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

• being apparent in the perceived structure of the discipline;
• the standards by which the episteme determine which knowledge is accepted into
the discipline;
• the ontologies and grids of specification that de velop in the evolut ion of the
discipline or are imposed upon the discipline through the author ities of
delimitation; and
• the conjunct epistemologies that have evolved specific to the discipline.
2.5.2. The Emergence
2.5.2.1 Mapping the first emergence
2.5.2.1 Adolescent angst and acne
2.5.2.3 Ep istemologies - what Foucault missed
2.5.2.00 This section is in three parts and looks at the first of Foucault’s rules of
formation being ‘mapping the first surface of their emergence.’ This first part attempts to
pinpoint the emergence of the discipline as a singular entity as opposed to being part of
other disciplines or parts of the discourse on entrepreneurship. The second part looks at the
adolescent angst the discipline seems to find itself mired in, while the third part looks at
the developing epistemology – which seems to be something that Foucault missed.
2.5.2.1 Mapping the first emergence
2.5.2.1.00 This section looks at the first appearances of entrepreneurship as a discourse
and the early years of its emergence as a discipline.
2.5.2.1.01 Discursively the conceptualisation of entrepreneurship emerged in the mid 18 th
century with Cantillon, through his article ‘Essai sur la nature du commerce en général’,
being credited by Schumpeter as “be ing the first to offer a clear concept of the
entrepreneurial function as a whole” [Filion, 1997].
82