My Favorite Things
The reason I set up this email-list was that I wanted a place to share stuff that really was about me and my process, not just a theme or an attempt to capture a specific vibe. This also means that I will at times use this to share stuff that is of particular importance for me, and which I find show my thinking in the clearest light. Today's missive is a perfect example of this. It's an article that's already been out for a while, getting almost no attention at all. This isn't rare in academia, most of the things we publish get no attention ever. In this case, it was a commissioned piece for a special issue of a very minor journal, so no wonder it got no visibility. It is however a piece I return to, for even though it was a quickly put together thing, it shows a lot of my more academic thinking â an obsession with limits and borders, an interest in the philosophy of language, and a tendency to get slightly obsessed with a notion (in this case the idea of a "vanishing point", a point in e.g. a painting where all things converge and become one). So, somewhat paradoxically, it is one of the piecest I'm most proud of, even though vanishingly (heh) few people have ever seen it. Anyway, here it is. Until next time, you stay classy now!
The Vanishing Point â Notes on Conceptual Colonization and Epistemological Emptying
Introduction
What is a project? Perhaps more interestingly, what isnât? Further to that, what is entrepreneurship, really, and where are the limits to this? These are questions familiar (and potentially quite irritating) to each and every researcher working in these fields, and whilst discussions such as these can at time be incisive and philosophically astute, they can also be bewildering and notoriously vague. This, as there is no one, final answer to them, and as attempts at clarity can end up in creating even more confusion. Yes, we all know that projects are temporary organizations with limits both when it comes to available resources and allowed time-spans. Yes, entrepreneurship is acting upon a perceived opportunity in order to create a new venture â by any other name. Yet the interesting thing about both these broad definitions might not solely be what they manage to capture, but how they also can be adapted to an ever-increasing array of cases, how the fields that study them may well be inclined to extend rather than limit these, and what this means for the development of disciplines.
At play here is a particular form of academic positioning, one that I will contend is important to grasp if one wants to understand how contemporary disciplines function. In academia, the importance of a subject can be measured in many ways. Some disciplines â such as philosophy and physics â are well-regarded on account of being some of the oldest disciplines we have, as well as for covering wide or critical realms of human knowledge. Other, more specialized fields can be well-regarded thanks to their practical connotations â few would argue against the importance of medicine in general and fields such as oncology in particular, and key disciplines in the engineering sciences are held similar, self-evident regard. There are, however, disciplines for which acquiring standing in academia requires more pro-active marketing and branding work. Whilst we might today view fields such as psychiatry or programming self-evidently worthwhile, it is also important to note that while their ascension was of course partly driven by developments in technology and knowledge, it was also the result of considerable work in arguing for their own importance from the disciplines themselves. I do not note this to in any way denigrate these fields, quite the opposite. The pedagogical and marketing work that went into positioning programming and psychiatry as serious academic disciplines is rather something to admire, and we should keep in mind that most ânewâ disciplines have undergone processes much like this.
This, however, does not do away with the fact that the dimension of power is very present in the development of academic fields. As noted by e.g. Michel Foucault in his seminal Discipline and Punish (1975/1979), the establishment of a discipline rests on their power to classify and establish norms, as well as their capacity to disqualify and exclude. To establish and build a discipline, then, is something more than merely amassing a knowledge base. It will by necessity also involve establishing the boundaries to be protected by disciplinary knowledge, and this will, over time, also involve playing around with said boundaries. Whilst there has been considerable work done on the protection of such boundaries, for instance the work done within science and technology studies as well as in ANT (see e.g. Bowker & Star 1999, Law & Hassard 1999, Latour 1999), the issue of extending (or, potentially, shrinking) the same has often received less concentrated interest. Or, more precisely stated, has received interest in some instances rather than others. There is a wealth of studies done on the extension of the field of psychiatry, often in the vein of Foucault (see e.g. Burstow 2005), and the study of financialization has given us fine examples of how disciplinary performances can extend the power of a specific knowledge regime (see e.g. Palley 2013). Both cases, however, have extended their power specifically outside of academia, and have drawn upon their connection to practice to build their power-base. Both also represent cases where the attendant power-game has been less about finding new fields to classify, and more about arguing that a specific methodology can be deployed in novel fields.
Project theory and entrepreneurship, as disciplinary fields, represent a different, and, as I will argue, more interesting case. Neither field has a tremendous impact on the world which they study (at least not if compared with finance or psychiatry), and neither represent a particularly powerful subject in the academic hierarchy â to the chagrin of many in these fields. Whilst many applaud specifically the teaching of project management and entrepreneurship, few would see the study thereof as particularly central to the contemporary academic project, and both fields have had to deal with the indignity of being âmarginalâ fields, often seen as subfields of other, more established ones â organization theory and economics being the usual suspects. This situation of being both politically central (due to being aligned with the contemporary vogue in higher education for ârelevanceâ (see Bok 2009)) and marginal (due to not having the cachet of older and more established fields) has created an interesting dynamic in the way in which the fields argue for the standing of their knowledge-claims, on which I will comment on in the following sections.
The Work of Conceptual Colonization in the Study of Entrepreneurship
For a layperson, the issue of who is (and who isnât) an entrepreneur is neither complicated nor particularly interesting. An entrepreneur, for most people, is simply a person who is self-employed in something akin to a standing concern. Whilst one might accept that there are some boundaries to this â we tend to work with the implicit assumption that the entrepreneur should have at least modest success in his/her endeavors â the exact nature of these do not necessarily worry a layperson. For the field of entrepreneurship studies, however, the selfsame issue has led to a plethora of commentary. As a result, there has been much handwringing in the field over issues such as what separates a small business owner from an entrepreneurial small business owner, and what sets growth entrepreneurs apart from other, assumedly more stagnant, entrepreneurs. This need to classify and define is of course common in academia, in which the capacity to delineate and prove one is working with clearly operationalizable concepts is part and parcel of the academic project. However, which should come as no surprise, social categories such as âentrepreneurâ (or, for that matter, âprojectâ) are not as well behaved and easily captured as more objective phenomena, such as âconcreteâ or âphotonâ.
For a lively example of this, consider the Schumpeter/Kirzner-debate in entrepreneurship studies. Joseph Schumpeter was, as is well known, a seminal figure in the establishment of entrepreneurship studies as a field and in positioning the entrepreneur as a key, critical agent in economic systems. The existence of entrepreneurs was in Schumpeterâs thinking (see e.g. Schumpeter 1947, cf. McCraw 2009) what drove economies onwards, and the lack thereof would hamper the development of the same. At the same time, the entrepreneur was the principal agent of those hallowed âgales of creative destructionâ that swept away legacy structures in the economy. This was the entrepreneur as conquering hero, as an agent who captured lighting (or at least innovation) in a bottle, and who broke apart tired, old, and inefficient systems. Even today, much of this notion of the entrepreneur as the great disruptor still lives on in the cultural unconscious, and drives many a research project on entrepreneurship. That said, this heroic notion hasnât gone uncontested. Israel Kirzner (see e.g. Kirzner 1999, 2015) instead suggested that the entrepreneur was a more modest agent (although still massively important), with more modest aims. By recasting the entrepreneur as simply a savvy market operator, one alert to profit opportunities, Kirzner presented the entrepreneur as something more akin to a tinkerer, a stabilizing force in a market economy. The Kirznerian entrepreneur, then, is an entrepreneur even when doing relatively incremental things, when finding small positions of arbitrage, or when utilizing some small inefficiency in the market. The difference between the two positions can seem rather stark, and much time and energy has been spent debating both the standing of these two theories and their relation (see e.g. Landström 1999, Roininen & YlinenpÀÀ 2009). What is more interesting for the purpose of this article, is how complementary they are, and how their conflict in effect enables an extension of the field of entrepreneurship studies.
Whereas the innovation-led theory of entrepreneurship that can be traced back to Schumpeter has allowed researchers to study big, disruptive shifts, the Kirznerian notion of the entrepreneur in effect expanded the playing field of entrepreneurship studies immensely. No longer bound by the conquering hero of creative destruction, entrepreneurship scholars could study far more modest developments, even people who might have before been seen as mere traders, all under the banner of Kirzner. Whilst one might quibble about whether this made the study of entrepreneurs more analytically precise, there is no arguing that it didnât greatly expand the accepted domain of the field. This allows for a mest delightful interpretation regarding the whole affair. Whilst some have attempted to portray Kirznerâs new theorization of the entrepreneur as something akin to a paradigm-shift in the field, another interpretation would state that it was, first and foremost, an entrepreneurial move in and of itself. By massively expanding who could be seen as an entrepreneur Kirzner, a researcher into entrepreneurs, in fact stated that his field of study was considerably larger than previously understood. This is a straightforward case of what Iâve here chosen to call âconceptual colonizationâ, as it in effect redraws the boundaries of the field one claims dominion over.
With such an elegant move as a template, many other in the field have explored similar strategems. Consider, for instance, William Gartnerâs beloved article ââWho Is an Entrepreneur?â Is the Wrong Questionâ (Gartner 1988). This very influential article continues the project of moving away from entrepreneurship as the remarkable action of remarkable individuals, but does so in a markedly different way from Kirzner. Here, Gartner moves away from what he describes as âtrait approachesâ, and simply states than entrepreneurship is the creation of organizations, and that thus any person creating an organization is, by definition, an entrepreneur. Issues such as whether they know this, or think they are entrepreneurs, or identify as such, are elegantly argued away by stating that it is the behavior itself (as interpreted by the researcher) that makes one an entrepreneur. For an entrepreneurship researcher, this is good news indeed. By moving away from issues such as traits, self-identification, and even opportunities, Gartner opens up for the field to study everything from a football team, an amateur opera troupe, a BDSM-club, and most anything else that catches the researchers fancy. As most everything in the social world is an organization, and as Gartner has defined the creation of such as entrepreneurship, the field has become near unlimited in scope.
This can then be contrasted with the arguably most influential contemporary text written on the study of entrepreneurship, Shane and Venkataramanâs (2000) âThe Promise of Entrepreneurship As a Field of Researchâ. Interestingly, this starts out by highlighting the problem of defining the field, and even go so far as to refer to âa broad label under which a hodgepodge of research is housedâ. They wish to counteract this by presenting a more structured definition of the domain, and attempt to do so by defining the field of entrepreneurship studies as âthe scholarly examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated, and exploitedâ (ibid. p. 218). In contrast to Gartner, Shane and Venkataraman argue that the creation of an organization is not necessary for entrepreneurship, but for a very specific reason. Opportunities, they argue, can emerge in context of existing organizations, or take a form where they are âsold to other individuals or existing organizationsâ (ibid. p. 219). What at first appeared like a limitation of the field, particularly through the emphasis on goods and services (a less hard limitation than it might at first seem, seeing as most everything can be understood as some kind of good or service), now becomes a de facto extension of the same. No longer does the field of entrepreneurship studies cover all forms of action where an organization is formed, it now encompasses all forms of thinking and acting around opportunity, pretty much regardless of context. Entrepreneurship scholars could now say they had a legitimate interest in everything from the founding of small cultural organizations to the inner workings of a major corporation, and the feel seemed overjoyed about this fact (at the moment of writing Shane and Venkataramanâs article is listed as having 11852 citations according to Google Scholar, making Gartnerâs 4878 seem paltry by comparison).
It is important to note that the examples above come distinctly from the academic world and the academic literature. This doesnât mean that the conceptual colonization that occurs within the groves of academe doesnât have an impact on the broader conversation as well. We might for example look to this statement of the matter from the always influential Harvard Business School, and the even more influential Harvard Business Review. In an article entitled âEntrepreneurship: A Working Definitionâ (Eisenmann 2013), a definition by Howards Stevenson, referred to as âthe godfather of entrepreneurship studies at HBSâ is proffered. This definition also does away with the entrepreneur completely, and simply states that âentrepreneurship is the pursuit of opportunity beyond resources controlledâ. Whilst the entrepreneur is then re-introduced in the explication of this definition â the entrepreneur as the pursuer of opportunity â the underlying theme is very obviously that entrepreneurship is something that can be at least attempted by a far larger group of people than usually assumed. It is for instance self-evident that everyone, with the possible exception of Elon Musk and a minute group of similar billionaires, exist in a position where there lay opportunities âbeyond resources controlledâ. For most of us, the resources controlled are relatively limited, and we might explore other opportunities. We often do not, and it is through this negation that we are defined as non-entrepreneurs. The definition, then, might be less about entrepreneurs than it is about a worldview regarding opportunities. This becomes even more apparent if we compare to another HBR-article, namely the for our purposes aptly entitled âWe Need to Expand Our Definition of Entrepreneurshipâ (Hagel 2016), where the extension of the field reaches a kind of zenith (or nadir, depending on your persuasion). Here it is stated that due to exponentially developing technologies, and the changes these bring, we are in fact seeing a shift from an âemployee societyâ to an âentrepreneurial societyâ, one in which â(w)e must all become entrepreneursâ. In this brave new world, entrepreneurs âmustâ exist on every level of every corporation and organization, including but not limited to âNGOs, schools and government agenciesâ. And, lest we doubt this, the transition is presented as a foregone conclusion: âMake no mistake about it: Weâre on the cusp of a Big Shift from an employee society to an entrepreneurial one, as Peter Drucker so perceptively predicted. The forces driving it are too big, too inexorable to turn back.â In the future, then, all will be the purview of the entrepreneurship researcher!
Now, some might protest that the field of entrepreneurship isnât quite as homogenous as my capsule history of the same might, and that Iâve exaggerated the way in which entrepreneurship scholarâs discuss their field. Both these remarks are apposite, but I wish to point out that what Iâm teasing out here is a tendency in field rather than an absolute truth about the same. It should come as no surprise that researchers often find that their insights can be broadly applied, or that a field will argue for its right to exist. However, which Iâve tried to show above, entrepreneurship studies has been remarkably talented at attempts to extend the field, and thus colonize various conceptual spheres. Acknowledging this, and being prepared to critically interrogate such a project, may well be a necessary to understand entrepreneurship studies as a broader project.
Everythingâs A Project!
When it comes to the field of project studies, we first need to contend with the complexities of naming the field. Where entrepreneurship studies, theory, and research have often been conveniently called âentrepreneurshipâ, the same does not hold for the study of projects. Here, terms such as project management, project studies, the study of temporary organizations and project theory are used more or less interchangeably, even when many of the epistemological schools represented in the field are anything but. In addition, great swaths of academia seems not to consider project studies a discipline unto itself, delegating it instead as a sub-field to e.g. industrial or operations management (the main journals in the field are also often ranked and listed together with operations management journals). The field has a complex history, emerging as it did out of civil engineering and construction, as well as out of major military projects. To a great extent, the academic field of project studies was born out of a great deal of practical management principles and tools, devised to keep major projects on track. Whereas economists such as Schumpeter showed an early interest in entrepreneurs, âfounding fathersâ of project studies such as Henry Gantt and Henri Fayol had a distinctly more practical bent. In addition, the field was greatly influenced by the introduction of a series of models, developed to solve real-world problems, examples of which might include the âcritical path methodâ and PERT, the âprogram evaluation and review techniqueâ.
Much of what is published in the field of project theory/studies follows this practical logic, worrying less about the disciplinary boundaries of the field, and more about the latest tweak or test of a specific project model or tool. It is also notable that whilst the field of project studies has its own major voices â Jeffrey Pintoâs research on success factors, Bent Flyvbjergâs work on megaprojects, and Connie Gersickâs punctuated disequilibria model come to mind â it has had less of a tendency for seminal, field-defining statements than e.g. entrepreneurship studies. In part this could be seen as almost a survival strategy. As the field has done well in positioning itself as a useful if not terribly radical subfield in e.g. operations management, it has to a great extent made sure not to rock the proverbial boat. By being seen as a practical field with a great potential to give courses that seem self-evidently relevant, it has managed to secure a safe space in higher education. In contrast to the field of entrepreneurship studies, however, it hasnât necessarily been as explicit in marketing itself as a panacea.
This doesnât mean that the field hasnât engaged in its own form of conceptual colonization. We could for instance look to the widely quoted piece by Lundin and Söderholm (1995), âA Theory of the Temporary Organizationâ. This paper can lay some claim to having focused and re-energized the study of projects, by recasting the latter from clearly defined engineering activities to something far more general. By emphasizing the temporality of project work, as well as the overall resource-limitations of organizations set up to handle a delineated issue, the article attempted to bring some intellectual rigor to the thinking around projects. However, in doing so it also introduced a novel extension of the field. If what defines a project isnât that people think of it as a project, but rather the temporal and other restrictions inherent in it, a lot more things become projects. Now it mattered not whether or not project management techniques or the PMBOK (Project Management Body Of Knowledge) were deployed or not, merely if a researcher could make the case that what he or she studies was, in fact, a temporary organization.
As a result, numerous studies emerged that aligned itself with the notion of the project, yet inquired into areas that hadnât hitherto been considered within the field of project studies. Things such as cultural productions, event management, wildlife expeditions and mountain climbing could now be studied as being projects, giving project researches a considerably extended dominion of all temporary organizations big and small. This was further bolstered with increasing talk of a projectification of society (see e.g. Lundin et al. 2015), making project research a form of social theory. When Winter et al. in 2006 lay out âDirections for future research in project managementâ, all this has become a point of pride. As they lay out the aforementioned directions, two key ones are a move from instrumental processes towards social processes (including âfocus on social interaction among people, illuminating: the flux of events and human action, and framing of projects (and the profession) within an array of social agenda, practices, stakeholder relations, politics and powerâ) and a move towards a broader conceptualization of projects (defined as an extension along the lines of âconcepts and approaches which facilitate: broader and ongoing conceptualization of projects as being multidisciplinary, having multiple purposes, not always pre-defined, but permeable, contestable and open to renegotiation throughoutâ). In other words, not only were projects now a social, even societal arena, they may well be indistinguishable from other organizational forms â or recognizable as projects.
When Burke and Morley in 2016 present âOn temporary organizations: A review, synthesis and research agendaâ, this extension has continued. Whilst they pay less heed to the socio-political dimensions of projects as phenomena and concept, they make quite clear just how extensive the field of studying temporary organizations is. Where project and temporary organizations have normally been seen as occurring inside an existing, permanent organization, now we also learn that they can also be inter-organizational ventures, and that organizations and firms can be entirely project-based, making the permanent organization merely a platform for the main event â a plethora of temporary organizations. In 2018, Geraldi & Söderlund push the boat out even further, establishing that the field really should be called project studies in an article entitled âProject studies: What it is, where it is goingâ. This broad school, then, would be one which âincludes but is not limited to project management, project organising, temporary organisation, multi-project management, management of projects and the nature of project-based work. (âŠ) We observed that research transits the project as levels of analysis, and includes behaviours of individuals and teams at the micro level, as well as projects in portfolios within and outside organisational boundaries at the macro level.â Thus project studies really isnât just about projects, but also about what notions of time-limited organization does to individuals, professions, organizations, collaboration, and society itself. In the end, project studies becomes something akin to a theory of post-industrial society at large, to see a world in a Gantt-chart and heaven in a PERT (to paraphrase Blake).
Thus project studies too seems to follow the path of entrepreneurship studies. As the fields grow stronger, the field it claims grows larger. What was once a humble concept turns, slowly but surely, into something that can explain life, the universe, and everything.
The Vanishing Point: On The Threat of Epistemological Emptying
The critical reader, having made it this far, might now ask why all this matters. People in an academic field can get a little overly excited about the selfsame, and perhaps even overestimate its importance, but is there really anything wrong with that? The answer to which would of course be no, not at all. Were we merely talking about a kind of intellectual vanity, we might at worst conclude that some in the aforementioned fields have large egos, but the conclusion that there are some academics with oversize egos would not constitute a novel or original insight. I would however contend that there is something more at play here, a tendency that may in the long run damage not just the two fields discussed above, but the broader academic project. I have come to call this tendency âepistemological emptyingâ, and find it to be a form of symbolic violence that can deeply affect a field and its practices.
Simply put, epistemological emptying occurs when a concept or a theory becomes so broad, so all-encompassing, that it ceases to be a way to understand the world, and instead becomes a way to dominate the same. We might again refer to the notion of âfinancializationâ (Palley 2013) to illustrate this process, even though we are here dealing with a more complex interrelationship between academic thought and industry practices. There was a time when finance was about⊠finance. It dealt with the pricing of financial instruments, normally in a rather staid and careful manner. However, as the use of financial instruments increased and evermore exotic such were introduced, this construction started to unravel. As artists such as David Bowie turned their royalties into securities such as the Bowie Bond, and cities financialized youth counseling initiatives (such as Goldman Sachâs bond with the city of New York), it started to look like everything could be turned into first a contract, then a bond, then a derivative, financializing everything â or at least making everything potentially understandable through the medium of financial vernacular and theory (a move now hastened by the contemporary hype for cryptocurrencies, ICOs and the blockchain). Whilst this might look like a very good situation for academics who study financial theory, it also led to a profound existential issue for the same. As theoretical constructs that were not necessarily designed for real-world utilization became used for everything from predicting the weather to making kindergarten more efficient, finance became less of an epistemological lens which enabled interesting questions to be asked, and more an ideological tool to limit what might be said about the world. As everything became finance, less and less became finance â from an epistemological point of view. Finance was now just a tool to deploy on anything, not a way to grow human understanding.
A slightly different case would be the one of innovation. Whilst financialization may be a case of a mindset spreading further than might be safe for it, innovation represents a concept, one with an academic discipline devoted to its study, that has during the last decades been watered down to a point where it is close to becoming meaningless. Whereas the title of innovation might at one point have been reserved only for very significant new products or services, it is today used for almost anything, significantly lessening the usefulness of the term. As innovation becomes a marketing term, and innovative a general marker, is also becomes something akin to elevator music, a phrase one simply assumes should be attached to any- and everything that in one way or another claims to be different and/or improved. Its power to distinguished phenomena is thus exchanged for something more general â a moral categorization of sorts â which might well represent a definitional case of epistemological emptying.
The two cases that have been in the spotlight here â entrepreneurship and project studies â represent cases not unlike innovation. However, both also represent cases where an academic field has actively tried to expand their own fields and aggressively market their favored concept (an issue that could be raised with the field of innovation studies as well). I would also argue that whilst this may have been very helpful for the identity work of those in the field, and a great boost to the egos of the same, it is not at all given that this has created a healthier field. In fact, I would argue that both entrepreneurship and project studies has in fact been damaged by the tendency to continuously expand reach and suggested importance. In part this is due to simple economics. With a limited amount of scholars with a limited amount of time dedicated to research and an expanding field, any one part of it will risk being studied by so few people, who will also often form cliques, that few issues ever get studied in enough depth by enough people to push the agenda onwards. The tendency in contemporary higher education to incentivize increasingly narrow specialization will further exacerbate this.
But the issue will also be one of muddying the conceptual waters, i.e. the epistemological emptying Iâve warned of. As projects become temporary organizations and these become increasingly difficult to tell apart from regular organizations, or vice versa, the very notion of a project starts to be emptied out. It becomes an empty signifier, more useful for stating which academic community the researcher belongs to than what he or she is actually studying. Similarly, when entrepreneurship as a concept moves away from something as basic as a driven businessman starting a new venture, and is used to describe most anyone doing something where an opportunity is somehow present, we inexorably move towards a discourse in which âeveryone is an entrepreneur, in the entrepreneurial societyâ. What is often forgotten, or ignored, is that this would also mean that there is no real need for entrepreneurship studies, as such a complete embedding of the phenomenon would mean that it would require general analysis (such as this might be conducted in e.g. sociology, political science, and history), rather than a specialized field. Similarly, in a truly âprojectifiedâ world, the difference between project studies and organization studies becomes eradicated.
We might not be at the vanishing point quite yet. Most people would scoff at the idea that weâre all entrepreneurs now, and whilst most of us have experience with projects, we surely recognize the existence of non-projects as well. Still, fields such as entrepreneurship and project studies needs to address the manner in which they consistently attempt to make an increasing number of phenomena fit under their preferred umbrella concept. Without critical attention paid to such conceptual colonization, a field may well extend to the point of becoming increasingly pointless, or abstract to the point of becoming scholasticism. The symbolic violence this does to e.g. the fields studied â in which an increasing number of activities are declared as being âentrepreneurialâ or âprojectsâ, regardless of the wishes of those engaging in them â is one where the surrounding world is not seen as an object of interest, but a resource to be exploited. At this point it no longer matters if something is a project, or an entrepreneurial venture, just whether a researcher can extract more value from this for his or her project. It all becomes a very cynical move, one where epistemological rigor is abandoned as it doesnât generate enough results, and where the emptying out of meaning is seen as an acceptable price to pay to extend and fortify the field. It matters not whether meaning vanishes, it matters not what actors think, all that matters is that the land grab can continue. And thus the vanishing point draws ever closer.
References
Bok, D. (2009), Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Bowker, G. & Starr, S. (1999), Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Burstow, B. (2015). Psychiatry and the business of madness: An ethical and epistemological accounting, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Eisenmann, T. R. (2013), âEntrepreneurship: A Working Definitionâ, Harvard Business Review, retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/01/what-is-entrepreneurship
Foucault, M. (1975/1979), Discipline and Punish, Vintage, New York, NY.
Gartner, W. (1988), ââWho Is an Entrepreneur?â Is the Wrong Questionâ, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(4), 47-68.
Geraldi, J., & Söderlund, J. (2018), âProject studies: What it is, where it is goingâ, International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 55-70.
Hagel III, J. (2016), âWe Need to Expand Our Definition of Entrepreneurship", Harvard Business Review, 28(September), pp. 2-5.
Kirzner, I. (1999), âCreativity and/or alertness: A reconsideration of the Schumpeterian entrepreneurâ, The Review of Austrian Economics, 11(1-2), 5-17.
Kirzner, I. (2015), Competition and Entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Landström, H. (1999), âThe roots of entrepreneurship researchâ, New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 9-20.
Latour, B. (1999), Pandoraâs Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Law, J. & Hassard, J. (eds.) (1999), Actor Network Theory and After, Wiley-Blackwell, London.
Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995), âA theory of the temporary organizationâ, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437-455.
Lundin, R. A., Arvidsson, N., Brady, T., Ekstedt, E., Midler, C., & Sydow, J. (2015), Managing and working in project society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
McCraw, T. (2009), Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Palley, T. (2013). Financialization: the economics of finance capital domination, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Roininen, S., & YlinenpÀÀ, H. (2009), âSchumpeterian versus Kirznerian entrepreneurship: A comparison of academic and non-academic new venturingâ, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 16(3), 504-520.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1947), âThe Creative Response in Economic Historyâ, Journal of Economic History, 7: 149â59.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). âThe promise of entrepreneurship as a field of researchâ, Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P., & Cicmil, S. (2006), âDirections for future research in project management: The main findings of a UK government-funded research networkâ, International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 638-649.