Exploring processual and critical avenues at the crossroad of entrepreneurship and project management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploring processual and critical avenues at the crossroad of entrepreneurship and project management Entrepreneurship and project management share lots of assumptions, concepts and practices even though they seem to relatively ignore each other as disciplines.Performing a project or a venture is a matter of time and duration: both disciplines seem concerned with the imperative of deadlines and the move from project to operations, but both also face the challenge of reconsidering their object as an ongoing phenomena in a more processual way (Hjorth et al., 2015;Sergi, 2012).Project management and entrepreneurship are also rooted in some strong mythological assumptions that should be challenged about the intentionality and the agentivity of the entrepreneur/project manager even though both fields increasingly highlight the significance of social contexts and collective forms of action.Both fields also face some stimulating challenges about unfolding the range of epistemological assumptions beyond a functionalist-positivist paradigm which over-estimated the place of tools, rational action and efficiency (Konstantinou and Müller, 2016).Making a project or a venture happen is about organizing the creation process of novelty, experiencing the ordinariness of practices and elaborating consistent narratives (Blomquist et al., 2010;Drouin et al., 2013).This special section explores processual and critical research avenues and considers opportunities to encourage a stimulating conversation between both fields.Here, we identify three theoretical movements:(1) From project management to entrepreneurship: venturing process might be considered in many aspects as an ongoing project, but very few scholars aim at comparing both processes and their potential cross-fertilization.The management of a project is based on a range of material practices, devices and tools that support and shape the process.Convincing stakeholders, unfolding a credible storytelling and finding legitimacy to gain resources are for instance one of the main tasks of project managers that entrepreneurs are used to coping with.More broadly, Lindgren and Packendorff (2003, p. 89) suggest the potentialities of a project-based approach to entrepreneurship based on three proximities: entrepreneurial acts are temporary collective experiences in different contexts; entrepreneurship can be studied in terms of people performing entrepreneurial acts in their everyday life; entrepreneurial acts are discontinuities in individual life paths that imply identity (re)constructions.Moreover, the project management may contribute to a de-mythologization of the heroic figure of the entrepreneur as project managers face a large range of constraints and tests in their everyday life and a universe of constraints that force them to create and unfold continuous practices of resistance and negotiation.(2) From entrepreneurship to project management: project management tends to focus on project as a tool for implementing strategy and ignore its creative or exploratory side.Projects are associated with changes.They consist of the efficient exploitation of a competitive advantage or in renewing the strategy through the exploration of margins.An entrepreneurial view of projects would offer some avenues in addressing the creation of novelty through projects.Considering the entrepreneurial dimension of project management suggests highlighting the importance of rules subversion and resistance in
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".