Review of Entrepreneurship—Inclusiveness, necessity, poverty, disabilities, underdog, disadvantaged

Inclusiveness, necessity, poverty, disabilities, underdog, disadvantaged in entrepreneurship: What are we talking about and what do weknow?

CREA, University of Cagliari and IDRAC Business School, Visiting Professor at Turku School of

Economics

ajc.fayolle@gmail.com

Lund University

hans.landstrom@fek.lu.se

Rowan University, School of Innovation and Entrepreneurship

santossc@rowan.edu

Turku School of Economics at the University of Turku

kati.suomi@utu.fi

What are we talking about when we talk about inclusive entrepreneurship, necessity entrepreneurship, underdog entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship for those in disadvantaged conditions, entrepreneurship for minorities? Are we talking of similar or different phenomena? Why are we using different words to examine research issues about entrepreneurship for and by minorities in a broad sense)? Why such a need for fragmentation in entrepreneurship research? Why should we consider, as researchers, that entrepreneurship and self-employment would be an appropriate and efficient way to help minorities in their quest (and sometimes struggle) for finding a place in our developed and developing societies?

These first questions came to mind when we started our intellectual journey focusing initially on inclusive entrepreneurship. Since the first decade of the third millennium, inclusive entrepreneurship is recognized as an important topic in the policy agenda of governments in developed countries (OECD/EU, 2021). In Europe “Inclusive entrepreneurship aims to open up opportunities in entrepreneurship to everyone with an idea for a sustainable business, regardless of their background and characteristics” (OECD/EU, 2021:21). From a policymaker point of view, inclusive entrepreneurship and self-employment policies can lead to the emergence of new ideas, create new firms and jobs and, finally, contribute to economic growth and decrease unemployment, by leveraging an untapped potential (OECD/EU, 2021). However, “while many governments deliver tailored support for these (marginalized) groups, current offers do not always adequately address biases in entrepreneurship ecosystems and institutional conditions, nor the needs of diverse groups of entrepreneurs” (OECD/EU, 2021:21).

Obviously, we acknowledge, from a societal and economic perspective, the need to facilitate the inclusion in developed and developing societies of marginalized, disadvantaged and disabled people, and both politics and academic worlds can contribute to fulfilling such a need. At the academic level, researchers have been interested, for a while, in examining issues and providing knowledge about so-called marginalized groups or minorities such as women (see, for example, Ahl, 2006), elderly individuals (see, for example, Kautanen, 2008), immigrants (see, for example, Naudé, Siegel and Marchand, 2017), ethnic minorities (see, for example, Basu, 2008), disabled people (see, for example, Jammaers , and Williams, 2021) or those living in poverty conditions (Santos, Costa & Morris, 2022). However, the labeled research areas ‘inclusive entrepreneurship’, ‘disadvantaged entrepreneurship” or ‘underdog entrepreneurship’ appear much more emergent. To the best of our knowledge, a few articles in these areas have been published in top-tier entrepreneurship and management journals. A special issue on ‘disadvantaged entrepreneurship’ has been recently published in European Management Review (see, Maalaoui et al., 2020) and another special issue is still opened in the Journal of Business Research on ‘underdog entrepreneurship’, a concept initially proposed by Miller and Lebreton-Miller, 2017).

Moreover, the concepts of ‘inclusive entrepreneurship’, ‘disadvantaged entrepreneurship’ and ‘underdog entrepreneurship’ are far from being well-defined, meaningful and conceptually delimited from each other (see Tähtinen & Havila, 2019). For example, Maaloui et al. (2020) claimed in their editorial of the Special Issue “Disadvantage entrepreneurship: Decoding a new area of research” published in the European Management Review: “The concept of disadvantaged entrepreneurship runs the risk of being vague and undefined, as it seems to include very broad categories of entrepreneurs. Sartori (1970) refers to this as conceptual stretching due to a way some concepts become devoid of meaning.”

This special issue represents a unique opportunity to clarify the scientific legitimacy, the meaning, the frontiers and the relationships of research areas, notably, ‘inclusive entrepreneurship’, ‘disadvantage entrepreneurship’, ‘underdog entrepreneurship’. In a similar vein, examining in these areas the role of necessity, poverty, adversity, serious life challenges, and disabilities could lead to getting a better understanding of marginalized entrepreneurs (and self-employed) and the institutional settings and ecosystems in which they think, make decisions and behave. In this view, the special issue’s goal is to encourage an in-depth multidisciplinary conversation within the management and entrepreneurship research community (including insights from psychology, sociology, philosophy, education, economic, geography, health, political sciences and others) from different socio-economic settings to make both theoretical and empirical contributions (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods or case studies) to the below-proposed topics/themes/questions (not limited):

- Conceptualization of ‘inclusive entrepreneurship’ and ‘disadvantage entrepreneurship’;

- Frontiers, overlapping and relationships of ‘inclusive’, ‘disadvantage’ and ‘underdog’ entrepreneurship as research areas in the field of entrepreneurship;

- Typologies, taxonomies of ‘inclusive’, disadvantaged’, ‘underdog’ entrepreneurs;

- Poverty, precariousness, adversity, disabilities, serious life challenges as relatedconcepts to inclusiveness;

- Entrepreneurship as a ‘magic option’ for and by minorities under adversity conditions: ‘raison d’être’, ethical issues and social identity of entrepreneurship researcher;
- What kind of dialogue between policy-makers and researchers in the broad area of ‘inclusive entrepreneurship’?

- How to build up a new research community in relation to an emergent research object? Usefulness and limitations of the scientific conversation in the area of ‘inclusive’, ‘disadvantage’ and ‘underdog’ entrepreneurship?

‘Inclusive’, ‘disadvantage’, ‘underdog’ entrepreneurship: process and context:

- Specificities of ‘inclusive’, ‘disadvantage’, ‘underdog’ entrepreneurship process and ecosystems;

- Theoretical frameworks to conceptualize and study entrepreneurial processes in these research areas;

- Institutional changes to lower the barriers (cultural, educational, regulatory, etc.) hindering the entrepreneurial process of ‘inclusive’, ‘disadvantage’, ‘underdog’ entrepreneurs.

Ahl H. (2006). Why Research on Women Entrepreneurs Needs New Directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 30(5):595-621. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00138.x

Basu, A. (2008). “Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship”, in Basu, A., Casson, M., Wadeson, N. and Yeung, B. ‘Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Oxford University Press.

Jammaers E, Williams J. (2021). Turning disability into a business: Disabled entrepreneurs’ anomalous bodily capital. Organization. doi:10.1177/13505084211032312.

Kautonen, T. (2008). Understanding the older entrepreneur: Comparing Third Age and Prime Age entrepreneurs in Finland. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management Vol. 3(3).

OECD/European Commission (2021). The Missing Entrepreneurs 2021: Policies for Inclsuive Entrepreneurship and Self-Employment. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/71b7a9bb-en.

Maalaoui, A., Ratten, V., Heilbrunn, S., Brannback, M., Kraus, S. (2020). Disadvantage entrepreneurship: Decoding a new area of research. European Management Review. DOI: 10.1111/emre.12424.

Miller D, Le Breton-Miller I. (2017). Underdog Entrepreneurs: A Model of Challenge–Based Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 41(1):7-17. doi:10.1111/etap.12253

Naudé, W., Siegel, M., Marchand, K., (2017). Migration, entrepreneurship and development : critical questions. IZA Journal of Migration and Development. vol. 6(1), 1-16.

Tähtinen, J. & Havila, V. (2019). Conceptually confused, but on a field level? A method for conceptual analysis and its application. Marketing Theory, Vol. 19(4) 533–557.

Santos, S. C., Costa, S., & Morris, M. H. (2022). Entrepreneurship as a pathway into and out of poverty: A configuration perspective. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2022.2030413

Launch of the SI call: June 1st, 2022

Extended abstract submission by e-mail to ALL guest editors: October 15th, 2022

Full paper submission (only the selected extended abstracts): March 15th, 2023

Editorial decision: May 30th, 2023

R&R paper submission: October 15th, 2023

Final decision: November 30th, 2023

Tentative first online publicationL December, 2023

Extended abstract submission: The extended abstract submission should include no more than five-page (1500 words), and this abstract should be sent by e-mail to ALL guest editors indicating in the subject “SI RE: Inclusive Entrepreneurship”. Then, ONLY the selected abstracts will be invited to continue the editorial process and submit the full manuscripts.

The articles must comply with the requirements and norms of the Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, and respect the manuscript submission guidelines:
http://entrepreneuriat.com/polerecherche/revue_entrepreneuriat/

The submission should be made on the journal website Manuscript Manager (https://re.manuscriptmanager.net/sLib/v4/login.php?paramScreen=iGvwlpiv96q7n9c+untNDlZ2YPyFwKz1LgWUXXV9FG8=) by indicated the Special Issue’s Title “Inclusiveness entrepreneurship”. After an initial screening by the guest editors, all articles will be reviewed according to the policies of Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat/ Review of Entrepreneurship through an anonymous review process.