Mapping the aliran of the academic discipline of entrepreneurship: A ...

ehabilitated version of prejudice. Sub-aliran are ide ntified as part of the process. These,
together with an assessment of the respective roles of connaissance and savoir knowledges
in the development of the discipline, contribute to a discussion of whether the discipline
has created a simulation or a simulcrae of entrepreneurship, as per Baudrillard [1994] and
whether or not the discipline of entrepreneurship can be considered dubious, as per
Foucault [in Dreyfus and Rabbinow, 1983].
1.0.03 Part One comprises four chapters and is structured as follows. The first chapter
introduces the discipline of entrepreneurship focusing in particular on criticisms from
within the discipline on the manner, bo th epistemological and ontological, in which it has
developed. The philosophic lineage I use in this dissertation is then introd uced. The last
sections of chapter one outlines the intended contributions of this dissertation to collective
connaissance knowledge.
1.0.04 The second chapter is an introd uctor y discussion on the epistemology I use in this
dissertation in particular reference to the difference between savoir and connaissance types
of knowledge. The pr imary difference is that one is considered to be the ‘know how’ of the
practitioner and the second the ‘knowing that’ of the academic. This is something that I
consider significant primarily from my own unique perspective as a commentator on the
discipline of entrepreneurship and one who has actually been entrepreneurial at different
times in my life. The positionality of my own role viz a viz being both a business person
who has been entrepreneurial and my current role of investigating the discipline that
purports to study that which I do, is discussed in the third chapter.
1.0.05 The last chapter in Part One maps the remaining four parts of the dissertation.
2