Content uploaded by Benson Honig
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Benson Honig on Aug 19, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development
Vol. 23, Nos. 5–6, June 2011, 353–372
Entrepreneurship as an integrating mechanism for
disadvantaged persons
Dirk De Clercq
ay
*
and Benson Honig
by
a
Faculty of Business, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON L2S3A1, Canada;
b
DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S4M4, Canada
This paper theorises about a specific facet of social entrepreneurship,
namely, the integration of disadvantaged persons into the field of
entrepreneurship. Drawing from Bourdieu’s theory of practice, the authors
conceive of this integration as a power-laden process that reflects normative
expectations imposed by field incumbents on entrants to the field that
require them to both comply with and challenge existing field arrange-
ments. Propositions outline the desirability and ability of disadvantaged
persons to meet these expectations.
Keywords: social entrepreneurship; theory of practice; disadvantaged
persons
1. Introduction
Extant research is marked by a myriad of approaches aimed at de-reifying social
entrepreneurship as a concept and examining its place within the business world and
society in general (Mair and Marti 2006; Peredo and McLean 2006; Shaw and Carter
2007). For example, one approach focuses on the outcomes of social entrepreneur-
ship, particularly its potential to create positive social change, which might be
achieved through not only conventional business models but also philanthropy
(Acs and Dana 2001), and government expenditures (Dees 2001; Bornstein 2004;
Tracey and Phillips 2007). A different, yet related, approach emphasises the social
nature of the objectives put forward by organizations, including both not-for-profit
and for-profit firms. For example, Southshore bank was designed as a community
development bank in Chicago, with the objective of supporting and enhancing a
minority community through resources obtained from wealthier areas (Taub 1988).
Firms in the private sector also might support social entrepreneurship through
specific projects, such as the local community initiatives undertaken by Ben & Jerry’s
(Peredo and McLean 2006).
Yet another approach considers the role of entrepreneurship in helping
disadvantaged persons in society break away from their unprivileged positions
(Korten 1980; Brown and Covey 1987; Alvord, Brown, and Letts 2004), serving as
a potential device for poverty alleviation (e.g. Krishna, Uphoff, and Esman 1997;
Taub 1988; Bornstein 2004), a solution to unemployment or discrimination in the
labour market (Glazer and Moynihan 1970; Fairlie 2005) or a tool for the social
*Corresponding author. Email: ddeclercq@brocku.ca
yBoth authors contributed equally to this manuscript and are listed in alphabetical order.
ISSN 0898–5626 print/ISSN 1464–5114 online
ß 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/08985626.2011.580164
http://www.informaworld.com
inclusion of minority groups (Fairlie and Meyer 1996; Maher 1999; Mata and
Pendakur 1999; Anderson, Honig, and Peredo 2006; Anderson, Dana, and Dana
2006; Pavey 2006). Despite attention devoted to the role of cooperatives, job subsidy
programmes, occupational training and volunteer organizations in achieving social
inclusion of disadvantaged persons (Bode, Evers, and Schulz 2006), extant theory
has not fully addressed the mechanisms by which disadvantaged persons can enter
entrepreneurial activities, nor has it considered the role of power in this process
(Armstrong 2005; Lukes 2005; Nicholls and Cho 2006; Chell 2007). We contend that
the study of entrepreneurship among people who are disadvantaged represents a
specific and important instance of social entrepreneurship that may warrant a
distinctive theoretical framework. Towards this end, we develop a conceptual
framework of social entrepreneurship that focuses on the forces of domination that
underlie the integration of disadvantaged persons into entrepreneurship. We define
disadvantaged persons as those individuals who have difficulty integrating into the
marketplace and typically are located outside the mainstream of social and
institutional support for entrepreneurship, such as disabled persons (e.g. Pavey
2006) or visible minorities (Fairlie and Meyer 1996).
The crux of the arguments we propose is that the integration of disadvantaged
persons into entrepreneurship cannot be addressed in isolation from acknowledging
the power-laden mechanisms these persons confront, foremost in their interactions
with incumbent constituencies of society – such as government, banks, venture
capitalists, media and so on – but also with one another. Despite widespread
acknowledgement that social entrepreneurship takes place in a broader societal
context (Austin 2006; Bode, Evers, and Schulz 2006; Peredo and McLean 2006),
extant research has yet to provide a complete account of the forces of dominance
that characterize the inclusion, or lack thereof, of disadvantaged groups into
entrepreneurship (Chell 2007), though some research has begun to address the role of
societal expectations in this process (Laville, Lemaitre, and Nyssens 2006). For
instance, the call to empower people to become entrepreneurs by supplying them
with credit or training opportunities resonates with the need to include a broader set
of persons in the business sector (Bornstein 2004; Yunus 2006). Furthermore, recent
scholarship, as well as public media, mirrors the contemporary expectations that
wealthy entrepreneurs should create foundations or otherwise donate substantial
sums to causes they deem worthy, typically with the support of tax incentives or
publicly sponsored initiatives (Oppedisano 2004; Osberg 2006).
Against this backdrop of increased recognition of social entrepreneurship as a
phenomenon that is intrinsically intertwined with the very fabric of contemporary
society, we draw from Bourdieu’s (1977, 1990, 1998, 2005a, 2005b) theory of practice
to examine the integration of disadvantaged persons into the ‘field of entrepreneur-
ship’ as a socially embedded process that is essentially power laden.
1
Bourdieu’s
extensive body of work provides a conceptual framework that is uniquely suited to
examine issues related to domination in the relationships between individuals and
social structures (Ozbigilin and Tatli 2005). We use this perspective to examine the
role of power, as reflected in the expectations that incumbent actors hold about
disadvantaged entrepreneurs (Aldrich and Fiol 1994; Zimmerman and Zeitz 2002).
To be precise, we conceptualize the integration of disadvantaged persons into the
field of entrepreneurship as intrinsically linked with the need to both comply with and
challenge existing expectations about entrepreneurship. This field contains both the
354 D. De Clercq and B. Honig
contesting competitive relations of firms operating within an existing industry or
market as well as the characteristics and properties of the economic field at large,
related to economic production, entrepreneurship and its dynamic characteristics
(Bourdieu 2005b). For existing constituencies to comprehend and trust disadvan-
taged persons in their entrepreneurial endeavours, the latter group needs to address
two main issues.
First, the need to comply with existing arrangements implies that disadvantaged
persons should follow the rules imposed by institutions, norms and structures, thus
convincing field incumbents that their practices conform to how entrepreneurs
typically appear or behave in appearing legitimate (Aldrich and Fiol 1994; Suchman
1995). For instance, norms indicate that entrepreneurs should adhere to existing laws
and be ‘good citizens’ (Aldrich and Fiol 1994) by following preset standards when
they apply for incorporation or aim to launch an initial public offering. Similarly,
they should adhere to ‘specialized, explicit and codified knowledge and belief systems
promulgated by various professional and scientific bodies’ (Scott 1994, 81), such that
their ventures’ characteristics conform to established evaluation criteria used by
external investors and creditors (Chandler and Jansen 1992; Chaganti, DeCarolis,
and Deeds 1995). For the context of this study, aspiring entrepreneurs with specific
disadvantages (i.e. they may be disabled or belong to a visible minority) will need to
convince investors, customers and other stakeholders that their unprivileged position
in society does not prevent their entrepreneurial undertakings from aligning with
existing expectations of what is perceived as acceptable in the marketplace
(Barley 1996; Aldrich 1999).
Second, the very fact of being disadvantaged may invoke an expectation
among field incumbents that entrepreneurs should somehow challenge existing
institutions, norms and structures to accommodate a new set of hitherto unfulfilled
needs in the field (Shane and Venkataraman 2000; Dees, Emerson, and Economy
2002; Bornstein 2004). Thus, disadvantaged persons need to not only attract a
recognized ‘seal of approval’ for their activities and products but also enrich their
undertakings with an appeal that relates to their specific situation. For instance,
though the normative attitudes that broader society holds towards persons with
disabilities must change, as may occur through role playing, lectures, videos or direct
contact (Daruwalla and Darcy 2004), to stimulate social inclusion, disabled
entrepreneurs may also benefit if they exploit opportunities that relate to their
specific situation (Pavey 2006). For example, one disabled entrepreneur successfully
established a tour agency that caters specifically to the needs of the disabled
(Accessible Travel 2008).
In short, disadvantaged persons’ ability to meet dual demands – to comply with
and/or challenge existing field arrangements with respect to entrepreneurship – may
rest at the very core of the expectations bestowed upon them as a recognized class,
group or sub-culture as well as the expectations they create for themselves. On the
one hand, a disadvantaged entrepreneur must look credible to incumbents by
concentrating on ‘framing the unknown in such a way that it becomes believable’
(Aldrich and Fiol 1994, 651). On the other hand, he or she also should demonstrate
that belonging to a disadvantaged group can facilitate the exploitation of
opportunities that previously had been unexploited in the field, which could upset
existing field arrangements (Shane and Venkataraman 2000). In this sense,
disadvantaged persons’ entrepreneurial activity may be conceived as a ‘balancing
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 355
act between deviation and belonging’ (Lindgren and Packendorff 2006, 230). It may
also provide insight, innovation and unique opportunity recognition.
Our conceptual framework addresses two questions. First, we examine what
makes disadvantaged persons desire to comply with and challenge field incumbent
expectations about entrepreneurship, focusing particularly on how the forces of
domination that disadvantaged persons experience, stemming from their disadvan-
tage, may fuel their motivation to become entrepreneurs. That is, drawing on
Bourdieu’s notion of ‘field’, we discuss the desirability of entrepreneurship in light
of the interplay between disadvantaged persons’ focal field (e.g. disability, ethnic
minority) and the field of entrepreneurship. We argue that the level of dominance
experienced by the disadvantaged may increase their desire to comply with the
existing arrangements of the entrepreneurship field, while the impermeability of their
focal field increases their desire to challenge those arrangements.
Second, we examine the factors that may make disadvantaged persons better able
to comply with and challenge field incumbents’ expectations about entrepreneurship.
Towards this end, we consider the role of disadvantaged persons’ access to
entrepreneurship-specific cultural and symbolic capital, which helps them meet these
expectations. Although field entrants must compete for several forms of capital,
including economic, human and social capital (Bourdieu 1986), their access to
cultural and symbolic capital arguably provides the best indicator of the hidden
processes that underlie their ability, or lack thereof, to meet field incumbents’
expectations (Bourdieu 1990; Everett 2002). We argue that disadvantaged persons’
access to cultural capital increases their ability to comply with field-specific
arrangements, and their access to symbolic capital facilitates their ability to
challenge those arrangements.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: First, we outline our
conceptualization of social entrepreneurship through the lens of the theory of
practice; that is, we conceive of the integration of disadvantaged persons into the
field of entrepreneurship as an enactment of field-specific habitus, or habitual
expectations about compliance and challenge. Second, we develop propositions
pertaining to the desirability and ability of disadvantaged persons to enact field
incumbents’ expectations. We also consider how their success as entrepreneurs may
depend on their ability to juggle the dual demands of compliance and challenge,
particularly through their engagement in impression management. Third, we
summarize our main arguments and point to some future research and practical
implications. The study’s conceptual framework appears in Figure 1.
2. Entrepreneurship as an enactment of habitus
To better understand the power-laden nature of the integration of disadvantaged
persons into entrepreneurship, we acknowledge the important notion of ‘field’. A
field represents a network of social relations in which actors struggle for power
(Wallace and Wolfe 1999). Fields are occupied by ‘dominant’ and ‘dominated’
actors, who attempt to usurp, exclude and establish monopolies over the mechanisms
of the field’s reproduction through their accumulation of various forms of capital,
such as economic, social, cultural and symbolic capital (Bourdieu and Wacquant
1992). Thus, capital provides an essential source of power (Everett 2002; Wacquant
1993) and cannot be treated as separate from the relevant field (Bourdieu and
356 D. De Clercq and B. Honig
Wacquant 1992; Bourdieu 1998; Entwistle and Rockamora 2006). For instance, that
which constitutes relevant capital in the field of entrepreneurship (Lyon 2004) is not
necessarily the same as capital in the public sector (Du Gay 2004). Furthermore,
though each field contains a set of rules of the game, which actors may contest
(Jenkins 1992; Martin 2003; Sallaz and Zavisca 2007), these rules are ‘flexibly
structured and minimally formalized’ (Bourdieu 2000, 130). Thus, fields are not fixed
but are rather malleable and subject to change, according to the conceptions or
dispositions of the fields’ members (Martin 2003).
For the purpose of this study – namely, examining the integration of
disadvantaged persons into entrepreneurship – we consider the power-laden process
by which disadvantaged persons navigate from their ‘focal field’ (i.e. associated with
their specific disadvantage) to the ‘field of entrepreneurship’. As mentioned
previously, the latter pertains to the intellectual domain of entrepreneurship and
its associated underlying assumptions and expectations (Nicholson and Anderson
2005; Chell 2007; De Clercq and Voronov 2009) and thus is not limited to a
particular profession, industry or context. In this sense, we use the entrepreneurship
field to convey both the micro-processes frequently ascribed to entrepreneurial
endeavours, including established practices and norms, and the larger concept of an
entrepreneurial economic field representing competitive actors, a dynamic field
consisting of political, economic and environmental activities and evolution
(Bourdieu 2005b). In this regard, we conceive of disadvantaged persons’ integration
into entrepreneurship as an enactment of the habitus of the field of entrepreneurship
(Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992; Calhoun 2003). Habitus entails the cognitive and
somatic structures people use to make sense of and enact their positions in a field,
akin to the notion of ‘common sense’. As defined by Bourdieu (1990, 54)
Habitus [is] a product of history that produces individual and collective practices ....
It ensures the active presence of past experiences, which, deposited in each organism in
Desirability
Compliance
Challenge
Level of
domination
Impermeability
of focal field
Symbolic capital
Cultural capital
Ability
Impression
management
P1
P3
P2
P4
Integration into the
field of entrepreneurship
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 357
the form of schemes of perception, thought and action, tend to guarantee the
‘correctness’ of practices and their constancy over time, more reliably than all formal
rules and explicit norms.
Habitus thus reflects a practical sense of the game that is historically constructed
through the variety of experiences of its constituents (Calhoun 2003). According to
Entwistle and Rocamora (2006, 747), ‘fields are reproduced precisely through the
specific forms of embodiment demanded by them’. Habitus is field specific, and no
field exists without actors who embody it by adopting field-prescribed habitus
(Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992).
Belonging to the focal field associated with their disadvantage endows
disadvantaged persons with a habitus that relates to their specific situation
(Bourdieu 2005a). The focus of our proposed framework is on the power-laden
mechanisms through which the situation of being disadvantaged influences the desire
and ability to meet incumbents’ expectations when a person enters the field of
entrepreneurship. Because the habitus of the field of entrepreneurship – hereafter
referred to simply as ‘habitus’ – captures a historical view of what constitutes
entrepreneurship (Calhoun 2003), disadvantaged persons must comply with existing
field arrangements to enact this habitus. Habitus stimulates disadvantaged persons
to comply with the existing field arrangements because it tends to produce sets of
actions and cognitions that accord with the interests of the field’s dominant agents,
who constitute that very field (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992; Bourdieu 2000). Thus,
an essential facet of disadvantaged persons’ enactment of field-prescribed habitus
is complying with the existing arrangements with respect to entrepreneurship.
Yet, perhaps paradoxically, the enactment of field-prescribed habitus does not
preclude disadvantaged persons who enter the field of entrepreneurship from acting
artfully and challenging existing arrangements (Calhoun 2003). Field incumbents do
not expect new field entrants to exhibit the exact embodiment of the field’s existing
arrangements but rather anticipate an embodiment that is compatible with these rules
(Bourdieu 2000). Thus, though field-prescribed habitus may constrain the scope of
acceptable practices upon entry into the field, it is not overly deterministic and allows
actors to adjust cognitively to their perceptions (Ozbigilin and Tatli 2005) or even
attempt to bend the field to their perceptions (Bourdieu 2000). Furthermore, a field’s
habitus does not guarantee perpetual stability, in that it does not necessarily adapt to
every single situation, nor is it necessarily coherent. Therefore, field incumbents may
be torn by contradiction and internal division, which can fuel changes to the field’s
existing power relations (Bourdieu 2000).
Having discussed the integration of disadvantaged persons as an enactment of
field-prescribed habitus – which includes both compliance and contestation – we now
turn to the mechanisms that underlie this integration. We develop propositions with
respect to both its drivers and its enablers.
3. Desirability of integration into entrepreneurship
3.1. Level of domination
Extant literature attests to the challenges encountered by disadvantaged persons
when they attempt to integrate into society and the labour force. For instance, they
face significant hurdles with respect to limited access to resources (Fairlie 2005;
Pavey 2006) and unattractive stereotypes about their interests and capabilities
358 D. De Clercq and B. Honig
(Glazer and Moynihan 1970; Lindgren and Packendorff 2006). Because they often
have relatively little opportunity to improve their position in society through regular
employment, entrepreneurship represents an option for overcoming these hurdles
(Mata and Pendakur 1999; Ipsen, Arnold, and Colling 2003; Anderson, Honig, and
Peredo 2006). Entrepreneurship may help disadvantaged persons accomplish several
goals, such as increased self-worth (Van Gelderen 2006), satisfaction through
overcoming obstacles in the labour market (Ghormley 2001) or reduced dependence
on social assistance support (Ipsen, Arnold, and Colling 2003).
We argue that disadvantaged persons’ motivation to comply with the existing
arrangements of the field of entrepreneurship will be highest when they experience
higher levels of domination in their current situation. Therefore, we investigate the
domination they might experience both within their focal field (i.e. being disadvan-
taged) and in the relation between their focal field and the field of entrepreneurship.
Thus, our conceptual framework does not limit itself to the power play that is at
work between disadvantaged persons and incumbent constituents of society (such as
government and potential investors) but also that with their immediate disadvan-
taged ‘peers’.
First, to the extent that disadvantaged persons hold a less dominant position in
their focal field, they may experience a stronger desire to break away from their
current situation through entrepreneurship and do ‘whatever it takes’ to comply with
the existing arrangements associated with being an entrepreneur (Bourdieu 2000;
Fairlie 2005). As noted previously, fields are occupied by ‘dominant’ and
‘dominated’ actors, who aim to acquire power over the field’s reproduction and
the type of power effective in it (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992). The level of
domination that disadvantaged persons experience in their focal field may depend on
the capacity of dominant peers within the field to limit or maintain preferential
access to key resources (Bourdieu 2000). Some disadvantaged persons may not have
equal access to information about how to receive government support or where to go
to participate in training programmes, though these resources might help emancipate
them from their precarious situation (Ipsen, Arnold, and Colling 2003). For instance,
there may be variation among members of a particular minority group of immigrants
in terms of how they can influence their new country’s key actors, depending on how
long they have stayed in the country. Therefore, to the extent that disadvantaged
persons are dominated by their peers, their motivation to become an entrepreneur
and do whatever it takes to comply with the existing arrangements of the field of
entrepreneurship should be greater.
Second, Bourdieu emphasises that fields relate hierarchically, such that some are
dominated by others. Fields that can impose their arrangements on other fields are
more dominant than are those more easily subjected to the whims of other fields
(Bourdieu 1998). For example, business fields often dominate non-business fields,
such as those governed by educational or artistic logics (e.g. Oakes, Townley, and
Cooper 1998), though the reverse also might occur, as in the case of high art,
whereby the business field gets repressed and stigmatized (e.g. Bourdieu 1983, 1998).
Extant research also reveals that certain sectors of the economy (e.g. public) tend
to model themselves after the business or entrepreneurial sector (Du Gay 1994, 2004;
Mueller, Harvey, and Howorth 2003; Thomas and Davies 2005), which means that
the former fields are dominated or colonized by the latter (Bourdieu 1983, 1998).
Accordingly, to the extent that disadvantaged persons’ focal field is dominated by
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 359
the field of entrepreneurship – for example, some minority groups may have
more entrepreneurial role models amongst themselves compared to other groups
and therefore have been more exposed to what starting and running a business
entails – they should be more motivated to comply with existing entrepreneurial
norms, because they are more familiar with them. Narratives about how to do
business (e.g. obtain capital, develop a market or service, compose and present a
business plan) typically get imposed and maintained by dominant fields and their
actors (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). To the extent that disadvantaged persons
belong to a more dominated (focal) field, they should have been exposed more to the
rules governing the field of entrepreneurship (Oakes, Townley, and Cooper 1998).
Because the existing arrangements of the field of entrepreneurship should appear less
foreign or intimidating to a disadvantaged person in a dominated focal field, he or
she may be more prone to comply with these arrangements.
Proposition 1: The level of domination experienced by disadvantaged persons relates
positively to the desire to comply with field-prescribed arrangements when they enter
the field of entrepreneurship.
3.2. Impermeability of the focal field
In addition to the desire to comply with existing arrangements when entering the
entrepreneurship field, we also consider disadvantaged persons’ motivation to
challenge such arrangements. Fields are not static but represent contested and
competing actors vying for power, status and control (Bourdieu 1998, 2000).
We argue that this motivation increases when disadvantaged persons’ focal field has
less permeable boundaries. Fields vary in terms of the permeability of their
boundaries and generally strive for maximum autonomy to obtain sufficient
discretion to dole out rewards and punishments (Bourdieu 1998). To the extent
that a field is insulated, its dominant players can better emphasise its distinctiveness
relative to other fields (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992). For example, literature on
cultural industries argues that high art fields typically are able to insulate themselves
better from other fields, such as popular art, which enables them to impose on
participants an identity that stimulates adherence to aesthetic concerns and disavows
business concerns (Bourdieu 1983, 1998). Similarly, we argue that a less permeable
focal field can create a stronger identity as a ‘disadvantaged person’ for its
participants. For instance, certain disabilities may carry a stronger societal stigma
than others, or certain minority groups may be less well integrated compared to
others. This enhanced identity as being ‘someone different’ may, in turn, make it
more likely that disadvantaged persons challenge existing arrangements of the field
of entrepreneurship when they decide to become entrepreneurs. Notably, it is the
challenging of existing norms and arrangements that frequently provides a unique
source of entrepreneurial innovation.
This argument also aligns with group literature that suggests that human
behaviour results from the need to be part of a particular group of similar others
(i.e. the in-group) and distinctive from other groups (i.e. out-groups) (Brewer 1991).
To the extent that disadvantaged persons strongly identify with a particular group
(e.g. disabled, a visible minority), their associated desire to be distinct from other
groups should be higher (Brewer, Manzi, and Shaw 1993; Smurda, Wittig, and
Gokalp 2006). In this regard, extant research indicates that the need for
360 D. De Clercq and B. Honig
distinctiveness may be particularly salient among minority groups, because the very
fact of being part of a smaller group accentuates their distinctiveness (Brewer and
Weber 1994). Yet, members of minority groups vary in the extent to which they
identify with the specific group as well as in the associated reflex to juxtapose their
group’s characteristics against those of other groups (Taylor, Moghaddam, and
Bellerose 1989). Similarly, disadvantaged persons in visible minority groups may
vary in their ideological goals, such that some are more profit oriented and others
more socially focused (Lindgren and Packendorff 2006).
Ultimately, to the extent that disadvantaged persons’ focal field has less
permeable borders and creates a stronger identification among its occupants,
disadvantaged persons who aspire to become entrepreneurs should perceive of
themselves as a ‘particular type’ of entrepreneur which should increase their desire
to challenge field-prescribed arrangements typically associated with entrepreneurs.
Proposition 2: The impermeability of disadvantaged persons’ focal field relates
positively to the desire to challenge field-prescribed arrangements when they enter the
field of entrepreneurship.
4. Ability to integrate into entrepreneurship
Prior research acknowledges the role of financial, human and social capital as critical
for success in entrepreneurial endeavours (Caputo and Dolinsky 1998; Cooke and
Wills 1999; Davidsson and Honig 2003), yet these capital types tend to be more overt
and codified and thus less able to capture the hidden power-laden mechanisms that
underlie their acquisition and conversion (Bourdieu 1990; Everett 2002). In contrast,
actors’ access to field-specific cultural and symbolic capital (i.e. for the field of
entrepreneurship) acknowledges the inherent role of power and contestation in
disadvantaged persons’ integration into entrepreneurship (Bourdieu 1990; Everett
2002). We, therefore, consider these two forms of capital to theorise about the forces
of domination inherent in disadvantaged persons’ ability to meet field incumbents’
expectations about complying with and challenging field arrangements.
4.1. Cultural capital
The perception that disadvantaged persons comply with existing field-prescribed
arrangements about entrepreneurship may be enhanced if their access to capital
aligns with the volume and structure of the capital of the field’s most dominant
players (Bourdieu 1986). Further, their access to field-specific cultural capital
arguably is most potent in this process (Bourdieu 2000). Cultural capital refers to the
ability to access and mobilize the institutions and cultural products of the field
(Bourdieu 1986; Allan 2006), and it can appear in three forms: objectified,
institutionalized and embodied. First, objectified cultural capital refers to material
goods with value in a particular field. In the context of this study, objectified cultural
capital in the field of entrepreneurship might include how the dress code of members
of a particular visible minority group aligns with societal expectations about what
entrepreneurs should look like. Second, institutionalized cultural capital involves
certifications and credentials (e.g. educational degrees) that signal trustworthiness
within a particular field. It might, for example, refer to disadvantaged persons’
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 361
previous work experience with an organization known for its ‘entrepreneurial’
character or the extent to which the previous training of immigrants in their home
country aligns with Western educational models. Third, embodied cultural capital
entails the automatic ‘knowledge’ of how people should present themselves,
according to the field’s current arrangements (Allan 2006). It could be reflected in
disadvantaged persons’ ability to relate the founding of their venture to commonly
held conceptions among field incumbents about the hardships and challenges
associated with launching a new business.
Thus, disadvantaged persons’ access to field-specific cultural capital is instru-
mental in terms of their ability to meet field incumbents’ expectations that they
comply with customary norms of what an entrepreneur should do and look like, and
it facilitates their adaptation to the working consensus of the field of entrepreneur-
ship (Bourdieu 1985, 2000). The synergy between disadvantaged persons’ access to
field-specific cultural capital and their compliance with field-prescribed arrange-
ments also becomes apparent in the acclaimed power-laden connection between
aspiring entrepreneurs’ previous careers and the social systems in which they become
embedded when launching a venture (e.g. Baum and Dutton 1996; Dacin, Ventresca,
and Beal 1999). Specifically, disadvantaged persons’ previous access to cultural
capital that is relevant to entrepreneurship may serve as a powerful conduit through
which they depict their day-to-day practices, when they start a new venture, as
legitimate and useful (Boeker 1988). Dominant narratives about how to launch and
run a business typically get imposed and maintained by high-status field participants
(Bourdieu 1990; DiMaggio and Powell 1983), who benefit from reinforcing these
existing arrangements and are unlikely to disturb them (Leblebici et al. 1991). For
instance, Anderson and Tushman (1990) assert that field incumbents typically
embrace activities by field entrants that enhance their own competencies, because
these activities can be instrumental for their own success. Therefore, disadvantaged
persons who hold high levels of field-specific cultural capital – as reflected in
characteristics such as their dress code, education or experiences and the way they
communicate and relate to other businesspeople – are thus ‘programmed’ to comply
with existing norms about what entrepreneurs should do and will be looked upon
favourably by dominant field incumbents in terms of their ability to follow the field’s
rules when they enter the field of entrepreneurship.
Proposition 3: The level of field-specific cultural capital held by disadvantaged
persons relates positively to their ability to comply with field-prescribed arrangements
when they become entrepreneurs.
4.2. Symbolic capital
The perception that disadvantaged persons can challenge existing arrangements in
the field of entrepreneurship may be enhanced if they have the ability to change the
volume and mix of capital types in that field (Bourdieu 1986). Yet, their access to
field-specific symbolic capital arguably provides the most important criterion for
accomplishing this goal (Bourdieu 2000). Symbolic capital pertains to actors’ ability
to impose interpretations on other field participants and control the perceptions they
provoke (Bourdieu 1986; Mahar, Harker, and Wilkes 1990; Calhoun 2003). This
form of capital resides in the mastery of symbolic resources, based on knowledge and
362 D. De Clercq and B. Honig
recognition, such as goodwill investments and brand loyalty (Bourdieu 2005a).
Although the term ‘symbolic capital’ can align with aspiring entrepreneurs’
reputation, and thus their ability to engender beliefs that their venture will deliver
excellent performance (Rindova and Fombrun 1999), the concept goes beyond the
mere notions of quality, visibility or prestige. Specifically, symbolic capital represents
the ultimate basis of power through which actors can impose their vision of the way
the field should be organized and the hierarchy of power that should be effective in
it (Meisenhelder 1997). Furthermore, other field participants typically misrecognize
the ‘true nature’ of the power associated with symbolic capital (Everett 2002).
For example, symbolic capital may be illustrated in the case of disabled
entrepreneurs, whereby attention among potential investors, media and others is
on the founders’ disability and the associated heroism associated with the
entrepreneurial act, rather than on the content of the proposed business model.
Terry Fox, the famous founder of the Marathon of Hope, was known not for his
running excellence as much as for the symbolic capital he leveraged as a one-legged,
persistent athlete.
Disadvantaged persons’ access to symbolic capital enhances their ability to
pursue strategic actions that challenge incumbent field players (Calhoun 2003). To be
precise, their access to symbolic capital contributes to their ability to meet the
expectations of uniqueness associated with being disadvantaged (e.g. have a
disability, belong to a particular visible minority), because it provides them with
field-reconfiguring capabilities (Bourdieu 2000). That is, the ‘symbolic power’
attached to this type of capital helps disadvantaged persons leverage their specific
characteristics (Bourdieu 1990; Wacquant 1993) – such as their personal situation of
being disadvantaged – and turn these characteristics into an advantage for them in
the field as a whole (Bourdieu 2000).
We further note that the ability of disadvantaged persons to challenge existing
field arrangements as an entrepreneur does not contradict the power-laden
mechanisms that field incumbents exercise over field entrants (Bourdieu 2000).
Rather, as we mentioned previously, the concept of habitus recognizes the possibility
that a field’s existing power structure may be changed and transformed (Ozbilgin and
Tatli 2005). Thus, the confrontation between field incumbents’ dispositions and
disadvantaged persons’ unique experiences may lead to an ongoing actualization of
the premises on which the current field rules are based (Bourdieu 2000). Dominant
incumbents may even welcome changes invoked by field entrants (i.e. disadvantaged
persons), because those changes could benefit the field’s operations as a whole
(Calhoun 2003). For example, disabled persons’ access to symbolic capital may be
associated with their ‘symbolic power’ (Sallaz and Zavisca 2007) to include other
disabled persons (or their supporters) on boards or other governance bodies,
which in turn may serve as powerful tools for developing new, useful field
arrangements for all field incumbents. This symbolic power, thus, may establish new
rules, standards and regulations that provide, for example, disabled persons with
equal access to various tourist venues, programmes, packages, cruises and tours,
which ultimately can increase the scope of activities among all tour agents
(Accessible Travel 2008).
In short, disadvantaged persons’ access to field-specific symbolic capital may be
instrumental in leveraging their unique situation to challenge the field’s current
arrangements (Bourdieu 1990; Wacquant 1993; Meisenhelder 1997; Greenwood and
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 363
Suddaby 2006). Following the argument that symbolic capital enables holders to
control others’ behaviour, thoughts and beliefs (Bourdieu 1990), we posit that to the
extent that disadvantaged persons have more field-specific symbolic capital,
incumbents should be more likely to recognize that disadvantaged persons’ practices
can change and improve the field’s current arrangements for their own benefit
(Bourdieu 1990; Maguire, Hardy, and Lawrence 2004).
Proposition 4: The level of field-specific symbolic capital held by disadvantaged
persons relates positively to their ability to challenge field-prescribed arrangements
when they become entrepreneurs.
4.3. Navigating the boundaries between compliance and challenge
Although disadvantaged persons’ access to field-specific cultural and symbolic
capital enables them to enact both facets of habitus of the field of entrepreneurship –
comply with and challenge existing field arrangements – the success of this effort is
not automatic, because the underlying demands of these drives may be contradictory
(Aldrich 1999). For example, an aspiring disabled entrepreneur who wishes to cater
to the specific needs of the disabled and thus stand out compared with other field
participants may require an office in an incubation centre. Because the incubation
centre may be unfamiliar with the needs of the disabled, it may fail to view the
entrepreneur as an authentic, bona fide or viable prospective tenant, even if the
business activities this entrepreneur proposes are mainstream and well accepted in
the market (Ipsen, Arnold, and Colling 2003). Furthermore, the disabled
entrepreneur may have supplementary requirements with respect to accessibility,
which might not align with the incubation centre’s existing templates about how
office space should be used to support entrepreneurial undertakings
(Greenwood and Hinings 1996).
Thus, disadvantaged persons must cope with the simultaneous demands to
provide value to the field that could not be generated through existing field
arrangements, yet also use methods and procedures that are somewhat consistent
with those arrangements (Aldrich and Fiol 1994; Bourdieu 2005a). We argue that
disadvantaged persons might accomplish this task by engaging in impression
management and artfully navigating the boundaries between demands for
compliance and challenge (Arndt and Bigelow 2000; Rao and Giorgi 2006;
Baumann 2007). By considering the potential role of such impression manage-
ment, we shift attention away from what disadvantaged persons ought to do to
become integrated into the field of entrepreneurship and onto the mechanisms
that might enable them to rely on discursive practices to advance their objectives
of becoming entrepreneurs. Impression management might be manifest in, for
instance, the practice of decoupling (Oliver 1991), whereby disadvantaged persons
dissociate certain internal activities (e.g. ethnic businesses’ unique internal working
hours, which stem from culture-specific expectations about work ethics that may
conflict with Western norms about human resource management) from the
perceptions created by external constituents. Ultimately, disadvantaged persons’
successful integration into the field of entrepreneurship depends on the extent to
which they can artfully navigate the tensions between dominant field arrange-
ments about entrepreneurship on the one hand and potentially contradictory
364 D. De Clercq and B. Honig
facets of their activities stemming from their very membership in a disadvantaged
group on the other.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, we draw on Bourdieu’s theory of practice to examine disadvantaged
persons’ integration into the field of entrepreneurship as a power-laden, socially
embedded process. Our objective is to provide a theoretical framework and develop
propositions that advance the conceptualization of entrepreneurship as an integra-
tive tool for disadvantaged persons. We have conceived of this integration as an
enactment of field-prescribed habitus, which captures field incumbents’ expectations
about what entrepreneurs should look and act like (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992;
Wallace and Wolfe 1999). Disadvantaged persons thus confront two simultaneous
expectations when they attempt to become entrepreneurs: to comply with and
challenge existing arrangements about entrepreneurship. We maintain that disad-
vantaged persons’ motivations to meet these two expectations depend on their level
of domination and the impermeability of their focal field of disadvantage. We also
contend that their ability to become entrepreneurs results from their access to field-
specific cultural and symbolic capital.
The enactment of field-specific habitus, as argued herein, reflects the practical
sense of how disadvantaged persons launch and run their businesses, based on
existing templates and images of how such activities should be done (Calhoun 2003).
Yet, we also emphasise that though such historical conditions may limit the
definition of ‘acceptable’ entrepreneurial activities undertaken by disadvantaged
persons, they do not necessarily prevent disadvantaged persons from modifying
existing arrangements; there may even be an expectation that they do so (Bourdieu
2000). The diversity of conditions to which disadvantaged persons gain exposure,
prior to entering the field of entrepreneurship (Fairlie and Meyer 1996; Anderson,
Honig, and Peredo 2006), can lead field incumbents to be ‘confronted with
conditions of actualization different from the conditions in which the field’s rules
were produced’ (Bourdieu 2000, 161). Thus, the field’s habitus can be subjected to
a permanent revision when it confronts the special characteristics of disadvantaged
persons. Furthermore, field incumbents who do not match the existing order of the
game, or are not favoured by it, may champion the newly established order invoked
by disadvantaged persons to increase their own standing in the field (Bourdieu 2000).
The simultaneous demands to comply with and challenge existing field
arrangements also highlight the need for disadvantaged persons to be both reflexive
about their own situation and act upon it to ‘make a difference’ (Zanoni and
Janssens 2007). We argue that they can do so by adopting scripts, which are
behavioural regularities that serve as guides for action (Barley and Tolbert 1997).
As Chaisson and Saundres (2005, 765) note,
entrepreneurial opportunities are considered to be both formed and recognized by the
entrepreneur. Viewed in this way, entrepreneurial action involves both the acceptance
and modification of scripts, guided by feedback on the legitimacy, meaningfulness/
competence, and power of scripts among the various stakeholders.
Similarly, for disadvantaged persons, impression management involves not just
blindly applying existing scripts but also adapting those scripts to meet their own and
field incumbents’ needs (Arndt and Bigelow 2000; Suddaby and Greenwood 2005).
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 365
Therefore, disadvantaged persons’ enactment of field-prescribed habitus encom-
passes both the constraints imposed by the existing field arrangements and the
agency through which their unique characteristics enable them to bring about change
in these arrangements (Bourdieu 1985, 1990). This dialectic interplay between the
need to comply and the need to challenge can lead disadvantaged persons to ‘micro-
emancipate’ themselves, in the form of ongoing interactions with field incumbents
and artful navigations through the latter’s expectations (Alvesson and Willmott
1992). Normative expectations about entrepreneurship are not simply constraints on
disadvantaged persons but they also enable reflexive action and may provide a
potential means for inducing change. Ultimately, disadvantaged persons’ successful
integration into entrepreneurship may result from their ability to relate elements of
both existing and new field arrangements to broader cultural comprehension, in an
effort to increase acceptance of their endeavours (Suddaby and Greenwood 2005).
This process may be marked by shifts in the field’s dominant view of the nature and
constituents of entrepreneurial undertakings, though a minimum level of familiarity
with existing standards must be always present.
5.1. Extensions and implications for practice
We suggest some extensions to the proposed framework with respect to the drivers
and enablers that underlie disadvantaged persons’ integration into entrepreneurship
as well as empirical tests of the proposed framework. We also point to the
framework’s practical implications.
First, we argue that disadvantaged persons’ desire to enter the field of
entrepreneurship relates to the level of domination they experience as well as the
relation between their focal field and the field of entrepreneurship. This argument
parallels strain theory, which posits that disconnections between cultural prescrip-
tions about what constitutes success and persons’ access to the means to conform
with those prescriptions may create a sense of frustration or strain (Merton 1968). In
particular, it focuses on the negative relationships that occur when a person is not
treated as well as he or she expects to be treated (Agnew 1992). For instance, most
people in Western society recognize the cultural goals of economic gains and material
well-being, but not all groups have equal access to the means for attaining those
goals, which leads to strain (Agnew 1992; Merton 1968). Strain theory might
complement Bourdieu’s theory of practice and help explain how the strain
experienced by disadvantaged persons fuels their desire for entrepreneurship. For
example, a person who feels that she has been treated poorly in the context of her
focal field (e.g. receives fewer government resources than immediate peers) or
belongs to a highly marginalized field (e.g. suffers a disability with a strong negative
stigma) may experience very high levels of strain. To reduce this disturbing gap
between her personal expectations and current achievements, she may be highly
motivated to become an entrepreneur.
Second, our discussion of disadvantaged persons’ ability to enact field-prescribed
habitus focuses on access to cultural and symbolic capital pertaining to the field of
entrepreneurship. However, capital related to the situation of being disadvantaged
(i.e. capital specific to the ‘focal’ field) also warrants attention. Disadvantaged
persons may possess a unique set of cultural and symbolic images that influence their
ability to identify and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities (Shane and
366 D. De Clercq and B. Honig
Venkataraman 2000). For instance, cultural repertoires of entrepreneurial actions
can be manifested in certain actions that accord with entrepreneurs’ knowledge, skills
and habits (Sewell 1999). Therefore, to the extent that disadvantaged persons have
unique characteristics, they may engage in unique entrepreneurial actions, as
illustrated in the aforementioned example of Accessible Travel, a company
that caters to the specific needs of disabled holiday travellers and their mobility
difficulties and that originated from the founder’s personal experiences as a
wheelchair user trying to travel with his family (Accessible Travel 2008).
Third, an empirical investigation of our proposed framework might help bridge
multiple levels of analysis. Bourdieu resists treating different levels of analysis as
separate (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992) and considers such separations artificial
and problematic (Swartz 1997). Similarly, our proposed framework is essentially a
meso-level one (Cooke, Clifton, and Oleaga 2005), in that it operates at the interface
of the macro (i.e. the ‘field’) and the micro levels (e.g. disadvantaged persons’
practices) and uses the concept of field-specific habitus to connect them.
Consequently, empirical research exploring our propositions should attend to the
personal characteristics of disadvantaged persons as well as the macro-context in
which they are embedded, and careful attention should be placed on the mechanisms
that describe the dialectical relationship between these two levels. Furthermore,
empirical work based on the proposed framework would lend itself to both
qualitative and quantitative research methods, similar to Bourdieu’s (1984) own
extensive quantitative and ethnographic research. For example, research might use
qualitative methods to examine, in situ, how disadvantaged persons navigate the
potentially conflicting demands to comply with and challenge expectations about
entrepreneurship. Researchers also might use survey data and other quantitative
methods to examine, for instance, how disadvantaged persons’ network centrality
contributes to their compliance with or challenge of field-prescribed, entrepreneurial
arrangements.
From a practical perspective, the arguments developed herein suggest that
aspiring entrepreneurs who are disadvantaged must artfully navigate the require-
ments of conveying an image of compliance and contestation. In doing so, they can
proactively offer and add meaning to the concept of ‘entrepreneurship’ and even
expand its image or perception. Therefore, the integration of disadvantaged persons
into the field of entrepreneurship should not be regarded as a static but rather an
ongoing process, during which the understanding of what constitutes ‘appropriate’
forms of entrepreneurship gets negotiated between disadvantaged persons and field
incumbents (Bourdieu 1990).
Furthermore, our discussion of the role of field-specific cultural and
symbolic capital speaks to the inextricably political nature of the integration of
disadvantaged persons into entrepreneurship (Everett 2002). As disadvantaged
persons enter the field of entrepreneurship, the competition they confront
might not be confined to the economic sphere; instead, they may need to fight a
‘symbolic’ battle to contest the standards set by field incumbents regarding
what constitutes ‘typical’ entrepreneurship (Calhoun 2003). Thus, the broader
environment in which disadvantaged entrepreneurs operate lacks an objective
and stable existence and may instead be actively reproduced and reinforced by the
actions of these entrepreneurs and incumbent field participants alike
(Bourdieu 2000).
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 367
To conclude, our theoretical framework explains how broader societal expecta-
tions provide normative definitions and directions for disadvantaged entrepreneurs’
actions and success. We therefore hope this study functions as a stepping stone for
further research into the power-laden mechanisms that underlie the inclusion of
disadvantaged persons into entrepreneurial endeavours and the labour force in
general.
Note
1. By using the term ‘field of entrepreneurship’, we do not limit our focus to particular
industries, contexts or domains but rather include the overall intellectual domain of
entrepreneurship and its underlying values, norms and expectations. That is, the notion of
starting up and running a business is embedded in societal expectations about what such
activities entail and how its constituents should behave and appear (Nicholson and
Anderson 2005; Chell 2007; De Clercq and Voronov 2009). Further, the power effects
associated with the intellectual domain of entrepreneurship manifest themselves in how
contemporary capitalist societies provide normative prescriptions of the roles entrepre-
neurs are to play and how their day-to-day practices should interrelate with important
institutions in society and one another (Du Gay 1994; Armstrong 2005; Lukes 2005; Chell
2007; Rosenthal and Peccei 2007).
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada.
References
Accessible Travel. 2008. http://www.accessibletravel.co.uk/about_us.php (accessed December
1, 2008).
Acs, Z.J., and L.P. Dana. 2001. Contrasting two models of wealth redistribution. Small
Business Economics 16, no. 2: 63–74.
Agnew, R. 1992. Foundation for a general strain theory. Criminology 30, no. 1: 47–87.
Aldrich, H.E. 1999. Organizations evolving. London: Sage.
Aldrich, H.E., and M. Fiol. 1994. Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation.
Academy of Management Review 19: 645–70.
Allan, K. 2006. Contemporary social and sociological theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge
Press.
Alvesson, M., and H. Willmott. 1992. On the idea of emancipation in management and
organization studies. Academy of Management Review 17: 432–64.
Alvord, S.H., L.D. Brown, and C.W. Letts. 2004. Social entrepreneurship and societal
transformation: An exploratory study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 40, no. 3:
260–82.
Anderson, R.B., L.P. Dana, and T. Dana. 2006. Aboriginal land rights, social entrepreneur-
ship & economic development in Canada: ‘‘Opting-in’’ to the global economy. Journal
of World Business 41, no. 1: 45–55.
Anderson, R., B. Honig, and M. Peredo. 2006. Communities in the global economy: Where
social and indigenous entrepreneurship meet. In Entrepreneurship as social change,
ed. Chris Steyaert and Daniel Hjorth, 56–78. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Anderson, P., and M. Tushman. 1990. Technological discontinuities and dominant designs:
A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 604–33.
368 D. De Clercq and B. Honig
Armstrong, P. 2005. Critique of entrepreneurship: People and policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Arndt, M., and B. Bigelow. 2000. Presenting structural innovation in an institutional
environment: Hospitals’ use of impression management. Administrative Science
Quarterly 45, no. 3: 494–522.
Austin, J.E. 2006. Three avenues for social entrepreneurship research. In Social entrepreneur-
ship, ed. J. Mair, J. Robinson, and K. Hockerts, 22–33. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barley, S.R. 1996. Technician in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into
organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 78–101.
Barley, S.R., and P.S. Tolbert. 1997. Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links
between action and institution. Organization Studies 18: 93–117.
Baum, J.A.C., and J.E. Dutton. 1996. The embeddedness of strategy. Advances in Strategic
Management 13: 1–15.
Baumann, S. 2007. A general theory of artistic legitimation: How art worlds are like social
movements. Poetics 35: 47–65.
Bode, I., A. Evers, and A. Schulz. 2006. Work integration social enterprises in Europe: Can
hybridization be sustainable? In Social enterprise: At the crossroads of market, public
policies and civil society, ed. M. Nyssens, 237–58. London: Routledge.
Boeker, W. 1988. Organizational origins: Entrepreneurial and environmental imprinting at
the time of founding. In Ecological models in organizations, ed. G.R. Caroll, 33–51.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Bornstein, D. 2004. How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1983. The field of cultural production, or: The economic world reversed. Poetics
12: 311–56.
Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1985. The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society 14: 723–44.
Bourdieu, P. 1986. The forms of capital. In Handbook of theory and research for the sociology
of education, ed. J.G. Richardson, 241–58. New York: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1990. The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1998. Practical reason: On the theory of action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. 2000. Pascalian meditations . Stanford, CA: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. 2005a. Habitus. In Habitus: A sense of place. 2nd ed., ed. J. Hillier and
E. Rooksby, 43–52. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Bourdieu, P. 2005b. The social structures of the economy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P., and L. Wacquant. 1992. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Brewer, M.B. 1991. The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17: 475–82.
Brewer, M.B., J.M. Manzi, and J.S. Shaw. 1993. In-group identification as a function of
depersonalization, distinctiveness, and status. Psychological Science 4: 88–92.
Brewer, M.B., and J.G. Weber. 1994. Self-evaluation effects of interpersonal versus intergroup
social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66: 268–75.
Brown, L.D., and J.G. Covey. 1987. Development organizations and organization
development: Implications for a new paradigm. In Research in organization change
and development, ed. W. Pasmore and R. Woodman, 59–88. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Calhoun, C. 2003. Pierre Bourdieu. In The Blackwell companion to major contemporary social
theorists, ed. G. Ritzer, 274–309. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Caputo, R.K., and A. Dolinsky. 1998. Women’s choice to pursue self-employment: The role
of financial and human capital of household members. Journal of Small Business
Management 36, no. 3: 8–17.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 369
Chaganti, R., D. DeCarolis, and D. Deeds. 1995. Predictors of capital structure in small
ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 20: 7–18.
Chaisson, M., and C. Saunders. 2005. Reconciling diverse approaches to opportunity research
using the structuration theory. Journal of Business Venturing 20: 747–67.
Chandler, G.N., and E. Jansen. 1992. The founder’s self-assessed competence and venture
performance. Journal of Business Venturing 7: 223–36.
Chell, E. 2007. Social enterprise and entrepreneurship: Towards a convergent theory of the
entrepreneurial process. International Small Business Journal 25, no. 1: 5–26.
Cooke, P., N. Clifton, and M. Oleaga. 2005. Social capital, firm embeddedness and regional
development. Regional Studies 39, no. 8: 1065–77.
Cooke, P., and D. Wills. 1999. Small firms, social capital and the enhancement of business
performance through innovation programmes. Small Business Economics 13: 219–34.
Dacin, T., D. Ventresca, and B. Beal. 1999. The embeddedness of organizations: Dialogue and
directions. Journal of Management 25: 317–56.
Daruwalla, P., and S. Darcy. 2004. Personal and societal attitudes to disability. Annals of
Tourism Research 32: 549–70.
Davidsson, P., and B. Honig. 2003. The role of social and human capital among nascent
entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing 18, no. 3: 301–31.
De Clercq, D., and M. Voronov. 2009. The role of domination in newcomers’ legitimation as
entrepreneurs. Organization 16, no. 6: 799–827.
Dees, J.G. 2001. The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University
Graduate School of Business.
Dees, J.G., J. Emerson, and P. Economy. 2002. Strategic tools for social entrepreneurs. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
DiMaggio, P., and W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–60.
Du Gay, P. 1994. Making up managers: Bureaucracy, enterprise and the liberal art of
separation. British Journal of Sociology 45, no. 4: 655–74.
Du Gay, P. 2004. Against ‘‘enterprise’’ (but not against ‘‘enterprise’’, for that would make no
sense). Organization 11, no. 1: 37–57.
Entwistle, J., and A. Rockamora. 2006. The field of fashion materialized: A study of London
fashion week. Sociology 40, no. 4: 735–51.
Everett, J. 2002. Organizational research and the praxeology of Pierre Bourdieu.
Organizational Research Methods 5, no. 1: 56–80.
Fairlie, R.W. 2005. Entrepreneurship and earnings among young adults from disadvantaged
families. Small Business Economics 25: 223–36.
Fairlie, R.W., and B.D. Meyer. 1996. Ethnic and racial self-employment differences and
possible explanations. Journal of Human Resources 31, no. 4: 757–93.
Ghormley, Y.S. 2001. E-business entrepreneurship as a career option for people with
disabilities. PhD diss., Capella University.
Glazer, N., and Daniel P. Moynihan. 1970. Beyond the melting pot: The Negroes, Puerto
Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Greenwood, R., and C.R. Hinings. 1996. Understanding radical organizational change:
Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review
21: 1022–54.
Greenwood, R., and R. Suddaby. 2006. Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The
big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal 49: 27–48.
Ipsen, C., N. Arnold, and K. Colling. 2003. Small business development center experiences
and perceptions: Providing service to people with disabilities. Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship 8, no. 2: 113–32.
Jenkins, R. 1992. Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge.
Korten, D.C. 1980. Rural organization and rural development: A learning process approach.
Public Administration Review
40: 480–511.
370 D. De Clercq and B. Honig
Krishna, A., N. Uphoff, and M.J. Esman, eds. 1997. Reasons for hope: Instructive experiences
in rural development. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian.
Laville, J.L., A. Lemaitre, and M. Nyssens. 2006. Public policies and social enterprises in
Europe. In Social enterprise: At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society ,
ed. M. Nyssens, 272–95. London: Routledge.
Leblebici, H., G.R. Salancik, A. Copay, and T. King. 1991. Institutional change and the trans-
formation of interorganizational fields. Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 227–42.
Lindgren, M., and J. Packendorff. 2006. Entrepreneurship as boundary work: Deviating from
and belonging to community. In Entrepreneurship as social change, ed. Chris Steyaert
and Daniel Hjorth, 210–30. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Lukes, S. 2005. Power: A radical view. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lyon, A. 2004. Participants’ use of cultural knowledge as cultural capital in a dot-com start-up
organization. Management Communication Quarterly 18, no. 2: 175–203.
Maguire, S., C. Hardy, and T.B. Lawrence. 2004. Institutional entrepreneurship in
emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management
Journal 47, no. 5: 657–79.
Mahar, C., R. Harker, and C. Wilkes, ed. 1990. The basic theoretical position. An introduction
to work of Pierre Bourdieu–The practice of theory, 1–25. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Maher, K. 1999. Net interest: Internet offers new freedom to the disabled. The Wall Street
Journal, June 24, p. B11.
Mair, J., and I. Marti. 2006. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation,
prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business 41: 36–44.
Martin, J.L. 2003. What is field theory? American Journal of Sociology 109: 1–49.
Mata, R., and R. Pendakur. 1999. Immigration, labor force integration, and the pursuit of
self-employment. International Migration Review 33, no. 2: 378–402.
Meisenhelder, T. 1997. Pierre Bourdieu and the call for a reflexive sociology. Current
Perspectives in Social Theory 17: 159–83.
Merton, R.K. 1968. Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free Press.
Mueller, F., C. Harvey, and C. Howorth. 2003. The contestation of archetypes: Negotiating
scripts in a UK hospital trust board. Journal of Management Studies 40, no. 8: 1971–95.
Nicholls, A., and A. Cho. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: The structuration of a field. In Social
entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change, ed. A. Nicholls, 99–118.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nicholson, L., and A.R. Anderson. 2005. News and nuances of the entrepreneurial myth and
metaphor: Linguistic games in entrepreneurial sense-making and sense-giving.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29: 153–72.
Oakes, L.S., B. Townley, and D.J. Cooper. 1998. Business planning as pedagogy: Language
and control in a changing institutional field. Administrative Science Quarterly 43:
257–92.
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review
16, no. 1: 145–79.
Oppedisano, J. 2004. Giving back: Women’s entrepreneurial philanthropy. Women in
Management Review 19, no. 3: 174–7.
Osberg, S. 2006. Wayfinding without a compass: Philanthropy’s changing landscape
and its implications for social entrepreneurs. In Social entrepreneurship: New models
of sustainable social change, ed. A. Nicholls, 309–28. London: Oxford University Press.
Ozbilgin, M., and A. Tatli. 2005. Book review essay: Understanding Bourdieu’s contribution
to organization and management studies. Academy of Management Review 30, no. 4:
855–77.
Pavey, B. 2006. Human capital, social capital, entrepreneurship and disability: An
examination of some current educational trends in the UK. Disability and Society 21,
no. 3: 217–29.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 371
Peredo, A.M., and M. McLean. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the
concept. Journal of World Business 41, no. 1: 56–65.
Rao, H., and S. Giorgi. 2006. Code breaking: How entrepreneurs exploit cultural logics to
generate institutional change. Research in Organizational Behavior 27: 269–304.
Rindova, V.P., and C.J. Fombrun. 1999. Constructing of competitive advantage: The role
of firm-constituent interactions. Strategic Management Journal 20: 691–710.
Rosenthal, P., and R. Peccei. 2007. The work you want, the help you need: Constructing the
customer in Jobcentre Plus. Organization 14, no. 2: 201–23.
Sallaz, J., and J. Zavisca. 2007. Bourdieu in American sociology, 1980–2004. Annual Review
of Sociology 33: 21–41.
Scott, W.R. 1994. Institutional analysis: Variance and process theory approaches.
In Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism,
ed. W.R. Scott and J.W. Meyer, 81–99. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sewell Jr, W.H. 1999. The concept(s) of culture. In Beyond the cultural turn: New directions in
the study of society and culture, ed. Victoria E. Bonnell and Lynn Hunt, 35–61. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research.
Academy of Management Review 25, no. 1: 217–26.
Shaw, E., and S. Carter. 2007. Social entrepreneurship. Theoretical antecedents and empirical
analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development 14, no. 3: 418–34.
Smurda, J.D., M.A. Wittig, and G. Gokalp. 2006. Effects of threat to a valued social
identity on implicit self-esteem and discrimination. Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations 9, no. 2: 181–97.
Suchman, M.C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy
of Management Review 20: 571–610.
Suddaby, R., and R. Greenwood. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative
Science Quarterly 50, no. 1: 35–67.
Swartz, D. 1997. Culture and power, the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Taub, R.P. 1988. Community capitalism. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Taylor, D.M., F.M. Moghaddam, and J. Bellerose. 1989. Social comparison in an intergroup
context. Journal of Social Psychology 129, no. 4: 499–515.
Thomas, R., and A. Davies. 2005. Theorizing the micro-politics of resistance: New public
management and managerial identities in the UK public services. Organization Studies
26: 683–706.
Tracey, P., and N. Phillips. 2007. The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepreneurs:
A postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education. Academy
of Management Learning and Education 6, no. 2: 264–71.
Van Gelderen, M. 2006. Meaning in life as an opportunity for enterprise. Journal of
Enterprising Culture 14, no. 4: 307.
Wacquant, L. 1993. On the tracks of symbolic power: Prefatory notes to Bourdieu’s ‘state of
nobility’. Theory, Culture and Society 10: 1–17.
Wallace, R.A., and A. Wolfe. 1999. Contemporary sociological theory: Expanding the classical
tradition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yunus, M. 2006. Social business entrepreneurs are the solution. In Social entrepreneurship:
New models of sustainable social change, ed. Alex Nicholls, 39–44. London: Oxford
University Press.
Zanoni, P., and M. Janssens. 2007. Minority employees engaging with (diversity) manage-
ment: An analysis of control, agency, and micro-emancipation. Journal of Management
Studies 44, no. 8: 1371–97.
Zimmerman, M.A., and G.J. Zeitz. 2002. Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by
building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review 27, no. 3: 414–31.
372 D. De Clercq and B. Honig
