Systemic Approach to Entrepreneurial Identity and Its Educational Projection

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the issue of entrepreneurial education and the entrepreneurial educational ecosystem is very well addressed and with clarity and originality, some references linked to the epistemological idea of entrepreneurship in the educational sphere are missing that could improve the work. The context in which incentives are created to foster human action is essential to understand the complexity of the ecosystem in which entrepreneurial identity is generated. Therefore a link to the approach to the human action of Austrian economics, concretely Misses, Kirzner, and Hayek will contribute to understanding the concept; this is explained in 

LADEVEZE, L. N.; NÚÑEZ CANAL, M. (2016): “Notion for entrepreneurship in school entrepreneurial skills training.” Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 71, pp. 1.069 a 1.089 DOI: 10.4185/RLCS-2016-1135

The suggestion is to include a reference in lines 326 and the following.

 

 

  n Social, 71, pp. 1.069 to 1.089.

The quality of English is correct, and no grammar or lexical problems have been found

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review, which has been very useful for us to improve our article.

We have included the recommended bibliographical reference and an explanatory text has been added in the first paragraph in the heading entitled "Identity as the core of the entrepreneurial education ecosystem", following the suggestions made.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

A better option for this article would be the journal Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy – or Education Sciences if the authors want another MDPI journal. The reason why is because I see little engagement with questions discussed in Philosophy. The authors do cite some philosophical ideas such as Nussbaum and Sen’s capabilities approach, but there’s not much engagement with them. They are more focused on education techniques that do not require too much conversation with ideas discussed in philosophy.

Compare with Hägg and Kurczewska (2021), which is an article that I consider it would be in Philosophies’ scope. In there, they dialogue with many ideas in philosophy, citing Dewey, Rorty and, more important, they scrutinize those ideas according to the space allowed, because it allowed them to apply philosophical foundation to an entrepreneurship education. The way your article is written, it does not focus on the philosophical part of the argument, therefore I believe sending to another journal would be the best course of action.

For an article about teaching, the arguments are connecting even if they are not deeply explored. But I still have a grievance that has more to do with the literature itself, instead of the article. The authors claim that entrepreneurship education is “associate with…development of the individual” (line 76-77), but this is an idea discussed in philosophical circles as well. One of the most famous is Michel Foucault, who saw entrepreneurship as result of the infiltration of the neoliberal ideology in all spheres of society – they become entrepreneurs of the self (Foucault, 2008). Although he aimed to be neutral, one can see negative bias in his writings, following his interpreters (Christiaens, 2020).

By selling entrepreneurship as a means of holistic self-realization, instead of what early writers (Joseph Schumpeter and Israel Kirzner) intended, the authors are feeding on this discourse. I honestly find this questionable because, from my reading, it is a symptom of what Shane (2008) called the “magic bullet” problem of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is treated as a costless, but efficient solution to the problem of economic development. And that ignores all the issues it brings with it.

A growing body of literature known as critical entrepreneurship studies is growing (Örtenblad, 2020), because it realizes that there’s something wrong with the entrepreneurial discourse. Bögenhold’s chapter in Örtenblad (2020) shows that rather than being the sign of a healthy economy, too many entrepreneurs might be the sign of an unstable economy. Are people peddling counterfeit/smuggled goods in the streets entrepreneurs? Not only that, but it also is associated with the dissolution of the welfare state, which promotes an increasing tolerance towards the ever-growing inequality (see how Piketty (2014) was a best seller). The issue is that the origin of entrepreneurial analysis were people who were part of the economic elite of a country, and when this is translated without critical thinking, it becomes a tool that divides the society further between the “haves” and “have nots” – in the end, many people become entrepreneurs because they have no choice (Almeida and Silva, 2023).

And this has issues in entrepreneurship education. A critical education should not just prepare to accept this world, but to also think about it and see what’s wrong. The authors accept the idea of “people first” (line 324), but who are these people? The philosopher Bruno Latour asks in one of his final lectures (Latour, 2019). Analyzing how Elon Musk was treated as a savior in the early 2010s and a model of entrepreneur, Latour saw that the salvation he promised was only for a small group of what he considered to be people – and, now with the debacle of the Twitter acquisition, Musk is showing his true face. In reality, with a society that rewards inequality poor entrepreneurs are asked to give more of the less they have (Christaens, 2019; Almeida and Silva, 2023). Hägg and Kurczewska (2021, p. 23) also see an issue with how neoliberal enterprising has issues that need to be taken in consideration for entrepreneurial education. The problem with using words such as “undoubtedly” (line 483) and “unquestionably” (line 484) is because one of the main tenets of Philosophy is that nothing should be beyond doubt or question. And so this goes for entrepreneurship and its education techniques themselves. We see some consequences in a growingly unequal world in which one of the dominant discourses – neoliberalism – tries to sell it as “normal”, and building an identity that accepts this as “normal”. Therefore, ideas on how to avoid the “magic bullet problem” in entrepreneurial education must be considered.

Also, Figure 1 needs to be provided a source. If the authors made, you must indicate that.

References

Almeida, Rafael; Silva, Harley. The entrepreneur between two circuits: the critical contribution of Milton Santos to entrepreneurship studies. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, forthcoming, 2023.

Christiaens, Tim. The entrepreneur of the self beyond Foucault’s neoliberal homo oeconomicus. European Journal of Social Theory, v. 23, n. 4, p. 493-511, 2020.

Foucault, Michel. The birth of biopolitcs: lectures at Collège de France, 1978-1979. London: Palgrave, 2008.

Hägg, Gustav; Kurczewska, Agnieszka. Toward a learning philosophy based on experience in entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, v. 4, n. 1, p. 4-29, 2021.

Latour, Bruno. “We don’t seem to live in the same planet” – a fictional planetarium. 2019. http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/162-SEVEN-PLANETS-CZpdf.pdf

Örtenblad, Anders. Against entrepreneurship: a critical examination. Berlin: Springer, 2020.

Shane, Scott. Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, v. 33, p. 141-149, 2009.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review, which has been very useful for us to improve our article.

The modifications made have been very notorious, since your observations have implied an expansion of the article, which has been necessary in order to introduce them sufficiently.

Given the lack of commitment indicated with some issues related to the philosophical foundation of the work, such as the lack of development of the approach of capabilities or the human development of A. Sen and M. Nussbaum, as well as aspects related to the criticism of neo-liberalism and its vinculation with entrepreneurship based on Foucault's thought, in epigraph titled "Emergence of identity in today's fields of entrepreneurial education" five new extensive paragraphs have been included in which the criticism of Foucauldian origin is discussed, as well as the contributions of reflective sociology and the approach to human development, assumed by the authors, have been substantiated in greater detail. This expansion has meant the inclusion of a large number of new bibliographical references, including those suggested by you. The discussion of the criticism inspired by Foucault and the clarifications related to prominent authors of reflective sociology and the approach to human development have occupied the first four paragraphs.

Another new text (fifth paragraph, within the same heading) has been included to attend to the indicated problem related to social inequalities and their relationship with entrepreneurship. In this sense, together with the incorporation of authors advised by you, the capabilities approach and the theory of social justice related to it have been used again, as well as the discussion between agency and structure, resorting to Ch. Taylor and the idea of the “duality of the structure” of A. Giddens.

Also, considering the "problem of the magic bullet" and the critical aspects related to entrepreneurial education, we have seen the need for a more elaborate explanation in the epigraph titled "Systemic complexity of the formative processes of the entrepreneurial identity" including, in addition to a reference in the first paragraph to a work of international relevance in the field, two other large paragraphs in which we discuss the mentioned problem and make a constructive criticism of it supported by advances in the theory of educational change.

Finally, the words "undoubtedly" and "unquestionably" contained in the penultimate paragraph of the article have been deleted, strictly following your recommendation, given your academic impertinence.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript. Overall, I think the manuscript is very relevant and timely. However, the authors need to explain how they developed the model "Entrepreneurial Education Ecosystem Focused on Entrepreneurial Identity". Therefore, the conceptual methodology used to create this model must be included somewhere in the manuscript. The approaches suggested by Jaakkola (2020) could provide some inspiration in this regard: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0#:~:text=Conceptual%20papers%20typically%20focus%20on,(Gilson%20and%20Goldberg%202015).

 

The following are some additional points for improvement: 

 

P.1 Linie 27 please provide some references to studies that showing that both teachers and students question entrepreneurial education. 

 

P.6 line 273: Please provide references to the many studies on personality in entrepreneurial education. Personality studies are a different field of study then identity and self. Please be more explicit in the text about the relevance of personality studies and the connection between these two fields in the context of entreneurial identity. This elaboration is even more important given that the conclusion emphasises „a strong orientation towards the study of the traits or characteristics that make up the entrepreneurial identity“ (figure 1).  

 

P.6 line 274: please elaborate more on the spatial and especially the temporal coordinates that are essential for the formation of entrepreneurial identity. 

 

P.7, line 327: Please explain the rationale for how EEE affects interpersonal identity and the models on which this rationale is based (Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Model of Human Development and the Quintuble Helix model). In addition, please clarify how entrepreneurial identity is relevant/related to interpersonal identity

 

Figure 1: please ensure that all elements are spelt out, e.g. "mesosystem" in the bottom left-hand corner.  

 

P.8, line 368: Please provide more detail or examples of the cognitive, emotional, moral and volitional components. 

 

P.9, line 433: Given that this study has already built a bridge to the SDGs, would it not make sense to also include the natural/environmental factors in the model? From my perspective, there are certainly also environmental actors and resources that influence entrepreneurial identity.

The manuscript contains some minor grammar errors that should be revised e.g. prepositions and phrasal verbs. For example, it should be written "are essential for the formation of entrepreneurial identity“  instead of "essential in the formation of entrepreneurial identity" 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review, which has been very useful for us to improve our article.

We have tried to respond to each of your comments:

Firstly, a new heading on conceptual methodology has been introduced following the guidelines of Jaakkola (2020), Lukka and Vinnari (2014) and MaInnis (2011). Secondly, new references have been introduced in the heading "Entrepreneurial education from a systemic perspective" about the questioning that teachers and students ask of entrepreneurial education, along with related studies on the entrepreneurial personality. In addition, a paragraph has been written describing that personal characteristics are not static qualities, but rather a dynamic principle for the configuration of the entrepreneurial identity. Subsequently, through a new text, entrepreneurial identity has been described as a process of narrative self-reference related to temporal and spatial dimensions.

Below, as you indicate, we have explained interpersonal identity in relation to the EEA. In this question, we have detected a mistake, since the correct term is "entrepreneurial identity" and not "interpersonal identity". Anyway, we have introduced a brief description of the Ecological Model and the Fivefold Helix model, as suggested.

Regarding Figure 1, the term mesosystem has been spelled correctly and the figure has been modified incorporating the environmental factor. Thus, we respond to the tester’s approach regarding the incorporation of the environmental factor/resource in our model, being consistent with the Fivefold Helix model. The environmental factor has also been incorporated into the text of the epigraph "Identity as the core of the entrepreneurial education ecosystem".

In relation to the examples of the cognitive, emotional, moral and volitional components, we have introduced Table 1, which describes some of these components, supported by different studies.

Finally, a correction of grammatical errors has been made.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I've read the second version of the paper and the authors' replies and I believe all my issues were directed to. The article now does show an engagement with the literature of philosophy, both in the theoretical as much as the practical level. The practical level is what I'd think to be the most important, because many times Philosophy is accused of being mere musings (especially by ill-informed natural philosophers), but in this new version of the article, it shows how it engages in a conversation, by a synthesis of many different point of views. I believe the authors greatly improved in relation to the earlier version. The only changes that I'd suggest was to reference key concepts in later sections, such as entrepreneurial and entrepreneurial education ecosystems in the introduction.

There are some minor spelling editing. For example, line 323 needs to replace "y" for "and".

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments which improved the paper. We are pleased that the new version has satisfied your inquiries.

In response to your latest suggestions, we have included new text in the Introduction to refer to the key concepts that you mentioned. In the first paragraph, a conceptual clarification linked to the “entrepreneurial education” has been introduced and in the penultimate paragraph a phrase has been added that alludes to the “entrepreneurial education ecosystems”.

Moreover, we have changed “y” for “and” (line 323 of the previous version), as you indicated.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript once more. Although it has improved some aspects still need more work.

Please include the methodology in the abstract.

 

The manuscript would benefit significantly from signposting, guiding the reader a bit more through the text, and developing transitions from one section to the other. 

 

Revise methodology to be more precise and ensure transparency so other scholars could, if they wanted, replicate the study.  Please be more specific: what has been implemented through a process of deduction? What has been implemented through a process of induction? Stating „using different method theories“ is not enough, please ensure to list all theories that informed the map Ensure that all these theories are properly explained in the manuscript and that a reader can follow how each theory informed the map. Please clarify what is meant by „In the framework of explanatory conceptual contributions carried out by MacInnis“. When was the literature review conducted? What were the selection criteria for the literature review? How did you synthesize the theories? How did you eliminate multilevel of the system? How did you conceptualize the map? Which theories are used for the map? How are they utilized in this paper to generate the map?

 

Figure 1: it should be made explicit what has been adopted from the Ecological Human Development and Quintuple Helix models. What has been added/changed? Why? 

Please revise the paper for grammar and spelling errors. Additional rephrasing may be required e.g. p.10. line 505 onwards: „Hayek the entrepreneurship as a factor of innovation“ / Improve incomplete references: Mises insisted on a concept 505 of human action that entails the open framework within which entrepreneurial decisions are made, associated to the idea of the entrepreneur as an actor regarding changes occurring in the environment. This process of focusing on the incentives capable of generating 508 or creating is what Kirzner called “alert process”, characterised by the finding of opportunities especially in situations of uncertainty and imbalance“

Author Response

Thank you very much for your new review, which has been very useful in order to improve our paper.

In relation to the evaluation carried out, each of their contributions has been responded to:

First of all, the methodology has been introduced in the abstract, signposting has been incorporated to facilitate reading and the detected grammatical errors have been corrected. In addition, it has been made explicit that the entrepreneurial identity is the element that has been incorporated as the central nucleus of the entrepreneurial education ecosystem, since our study addresses how the entrepreneurial identity is formed in interaction with the system.

Secondly, the description of the methodology has been thoroughly revised. Thus, the application of the induction and deduction processes within the investigation has been explained. In relation to the theories proposed, all of them are found explicitly in the article under the following headings: “Emergence of identity in today’s fields of entrepreneurial education”, “Entrepreneurial education from a systemic perspective” and in “Identity as the core of the entrepreneurial education ecosystem”. Furthermore, the meaning of “In the framework of explanatory conceptual contributions carried out by MacInnis” has been clarified.

Thirdly, the methodological issues you have raised have been addressed: a) specifying the dates of the research process and the selection criteria of the bibliography studied; b) explaining which theories have been used for the design of the model, as well as the process of synthesizing them and their use in the conceptualization of the map and c) regarding the question “How did you eliminate multilevel of the system?” We understand that, in fact, the multilevel of the system has not been eliminated, but different levels have been proposed depending on the systemic models studied.

Finally, the paper has been grammatically and orthographically revised. Based on your observations, we have modified the text between “Hayek” and “imbalance”, for its better comprehension.