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

dominate our world” [Rabinow, 1991, p6]. This quotation resonates with the comments
expressed by the various critics of the discipline of entrepreneurship as outlined briefly in
section 1.1.1.07.
1.3.08 In a sense I am wearing two hats, one as an aspiring academic working with
connaissance knowledge, while on the ot her hand I wear the hat of one who has been
entrepreneurial and who does not necessarily have that detachment between the two
knowledges. I do not feel that maintaining that sense of detachment is of benefit in this
investigation and so will from time to time insert comments from a savoir perspective into
this work.
1.3.09 In particular I wish to question the title of ‘the entrepreneur’. Connaissance
knowledge has, since the times of Cantillon, Smith, Sombart and Schumpeter, assumed
‘the entrepreneur’ to have certain recognisable traits and behaviours. This assumption has
long grounded the discipline of entrepreneurship. On such connaissance knowledge the
discipline of entrepreneurship has, from its early days, been constructed. Whether these are
solid foundations is something I seek to illustrate.
1.3.10 As a non-academic I reiterate that I have been in a position, at times in my life,
where I have been entrepreneurial. However I deny myself the title of entrepreneur as my
own personal savoir knowledge leads me to believe that such a title is not accurate. People
can engage in entrepreneurial behaviour at particular times in their lives; however such
behaviour is often of a temporary nature. This is not to say that the same thought has not
been expressed within the discipline. Barth [1963] in one of the earliest articles as part of
the emergent discipline claims “that an entrepreneur should not be treated as a status or a
role, but rather as ‘an aspect of a role: it relates to actions and activities, and not rights and
duties” [cited in Jannicke, 2008]. However the later construction of the discipline largely
ignored Barthes comments until Gardner’s 1989 article where he specifically stated that it
was not impor tant ‘who is an entrepreneur’ and stressed a focus on an entrepreneurial
or ientation or process.
20