as such, the approach can be used to consider how meanings and subjectivities are produced (and reproduced) through talking, doing, feeling and using bodies, spaces, objects, and technologies.

When it comes to using the practice approach for answering the how in empirical research, one challenge that arises is deciding who or what to study. When talking about entrepreneurship, people are quite accustomed to thinking about entrepreneurship as something done by a group of people who tend to be called “entrepreneurs”. Even though the conversations of Entrepreneurship as Practice and Critical Entrepreneurship Studies have been both pushing the boundaries of what can legitimately be studied and how, the few extant empirical EaP studies have tended to prioritize the actions of people labelled as entrepreneur and contexts related to companies or ventures.

However, CES have emphasized that the issue who is considered an ‘entrepreneur’

is a political one (Jones and Spicer, 2005, 2009), and studies have tried to reframe entrepreneurship, for example, as social change (Calás et al., 2009), emancipation (Rindova et al., 2009) and organization creation (Hjorth et al., 2015). When combining the practice approach and CES, one must consider questions such as: what social settings do researchers consider as interesting for entrepreneurship research?

Where can one turn their empirical attention to? Do scholars ‘limit’ their interests to issues that are perceived somehow being clearly related to entrepreneurship, or do they allow the empirical material to produce revelations that surprise them?

I call for refraining from limiting the range of ‘acceptable’ things to study when it comes to understanding the sociocultural phenomenon of entrepreneurship. In this study, I wanted to go beyond people labelled as ‘entrepreneurs.’ Whilst scholars such as Gaddefors and Anderson (2017) have done similar things in a more radical way – their ethnography starts with place and context; with sheep coming to town – I chose to do this by focusing on the practices enacted within organizations that promote entrepreneurship. My solution to the issue of who and what to study was to adopt ethnographic methodology and to decide not to focus on entrepreneurship prior to beginning my fieldwork. This meant that I was initially interested in another topic but kept an open mind to following what emerges as interesting in the field, and thus ended up finding the phenomenon of entrepreneurship interesting through my engagement in the practices of StartingUp. The approach I adopted also illustrates that entrepreneurship can emerge as an interesting phenomenon through studies of something completely different, and I encourage such studies that end up highlighting something interesting about entrepreneurship through empirical engagement in various social settings.

Second, Critical Entrepreneurship Studies are mobilized to discuss what practices produce. CES are engaged in challenging taken-for-granted ideas regarding entrepreneurship and remind us that entrepreneurship is not a neutral activity. Then, contributions from CES are taken to remind how the concept of entrepreneurship itself can be ‘discriminatory, gender-biased, ethnocentrically determined and ideologically controlled’ (Ogbor, 2000, p. 605) and how entrepreneurship links to both oppression and emancipation (Verduijn et al., 2014). Insights from CES are adopted to discuss what is constructed in and through the studied practices and with what effects. The said effects can include, for example, the dynamic of power relations, of what is seen as entrepreneurship and who is seen as an entrepreneur, but also issues such as gender, race, ideology and identity.

When operationalizing the practice approach together with CES, critique isn’t targeted at abstract forces or individual actions, but sociomaterial practices. If matters, such as social order, identity, power and inequalities, are seen to result from and transpire through social practices (Nicolini, 2009, 2012, 2017), then we must place critique on the continual enactment of the practices that produce, sustain and even transform things we find problematic. As critique is geared towards practices, the practice approach reminds us that both positive and problematic aspects of entrepreneurship only exist up to the point that the practices, in which these aspects emerge, are enacted. That is, combining the critical and practice approach can remind us that meanings of entrepreneurship and issues related to it are kept in existence through repetition – and herein lies a seed for possible changes, as we could always opt to do things in other ways. When placing critique on practices, one can contribute to understanding ‘big issues’ without resorting to abstract concepts.

Instead, we can focus on how the local discursive and material accomplishment of practices are connected to the ‘there and then’ (Nicolini, 2012).

As a summary, I contribute to entrepreneurship research through building this approach where the practice theoretical approach is used as a theoretical tool for studying how entrepreneurship is constructed, followed by using the critical approach to reflect on what or who to study and what the effects of the studied practices are. This approach extends the scope of critical, practice theoretical studies of entrepreneurship, which have been few so far. Whilst Clercq and Voronov’s (2009a, 2009b) utilized Bourdieu’s practice theory to question assumptions regarding entrepreneurship and theorize on legitimation and domination, their studies have been theoretical. However, the approach I am building is suited for the needs of empirical research. Houtbeckers (2016) and Goss et al. (2011) conducted interesting work on social and emancipatory entrepreneurship, but their empirical research focused on activities of people labelled as entrepreneurs.

However, my approach can be utilized to study the sociocultural phenomenon of entrepreneurship without having to study the actions of people labelled as entrepreneurs.

Next, I will discuss the results I gained from utilizing this approach in empirical research and the significance of these results.

5.2.2. Entrepreneurship promotion as reproducing and