Search

One of the goals of autoethnography is to "offer lessons for further conversation". In this article, the author reflects on several lessons that were learnt along a journey in management education in the area of indigenous entrepreneurship. In particular, the author outlines her pedagogical practice as an academic engaged in teaching entrepreneurship to Maori students in a university setting. In developing the pedagogical approach for the course, the author has drawn on the metaphor of spiral; this approach involves the teacher and students forming a collaborative double spiral of learning through a process of acknowledgment, adaptation, and advancement. It is hoped that this discussion stimulates conversation and reflection for the reader in much the same manner that writing this article has enabled the author to examine, question, and develop her own pedagogical practice. (Contains 7 notes and 1 table.)

Executive Summary: Walk tall: The story of REX Bionics is about the key decisions faced by the founders Richard Little and Robert (Robbie) Irving to commercialise a 'walking skeleton' for people who are wheelchair-bound for extended periods. The changing role of the founders in a technology-based business and the interplay between the founders' vision and the reality of growing technology-based businesses is the focus. The history of REX Bionics lies in the founders' first-hand experiences with people diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Over 15 years the company evolved from a 'workshop idea' in a garage to public listing on the London AIM Stock Exchange. Facing multiple institutional hurdles, rapidly moving technology and high start-up costs, REX Bionics successfully commercialised the walking robotic exoskeleton inspirited by the 'Power Load' in the movie Aliens. Little and Irving faced some tough choices about which commercialisation pathways to pursue in the light of diverse perspectives from the board of directors, an advisory board, various investors to their personal mission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to explore the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing an appreciative inquiry approach for entrepreneurship research within the family business context. We argue that there is an opportunity to shift the focus of family business studies from a"deficit oriented approach" toward adopting a positive organizational lens through"appreciative inquiry" principles. We review the background to appreciative inquiry including from its inception in the 1980s; the definitions, principles, models for appreciative inquiry; and the theoretical foundations of the appreciative inquiry approach. We will draw on examples from a recent study that applied appreciative inquiry principles to investigate what worked well in entrepreneurial family businesses. By exploring the generative characteristics, we are better placed to understand the strengths of a family firm. This leads to research that presents what works well, and can be built on in family businesses, rather than objectifying the problems to be solved. Our contribution lies in how, as a positive organizational lens, appreciative inquiry principles inform research in the entrepreneurial family business context. In practice, finding the advantages and disadvantages of using an appreciative protocol could lead to future studies adopting this lens, and possibly past studies being reinvigorated with a shift of focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Schumpeter formulated a ‘conduct model’ of entrepreneurial behaviour. Received wisdom has emphasised the economic functions of Schumpeter’s entrepreneur, neglecting behavioural aspects. Schumpeter’s model is examined; it posits a continuum of behaviours which are ‘entrepreneurial’, that rely on socially situated, tacit knowledge and are expressions of conscious, subjective rationality. Schumpeter’s model excluded unconscious optimisation and decision rules derived from bounded rationality. Comparisons are drawn with modern neoclassical, Austrian, and the older behavioural characterisations of entrepreneurial behaviour. The newer ‘effectuation’ model of entrepreneurial behaviour is also contrasted with Schumpeter’s approach. We find, among other things, that modern Schumpeterian economics associated with Nelson and Winter is not a natural continuation of Schumpeter’s model. However, some developments in neo-Schumpeterian economics, including the effectuation model deriving from the older behavioural tradition, are congruent with both the original ‘conduct model’ and Schumpeter’s directions for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]