How did you get up and running? Taking a Bourdieuan perspective towards a framework for negotiating strategic fit

Abstract

This document is the author's post-print version, incorporating any revisions agreed during the peer-review process. Some differences between the published version and this version may remain and you are advised to consult the published version if you wish to cite from it.

Entrepreneurial learning as practice: a video-ethnographic analysis

“…As Thompson and Byrne (2020) explain, this literature places analytical and theoretical emphasis on neither individuals nor social structures, but rather on observable practices and their relations. In this vein, studies by Teague et al (2020), Hill (2018) and Keating et al (2013) have made novel gains by reconsidering phenomena of pitching, strategic fit and resourcing from practice theory foundations. Similarly, recent work has investigated selling (Chalmers and Shaw, 2017), networking (Anderson et al, 2010) and marketing (Gross et al, 2014) practices to reveal the deeply contextual, processual and relational nature of these phenomena.…”

Spotlight on UK artisan entrepreneurs' situated collaborations: through the lens of entrepreneurial capitals and their conversion

“…Within Bourdieu's practice theory 'field' denotes an arena of power; 'field agents' (individuals who carry out practices) are situated in field positions they re-construct, temporarily to allow for power and status (Bourdieu, 1986(Bourdieu, , 1990. Fields are particular to an industry and a specific location; fields have fuzzy boundaries and rules that entrepreneurs only acquire over time through running their own businesses (Hill, 2018). Capitals (cultural, economic, social, symbolic), meanwhile, are vehicles to negotiate power positions in a field and are thus field-dependent; consequently, they rarely have universal value outside of a specific context.…”

“…Zahra et al, 2014), the actual understanding of how 'context' influences doing business has been analysed in more depth in the last decade, following numerous calls for this kind of research (Welter and Gartner, 2016). Hill (2018), further clarifying Bourdieu's concepts for entrepreneurship research through an intermediary framework, argues that social relations and capitals are maintained at the meso-level contrasting views, which regard capitals owned by individuals (Payne et al, 2011). Thus, only those aspects of capitals brought into doing business are relevant, requiring an additional label of 'entrepreneurial capitals'.…”

“…Situated entrepreneurial capitals (Hill, 2018) are the chosen lens to analyse ongoing micro exchange processes constituting entrepreneurial activities. These entrepreneurial capitals are only those elements of capitals (Bourdieu, 1986(Bourdieu, , 1990) that are brought into the social processes of 'doing business', and consequently obtain particular relevance.…”

Related variety and firm heterogeneity. What really matters for short-run firm growth?

“…The practice tradition (also known as practice-based studies, the practice approach or the practice lens) in the social sciences forefronts the notion that practices and their connections are fundamental to the ontology of all social phenomena (Rouse 2006;Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina, and Savigny 2001). Ventures, firms or startups, in this view, are not ontologically separate phenomena from the performance of everyday, materially accomplished and ordered practices (Chalmers and Shaw 2017;Hill 2018;Johannisson 2011;Vincent and Pagan, 2019). This is to say that no description or explanation of features of entrepreneurial lifesuch as, recognizing, evaluating and exploiting opportunitiesis possible without the 'alternate' description and explanation of how entrepreneurial life is actually lived in and through practices (Gross, Carson, and Jones 2014;Keating, Geiger, and Mcloughlin 2013).…”