Search

Purpose – Venture creation is often seen as the form of academic entrepreneurship least compatible with the role of university scientists. The purpose of the article is to explore the changing role of university scientists towards venture creation, and understand the influence of university-driven initiatives for venture creation. Design/methodology/approach – The article is based on a qualitative study of two venture creation cases: one from a US university, and one building from two universities in Sweden. The cases and associated university environments were selected due to their venture creation activity. University venture creation data of the three universities complements the cases. Findings – Venture creation at universities can be more compatible with the traditional role of the university scientist. Centers and laboratories concerned with entrepreneurship and action-based education are identified as key university resources allowing university scientists to engage in venture creation in more compatible ways, and not having to become the lead venture creator. Research limitations/implications – The study underlying the article is limited to three university environments (in two countries) where venture creation activity is relatively frequent. Originality/value – The article shows that venture creation can be more compatible with the role of the university scientist due to more collective entrepreneurial activity at universities. Furthermore, university scientists, in synergizing between different entrepreneurial roles, are important for venture creation without taking the lead venture entrepreneur role. Involving students in venture creation together with scientists is proposed as one such important entrepreneurial role that has not previously been recognized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine how legitimacy as "an entrepreneur" is gained in relation to others during the nascent phase. Design/methodology/approach - The author studies two firm creating teams over a 12-month incubation period. Data collected through participant observation, documentation and interviews are emploted as narratives in order to explore how nascent entrepreneurs gain legitimacy through social interaction. Positioning theory is used to explore how negotiated rights and duties are employed towards legitimacy-gaining strategies. Findings - Conforming, selecting and manipulating strategies are used to gain legitimacy during a process of firm creation through interactive dialogue with key stakeholders (role-set). Positioning facilitates a process of negotiated rights and duties that helps to define the role of "entrepreneur" to which the nascent entrepreneurs aspire. Research limitations/implications - The study is bounded to a specific contextual setting and thus initial findings would benefit from further investigation in comparable and control settings. Findings illustrate the ways in which nascent entrepreneurs employ legitimacy-gaining strategies through interaction with key stakeholders, an area of research not well understood. This contributes to an understanding of how entrepreneurial identity is developed. Practical implications - Designed firm creation environments can facilitate interaction with key stakeholders and support positioning of nascent entrepreneurs as they attempt to gain legitimacy in the role of "entrepreneur", while creating a new firm. Legitimacy-gaining strategies can strengthen entrepreneurial identity development, which can be applied to multiple entrepreneurial processes. Originality/value - The article accesses individuals in the process of becoming entrepreneurs, a phenomenon most often studied in hindsight. Emphasis on stakeholder interaction as contributing to entrepreneurial development is also understudied. Legitimacy-gaining strategies are explored through narratives using positioning theory, an approach which has been discussed conceptually but not readily applied empirically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – Several types of entrepreneurship with a societal purpose coincide in Sweden today, some stemming from older domestic traditions, others being more recent foreign influences. This paper aims to interrelate social, civic, community, and other entrepreneurships in search of a more unifying concept of societal entrepreneurship for Sweden and beyond. Design/methodology/approach – As part of a larger study, Swedish researchers and practitioners promoting some kind of entrepreneurship with societal purpose, are interviewed and asked for examples and literature references. Altogether 176 actors are identified and 59 are interviewed. The main distinguishing factors between different discourses of entrepreneurship are accounted for as well as results from workshops where actors representing different discourses partook. Findings – Seven societally oriented entrepreneurship discourses are distinguished, with different foreign or domestic origins. Key characteristics for interrelating different discourses are the type of actor (individual and/or collective) and purpose (social/ecological and/or economic) emphasized in a discourse. Interactions documented from workshops indicate a potential in unifying different entrepreneurships within a widened understanding of societal entrepreneurship. Research limitations/implications – The field of entrepreneurship emphasizing societal utility is fragmented with many parallel discourses. The conceptual analysis and empirical findings imply that there is potential in a more unifying concept. Furthermore, in the limited Swedish setting, collective dimensions of entrepreneurship stand out. This nevertheless implies that collective engagements into entrepreneurship of any kind are worthy of more research and recognition. Practical implications – Implications are primarily limited to societal entrepreneurship within uncontested welfare states, such as Sweden, where most established societal needs are taken care of through taxes utilized by a public sector. Societal entrepreneurship in such a setting becomes a mechanism for renewal and experimentation. Originality/value – The paper is original in its approach to identifying and interrelating current discourses in Sweden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]