Natives in a Strange Land: The Relationship between Entrepreneurial Cognition and Biculturalism among Native Americans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article examines the effect of culture on cognition in Native Americans. Traditional concepts of culture as linear, pervasive, and exclusive in a society are modified to reflect recent research in social cognition that indicates culture is much more fragmented and complex than previously believed. This new view of culture acquisition explains how people who embrace two cultures (bicultural) decide to respond to environmental cues concerning new venture creation. INTRODUCTION While there has been an in the number of Native Americans starting businesses, the group generally lags behind other minorities in the United States in important economic statistics. For example, Native American median household income is lower than all other minority groups except for African-Americans. The percentage of Native American households below the poverty level is the highest of all minority groups (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004-2005). Entrepreneurial activity creates new jobs and is an indicator of economic prosperity (Dana, 1995). Without entrepreneurship, a society cannot sustain economic development. Entrepreneurial activity is associated with increase in GDP, societal wealth, and quality of life (Morris, 2001, p. v). Empirical work confirms the relationship between activity and overall economic well-being. For example, Anderson (2002) found that activity among Aboriginal people in Canada increased the tribe's median household income and reduced unemployment. Van Praag and Versloot (2007) reviewed recent research on the value of entrepreneurship and reported that a number of studies indicated that activity added to the employment in the region in which the activity took place. Because of the relationship between activity and economic progress, the lack of activity among Native Americans has been the focus of a stream of research directed at examining cultural differences between Native Americans and the dominant white culture in the United States (Enz, Dollinger, & Daily, 1990; Hayton, George, & Zahra, 2002). Although this area of research contributes to our understanding of Native Americans and entrepreneurship, recent developments in entrepreneurship research, specifically the concept of entrepreneurial cognition, suggest it is time to revisit previous assumptions about Native American entrepreneurship and the relationship between culture and activity. Research concerning cognition and culture has resulted in models where culture is a factor in cognition (Busenitz & Lau, 1996; Mitchell, Smith, Seawright, & Morse, 2000). As defined in these studies, culture is a consistent set of values that influences everyday practices. This contrasts with recent work in cultural sociology where culture is seen to be fragmented, with less influence on normative behavior than previously believed (DiMaggio, 1997), and in cultural psychology, where it has been shown that individuals may inhabit more than one culture (biculturalism) and switch between the cultures based on cues in the environment (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000). The purpose of this article is to offer an alternative approach to the relationship between culture and Native American entrepreneurship. Specifically, we argue that Native Americans participate in and receive environmental cues from two cultures-the dominant culture of the United States and the culture of their native tribe. This bicultural status results in frame switching when individuals interpret their environment (including opportunities) based on the cultural cues accessible at the time of decision (Hong et al., 2000). As bicultural people, Native Americans are able to call upon seemingly inconsistent elements of their different cultures depending on particular contextual clues. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".