Entrepreneurial learning among practices: aesthetic and sensible knowledge in the life trajectory of entrepreneurs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Using the concept of knowing-in-practice (KinP), and drawing from current understandings of aesthetic and sensible knowledge within organization studies, this study explores how the entrepreneurial learning (EL) process unfolds over time, throughout the lives of startup founders, well before entrepreneurial action takes place. Design/methodology/approach Using a life histories approach, 25 interviews were conducted with the founders of 18 startups. Additional 14 semi-structured interviews were conducted with other startups' founders, focusing on thematic stories. Data were analyzed using abduction and narrative analysis. Findings Although each entrepreneur's history is unique, the authors show that entrepreneurs' lives are generally a texture of practices, resulting in aesthetic–sensible knowledge that is developed as entrepreneurs participate in various social practices. This includes KinP episodes where perceptive-sensorial faculties are fundamental for entrepreneurs to perceive the world, recognize/create opportunities and launch a business. Research limitations/implications The historical approach did not allow the authors to witness firsthand the practices and KinP episodes that participants verbalized. Regardless, the results show that aesthetic and sensible knowledge provide a fruitful lens for investigating EL while highlighting the indissoluble relationship between practice and learning. Originality/value Although the senses have been recognized as fundamental for learning in organizations, entrepreneurship scholars have yet to explore the aesthetic and sensory processes involved in EL. The primary contribution of this paper is to develop a new understanding of the situated nature of EL as a process that starts well before entrepreneurial action occurs, stemming from entrepreneurs' experiencing of certain practices and the aesthetic and sensible knowledge they build over their life trajectory.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".