This is a repository copy of An introduction to entrepreneurship as practice (EAP).

White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/173589/

Version: Accepted Version

Article:
Teague, B, Tunstall, R orcid.org/0000-0001-7645-0276, Champenois, C et al. (1 more
author) (2021) An introduction to entrepreneurship as practice (EAP). International Journal
of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 27 (3). pp. 569-578. ISSN 1355-2554

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2021-872

© Emerald Publishing Limited. This is an author produced version of an article published in

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research. Uploaded in accordance
with the publisher's self-archiving policy.

Reuse
Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless
indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by
national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of
the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record
for the item.

Takedown
If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by
emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.

[email protected]
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/
 An Introduction to Entrepreneurship as Practice (EAP)

Bruce Teague, Eastern Washington University

Richard Tunstall, University of Leeds

Claire Champenois, Audencia Business School

William B. Gartner, Babson College and Linnaeus University

Introduction

This special issue focuses on a core tenet of IJEBR to “advance the study of human and

behavioural dimensions of entrepreneurship” by furthering an “entrepreneurship as practice

perspective” (EAP) that showcases fieldwork that explores specific entrepreneurial

practices in specific settings. As championed by Steyaert (2007), Johannisson (2011) and

Watson (2013), the entrepreneurship-as-practice perspective is gaining traction, witnessed

by such contributions as De Clercq & Voronov (2009), Terjesen & Elam (2009); Goss et al.

(2011), Keating et al. (2013), and the recent special issue of Entrepreneurship and Regional

Development (Thompson, et al., 2020) that was devoted to entrepreneurship as practice

scholarship.

All of the articles in this special issue began as working papers presented at the Third

Annual Entrepreneurship as Practice Conference held at Linnaeus University, April 16-18,

2018. This conference continues to serve (in 2021 the conference will be in its sixth year) as an

important catalyst for developing scholarship in the entrepreneurship as practice area, and many

researchers interested in pursuing this topic would benefit from an association with this

community – (https://www.entrepreneurshipaspractice.com/).
 Before describing the articles that appear in this issue, we begin by examining the

entrepreneurship as practice perspective. We start by looking at the notion of practice that is

central to all work in this field. After highlighting both the breadth and the commonality for

those who work from this perspective, we consider the unique contributions a practice

perspective brings to the broader conversations taking place in the field of entrepreneurship. We

then suggest opportunities for important contributions as the field continues to grow.

What is a Practice?

Within the entrepreneurship literature, scholars use the term “practice” in three very

different ways. Most frequently, “practice” invokes social ontologies and studies grounded in

social practice theory literatures (e.g., Dodd, 2014; Johannisson, 2011; Teague et al., 2019).

However, “practice” is occasionally used in reference to a category of activity such as a legal

practice, medical practice, or marketing practice (e.g., Coviello, Brodie, and Munro, 2000).

Finally, “practice” can refer to the verb, that is, the act of practicing, as in deliberate practice and

the development of expertise (e.g., Mueller et al., 2013). This latter use of the term draws upon

the body of research developed by Anders Ericsson and his colleagues (Anders Ericsson, 2008;

Ericsson, 2009; Ericsson et al., 1993). Most commonly, “practice” invokes social ontologies and

studies grounded in social practice theory literatures, which consider practice as the fundamental

unit of analysis when studying entrepreneurial phenomena (e.g., Dodd, 2014; Johannisson, 2011;

Teague et al., 2019).

 Entrepreneurship as Practice (EAP) refers exclusively to the first of these three usages.

EAP scholars embrace a larger “practice turn” occurring across the social sciences (Gartner et

al., 2016). While the term ‘practice theory’ appears to date back to Ortner (1984) (Hui et al.,

2017, p. 1), the study of practices refers to an intellectual tradition emerging from the

philosophical foundations of Wittgenstein (1953) and Heidegger (1996), and developed mainly

through the work of Bourdieu (1977, 1990), Giddens (1979, 1991), and Lave and Wenger (2019;

1991). Collectively, these scholars are often recognized as the first generation of practice

theorists (Hui et al., 2017, p. 1). The foundation established by this first group has been

elaborated and refined by a second generation, which includes Schatzki (1996, 2002, 2012),

Reckwitz (2002), Gherardi (2000), and (Shove et al., 2012).

A natural outcome of this development is that practice theory, or social practice theory, is

not a singular theory, but a group of theories that share ontological assumptions. Differences

between theories derive from what is foregrounded (Champenois, Lefebvre & Renteau, 2020).

For Bourdieu, emphasis was placed on habitus, capital, and field (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990). Lave

and Wenger place more emphasis on the transmission of practice via their concepts of the

legitimately peripheral participants, and their exploration of overlapping communities of practice

(Lave & Wenger, 1991). Schatzki has perhaps been the most systematic with regard to

elaborating and theoretically relating the elements of practice (e.g., Schatzki, 1997, 2002, 2010).

For Schatzki, social practice theory is a means of understanding how social life plays out (Hui et

al., 2017, p. 126). He has used the concept of teleological hierarchies to organize a system of

hierarchically nested units of practice. Through his work, a coherent and complete explanation of

practice becomes more tractable (Schatzki, 2012).

 What practice theories share in common is a primary focus on understanding the practice

at hand. A practice is distinct from both the individual and the behavior as units of inquiry. A

practice is a ‘type’ of behaving and understanding that appears at different locales and at

different points of time and is carried out by different body/minds. While both individuals and

behaviors can be observed within the practice, it is the practice, itself, that is of primary interest

to the practice theorist. Practice theorists eschew individualistic explanations of phenomena in

favor of more holistic explanations in which the practice establishes the boundaries of the

research space. The preeminence of the practice requires that this focal term be defined. The

term ‘practice’, or ‘social practice’ (used synonymously in this instance) have been defined

repeatedly by scholars grappling this topic (See Table 1). While varying in their specifics,

certain points of consensus stand out.

• Practices are repeated patterns of routinized behavior—to the point that the

similarities in performance allow for the recognition of a common practice.

• Practices are reproduced across different times and spaces

• Practices involve both doing and saying

• Practices are social—they involve the social interaction of individuals.

• Practices are shaped by culture or field and shape them in turn.

• Practices involve both bodily and mental activity

• Practices are processual in nature.

• Material objects, or the non-human, affect the production of practices

Put Table One About Here

 Both the definitions in Table 1, and the commonalities identified above, have

implications for the study of EAP. As noted, practices are repeated patterns of routinized

behavior. They are social and involve “sayings and doings” (Schatzki, 2016). Practices are

typically reproduced in particular settings by different practitioners at different times. Finally,

the sociomaterial aspects of the practice environment will shape the performance of the practice

by reinforcing some behaviors while suppressing others. The result is a complex social pattern

of behavior that will involve practiced sayings and doings, spontaneous adaptation of the practice

to environmental changes, and the exercise of knowledge that is both recognized and tacit. The

involvement of multiple individual practitioners means that a single practitioner may not be

capable of accurately describing the practice, and in some cases may not be able to fully describe

their own contribution to the practice. In spite of this, practices are observable, and are

understandable by the reasonably knowledgeable observer who has experience observing the

practice (Reckwitz, 2002).

For example, entrepreneurs who create scalable technology-based companies often pitch

to angel investor networks as they transition from proof-of-concept to early traction and growth.

A typical angel investor organization will meet on a monthly basis for several months of the

year. While behavioral scholars might be tempted to focus solely on the pitch of the

entrepreneur for funding and support at an angel investor meeting, practice-oriented scholars will

attend to the entire practice. Thus, they will be aware of the role played by the president of the

angel organization in attracting investable companies, and in acting as a gatekeeper to those

seeking to raise capital. They will be aware of the sociomaterial arrangement of the space and

how this influences the performance of the practice they are witnessing. They will notice the

broad composition of participants in the audience, including not just potential investors, but local
bankers, lawyers, educators, and others. They will also recognize both commonalities and

differences between various examples of the practice. New empirical observations and

theoretical insights therefore emerge through this in-depth observational experience with the

practice. These novel insights highlighted by practice-oriented scholars have the potential to

complement and extend empirical knowledge while identifying new opportunities for theoretical

development.

The practice lens—a term often applied when utilizing the group of practice theories—

focuses attention on aspects of practice that may not have received attention in research

developed using the deductive model. It shares ontological origins with the anthropological

method, in which theory emerges from the growing body of empirical evidence. Practice

theories do this by foreshadowing different aspects of the field site as the trained observer either

observes or participates in the practice. In order to accomplish this, researchers must spend time

attuning themselves to the nuances of the practice and must observe the practice being executed

by multiple practitioners in the relevant roles. For this reason, empirical practice theory research

has traditionally involved qualitative participant observation methods that allow the researcher to

develop an intimate familiarity with the site of the practice and with the practitioners.

Why should scholars embrace the ‘practice turn’?

Thus far, we have described what we mean by the term “practice theory,” and by

extension, the study of entrepreneurship as practice. However, this is insufficient to justify the

growing application of practice theory to empirical study, or the creation of special issues, such

as this one, in which the application of this lens is highlighted as a means of moving the field of

entrepreneurship forward. What differentiates practice theory approaches from others in a

manner that expands the scholarly conversation and adds to our collective knowledge about

entrepreneurship?

Practice theories foreground the importance of activity, performance, and work in the

creation and perpetuation of all aspects of social life (Nicolini, 2012, p. 3). This focus on

practice places emphasis on routine bodily activities and the arrangement and interplay of

material arrangements (Reckwitz, 2002). Human practitioners are conceived as carriers of

practices, and practice theories leave room for initiative, creativity, and individuality in

performance of the practice (Nicolini, 2012, p. 4). Nicolini goes on to argue that within the

practice perspective, knowledge is conceived as a form of mastery that is expressed in the

capacity to carry out a particular form of social and material activity (pg. 4).

The modern practice turn draws attention to a new set of issues, while also allowing

traditional issues to be seen in a new light (Ortner, 1984). Three key areas in which this occurs

were identified. First, there is heightened awareness of the relationship(s) between human action

and different phenomenon called the system. This relationship is recursive, emergent, and

negotiated. It places emphasis on the role of the practitioner in shaping the practice at the same

time as the practice shapes the activity of the practitioner. This explains the second difference

noted by Ortner: practice theories place emphasis on what people really do. In other words, the

focus is on understanding the conditions under which human practices are carried out. Since the

performance of practice often involves considerable execution of tacit knowledge, a full

understanding of the practice will only be achieved by being present, as an observer of, or

participant in, the practice. Third, practice theory directs the researcher to attend to the role of

the practitioner, and the often overlooked material arrangements that support and constrain the
production and reproduction of practices. One byproduct of theories is that they shape what

researchers observe by influencing what they expect to find.

Reckwitz (2002) summarizes the primary contribution of practice theory when he states

that practice theories guide researchers to see that which has not been seen. Teague, et. al (2019)

provide an entrepreneurial exemplar of this in their study of entrepreneurs pitching for angel

investment. Prior research had generally assumed that the pitch was transactional, and therefore

assumed the practice to be singular in nature. This resulted in an exclusive focus on pitches as a

means of securing investment dollars. Teague and his colleagues, employing practice theory,

observed and documented four different types of pitches, each serving a different relational

purpose within the practice site.

Similarly, De Clercq and Voronov (2009b) adopted Bourdieu’s approach to challenge

existing assumptions that legitimacy gaining and innovating function as separate practices. They

demonstrate that entrepreneurship face constraints that require jointly satisfying normative

expectations from their field, but also that they innovate and disrupt some elements of their field.

As a result, it is their ability to address these contradictory demands that create legitimacy for

their venture.

Important research opportunities

For scholars seeking to make important research contributions, entrepreneurship as

practice offers numerous opportunities to advance knowledge in the field of entrepreneurship, as

well as to advance the practice theory literature. This is due to the nature of entrepreneurship

research sites. Entrepreneurial ecosystems connect numerous related practices within one broad

nexus of practices. In this section, we discuss one of the most promising topics of study for EAP
scholars: opportunities related to the study of variation within a given practice space, as well as

between different locations and times in which the same practice is performed.

Hui (2017) identifies variation as an important and underdeveloped area within social

practice theory. There is a great need to better understand the variation that occurs from

performance to performance of a practice within a common practice space. Entrepreneurship

offers numerous study sites in which such variation can be observed and studied across a variety

of participants and times. For example, a study of an angel investment organization facilitates

observation and analysis of the practice of pitching under conditions in which the participants

will naturally change with each performance. Similar opportunities to study variation in practice

might be found in studying incubators, accelerators, seed capital funds, governmental agencies

such as the USA Small Business Administration, and practices of local chambers of commerce

as they relate to supporting new business development. Such studies not only advance our

knowledge of these practices within the field of entrepreneurship, but offer the opportunity to

offer both empirical and theoretical contributions simultaneously.

A different question related to variation involves the understanding of how the variation

between practices relates to their interconnectedness and interdependence (Hui 2017).

Geographically proximal entrepreneurial ecosystems often share numerous ties through shared

participation and common membership. For example, it is not uncommon for investment

organizations (VC or Angel) to communicate frequently about up and coming businesses within

the region. Similarly, government funding offices within the same region will interact

frequently, share common leadership, and yet act independently within their territories.

Entrepreneurship offers many such opportunities to study variation in practice between locations.
The interconnecting relationships between the practice sites allow for the researcher to explore

the questions of interdependence and interconnectedness, as encouraged by Hui (2017).

Within practice theory, stability and variation are related concepts. For practices to be

intelligible to practitioners, there must be a significant degree of stability to the form, structure,

material elements, and performance of the practice (Hui, 2017). This leads to other important

questions. For instance, how are elements of stability reinforced to overcome natural variation in

performance? Similarly, how much stability is required for a practice to be recognizable to

participants? This might lead us to ask what patterns do we see in the emergence of new

practices? It seems probable that punctuated equilibria will be observed as new practices

emerge. Finally, Hui (2017) argues that we need to learn much more about how tolerable

variations of the practice are made meaningful to participants. We suggest the following

questions that would stem from pursuing issues related to variation in entrepreneurship as

practice:

1. How does variation in the performance of a practice influence the cognitive categorizing

of someone as an insider or an outsider to the practice? How do behaviors change

towards the individual based on this categorization? How are new inductees to the

practice socialized?

2. How do different degrees of involvement with the practice by different individuals affect

the performance of the practice? For example, (Hui, 2017: 56) uses the example of

people involved in bird watching to describe differences in their practices based on their

involvement in the practice of bird watching (e.g., membership in bird watching clubs

and organizations).
 3. How do practices differ (across related practices, and across performances within a given

practice) in terms of the degree of standardization expected in the practice?

4. What determines where high degrees of variation in performance of a practice are

acceptable, versus where high degrees of standardization are required?

5. How do intersections between practices reveal and relate to variations between the

practices? (Hui, 2017: 58)

Besides the implications of variation to the study of entrepreneurial practices, we suggest

that scholars might also focus on elucidating the role of the individual within practices, study the

material arrangements as they influence practices, and consider the potential for practice scholars

to contribute to exploring significant societal and global phenomena.

Articles in the Special Issue

The call for papers generated 30 submissions, and, after two rounds of revisions, five

manuscripts were selected for publication in this special issue. These five articles demonstrate

many of the issues identified in the previous section on variation, as well as showcasing the

breadth of: theoretical touchpoints in entrepreneurship as practice, methods that can be used in

entrepreneurship as practice, settings where entrepreneurship as practice occurs, and, insights

that entrepreneurship as practice research offers to theories of organizing and insights into the

specific practices of entrepreneurship. This variety in theory, methods, sites, and practices, is one

of the strengths of the entrepreneurship as practice area, and, we encourage future contributions

that emulate this diversity.

In Thompson and Illes’ (in this issue) “Entrepreneurial learning as practice: A

videoethnographic analysis,” the authors attend a two-day “Startup-Weekend” for refugees to

observe, document and explore the practices of learning entrepreneurship. By videotaping many

of the activities involved among the participants (instructors, students and other individuals, such

as coordinators of the program), as well as through participation (direct observation) in the

program, and observational and reflexive note taking, the authors describe how entrepreneurial

learning occurs through engagement in specific practices, and, that these specific practices are

interrelated as a nexus of entrepreneurial practices that are translated through group activities and

discussions (doing and sayings). Besides the many implications and insights for the

entrepreneurship as practice area, we notice that this article addresses many of the concerns

regarding the need for rigor in the use of observational methods for studying entrepreneurial

behavior suggested in Bird, Schjoedt & Baum (2012).

In Kimmitt & Dimov (in this issue) “The recursive interplay of capabilities and

constraints,” the authors identify two distinct pathways of recursive entrepreneurial practices of

entrepreneurs engaged in micro-finance activities in Ghana. Based on four years of observation

of ten entrepreneurs and interviews with loan officers and others, the authors offer a process

model of capability development of understandings, logics and engagements through divergent

venturing that is appending, capitalizing and value-based, or convergent venturing that is

preserving, amplifying and venture-focused. These second order constructs in the recursive

process model are based on detailed observations of the practices of these entrepreneurs, over

time, and the article provides ample evidence of the specifics of these categories of practices in

these specific situations. The authors demonstrate how practices emerge into capabilities

through the intentions of these entrepreneurs as they engage in situations that are both constraints

on prospective activities as well as challenges to develop new actions in response to these

constraints.
 In Reid (in this issue) “The generative principles of lifestyle enterprising: dialectic

entanglements of capital-habitus-field,” an elegant presentation and use of the social theory of

Pierre Bourdieu is provided through the study of the practices of six enterprisers involved in

“lifestyle” businesses. While the study recognizes Bourdieu’s views regarding field, capital and

habitus, the focus is primarily on the various forms of capital (e.g., economic, social, cultural,

and symbolic) that form the basis of the habitus that these enterprisers employ throughout the

gestation and operation of their businesses. Based on evidence from ethnographic observations

and interviews, the study develops a framework of eight types of practices that these

entrepreneurs engaged in: (1) using work/life skills; (2) displaying work/life histories; (3)

acquiring skills; (4) displaying skills; (5) renovating-building; (6) acquiring tools-of-the-trade;

(7) displaying tools-of-the-trade and. (8) working with family and friends. The study points out

that a critical aspect of “lifestyle” entrepreneuring involves recognizing that cultural capital

employed by these individuals is a way to develop social capital in their enterprises.

In Campbell (in this issue) “Entrepreneurial uncertainty in context: An

ethnomethodological perspective,” the nature of uncertainty is explored through the use of the

ethnomethodological tradition of Conversation Analysis to the interactions among venture team

members. The verbal exchanges of members of two-person teams involved in a six-week

venture development program were analyzed to show the ways that uncertainty is acknowledged

in regards to what is known, who knows what (both within the team and by others), and, the

recognition of “not knowing” as an inherent condition of the process of entrepreneurship. The

article provides both a method (Conversation Analysis) and the offer to delve into the micro-

activities of conversations to generate a richer understanding of the doing of sayings in

entrepreneurship as practice.
 In Hydle & Billington (in this issue) “Entrepreneurial practices of collaboration

comprising constellations,” the authors study 42 innovation projects among 32 firms that

involved collaboration among various complementary partners. Through an attention to the

specific practices of collaboration employed by individuals in these firms, over time, the study

explored the modes, purposes and outcomes of these collaborations that resulted in the

identification of different constellations of collaborative efforts. Constellations, are therefore,

bundles of interrelated practices and material arrangements. Based on oral histories, interviews,

and other data collection efforts, the authors generated a framework of three types of

collaborative constellations from the practice data: reciprocal (distributed tasks are common

activities, purposes and ends are coordinated, and rules involve common material arrangements),

alliance (distributed tasks are shared activities, with a commonly developed purpose and ends

and rules involve shared practices and infrastructure) and confederacy (distributed tasks are

orchestrated, with a shared purpose and ends, and a common and practical understanding of the

rules). The reciprocal constellation enhances interdependent innovation, while the alliance

constellation incorporates innovation, and the alliance constellation supports independent

innovation. The article offers insights, then, not only into identifying three broad ways that

collaboration occurs, but, also, identifies specific practices that are undertaken when these

constellations of collaboration are pursued.

Taken together, the contributions in this special issue provide evidence of how an EAP

perspective can enrich entrepreneurship theory and our understanding of entrepreneurial

phenomena. They reveal that becoming an entrepreneur pertains to learning idiosyncratic

capabilities. They also revisit and rejuvenate key concepts in entrepreneurship theory, namely
uncertainty and innovation. At the same time, they illustrate how these are approached,

produced, and maintained by entrepreneurs in situ.

Conclusion

We hope that the articles in this Special Issue provide the reader with a realization that

the entrepreneurship-as-practice perspective is a fertile area of study, open to a variety of

theoretical perspectives, across a broad range of methods and sites for studying entrepreneurial

practices pursued by a diverse and dynamic scholarly community. The tent is large and

welcoming for scholars who are interested in the “doings and sayings” of entrepreneurs and

others involved in the entrepreneurial world. Yet, at the foundation of all EAP studies is a

recognition of the importance of field work for the collection of data on entrepreneurial

practices. Getting close to entrepreneurs is fundamental to the practice of entrepreneurship as

practice. As such, we believe an important benefit of such closeness is that important insights

will result from this quality of involvement between scholars and entrepreneurs. We suggest that

the practice of EAP fulfills many of the goals of Dimov, Schaefer & Pistrui’s (2020) call for a

second-person stance in entrepreneurship scholarship that better integrates scholarly rigor with

practical relevance regarding entrepreneurial problems and concerns that face those practicing

entrepreneurship in the entrepreneurial world.

It should not go un-noted that there are many paths that head in the same direction in

entrepreneurship research as practice-based scholarship (Gartner & Teague, 2020). While EAP

focuses on the practices of entrepreneurship, all entrepreneurial practices invariably involve

entrepreneurs, so that research and insights from entrepreneurial behavior scholarship, as well as

entrepreneurial process scholarship (both of which focus, in some form, on the “doings and
sayings” of entrepreneurs) should provide a fuller and more detailed picture of the nature of

entrepreneurial action. Finally, as Campbell (in this issue) points out in her article, the study of

entrepreneurial practices will likely provide insights into the characteristics of entrepreneurial

expertise. As we know more about what entrepreneurs “do and say” in specific situations, the

more likely we are to develop insights into whether and how these practices might lead to better

ways to engage in entrepreneurial action that may generate more beneficial futures for everyone

(McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Teague & Gartner, 2020).

References

Anders Ericsson, K. (2008). Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: a general

overview. Academic Emergency Medicine, 15(11), 988-994.

Bird, B., Schjoedt, L., & Baum, J. R. (2012). Editor's introduction. Entrepreneurs’ behavior:

Elucidation and measurement. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 36(5), 889-913.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice (Vol. 16): Cambridge university press.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice: Stanford University Press.

Campbell, B. (in this issue). Entrepreneurial uncertainty in context: an ethnomethodological

perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research. DOI

10.1108/IJEBR-10-2018-0627.

Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity : rethinking critical

discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

De Clercq, D., & Voronov, M. (2009). Toward a practice perspective of entrepreneurship

entrepreneurial legitimacy as habitus. International Small Business Journal, 27(4), 395-

419.
Dimov, D., Schaefer, R., & Pistrui, J. (2020). Look Who Is Talking… and Who Is Listening:

Finding an Integrative “We” Voice in Entrepreneurial Scholarship. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, DOI: 1042258720914507.

Dodd, S. L. D. (2014). Roots radical–place, power and practice in punk entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 26(1-2), 165-205.

Ericsson, K. A. (2009). Development of professional expertise: Toward measurement of expert

performance and design of optimal learning environments: Cambridge University Press.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the

acquisition of expert performance. Psychological review, 100(3), 363.

Gartner, W. B., Stam, E., Thompson, N., & Verduyn, K. (2016). Entrepreneurship as practice:

grounding contemporary practice theory into entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship

and regional development, 28, 9-10.

Gartner, W. B., & Teague, B. T. (Eds.). (2020). Research Handbook on Entrepreneurial

Behavior, Practice and Process. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Gee, J. P. (2010). An introduction to discourse analysis : theory and method (3rd ed. ed.).

London: Routledge.

Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organizations. In:

Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in

social analysis (Vol. 241): Univ of California Press.

Giddens, A. (1991). Structuration theory. Past, Present and Future. In: Bryant, C. and Jary,

D.(eds.). Giddens’ Theory of Structuration. A Critical Appreciation. London: Routledge.

Goss, D., Jones, R., Latham, J., & Betta, M. (2011). Power as practice: A microsociological
 analysis of the dynamics of emancipatory entrepreneurship. Organization Studies,

32(2), 211–229.

Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and time: A translation of Sein und Zeit: SUNY press.

Hui, A., Schatzki, T. R., & Shove, E. (2017). The nexus of practices : connections,

constellations, practitioners (1 Edition. ed.). London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor &

Francis Group.

Hydle, K. M. & Billington, M. G. (in this issue) Entrepreneurial practices of collaboration

comprising constellations. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and

Research. DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-10-2018-0646

Johannisson, B. (2011). Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small Business

Economics, 36(2), 135-150.

Keating, A., Geiger, S. & McLoughlin, D. (2014). Riding the practice waves: Social resourcing

practices during new venture development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 38

(5), 1207-1235.

Kimmitt, J. & Dimov, D. (in this issue) The recursive interplay of capabilities and constraints

amongst microfinance entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior

and Research. DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-10-2018-0642

Lave, J. (2019). Learning and everyday life : access, participation and changing practice.

Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning : legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in

the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management review, 31(1), 132-152.

Mueller, S., Chambers, L., & Neck, H. (2013). The distinctive skills of social entrepreneurs.

Journal of Enterprising Culture, 21(03), 301-334.

Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford, UK:

Oxford university press.

Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist

theorizing. European journal of social theory, 5(2), 243-263.

Reid, S. R. M. (in this issue) The generative principles of lifestyle enterprising: dialectic

entanglements of capital-habitus-field. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior

and Research. DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-10-2018-0688.

Schatzki, T. R. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the

social: Cambridge University Press.

Schatzki, T. R. (1997). Practices and actions a Wittgensteinian critique of Bourdieu and Giddens.

Philosophy of the social sciences, 27(3), 283-308.

Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of

social life and change. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.

Schatzki, T. R. (2010). The timespace of human activity: On performance, society, and history as

indeterminate teleological events: Lexington Books.

Schatzki, T. R. (2012). A primer on practices. In J. Higgs, R. Barnett, S. Billet, M. Hutchings, &

F. Trede (Eds.), Practice-based education: Perspectives and strategies (pp. 13-26).

Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Schatzki, T. R. (2016). Sayings, texts and discursive formations. In The Nexus of Practices (pp.

138-152). Routledge.

Scollon, R. (2001). Mediated discourse : the nexus of practice. London: Routledge.

Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and

how it changes: Sage.

Steyaert, C. (2007). ‘Entrepreneuring’ as a conceptual attractor? A review of process

theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship and Regional

Development, 19(6), 453-477.

Teague, B. T., & Gartner, W. B. (2020). Expert skills: implications for studying the behavior of

entrepreneurs. In Gartner, W. B. & Teague, B. T. (Eds.). Research Handbook on

Entrepreneurial Behavior, Practice and Process. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 12-29.

Teague, B., Gorton, M. D., & Liu, Y. (2019). Different pitches for different stages of

entrepreneurial development: the practice of pitching to business angels.

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 1-19. doi:10.1080/08985626.2019.1641977

Terjesen, S. and Elam, A. (2009), Transnational entrepreneurs' venture internationalization

strategies: A practice theory approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 33, 1093–

1120.

Thompson, N. W. & Illes, E. (in this issue). Entrepreneurial learning as practice: A

videoethnographic analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and

Research. DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-10-2018-0663

Thompson, N. A., Verduijn, K. & Gartner, W. B. (2020). Entrepreneurship-as-practice:

Grounding contemporary theories of practice into entrepreneurship studies.

Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. 32 (3-4): 247-256.

Watson, Tony J. (2013). Entrepreneurship in Action: Bringing Together the Individual,

Organizational and Institutional Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Action.

Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. 25 (5–6): 1–19.

doi:10.1080/08985626.2012.754645.
Table 1: Definitions of Practice

Source Definition of Practice

(Bourdieu, 1977) Bourdieu defines practice per the following formula: (Habitus x
Capital) + Field = Practice
Giddens (1976) Practice is an ongoing series of practical activities. Regular
activities bring together people into social systems, which are
reproduced over time through continued interaction.
(Schatzki, 2012) A practice is an open-ended, spatially-temporally dispersed nexus
of doings and sayings.
(Reckwitz, 2002) A ‘practice’ is a routinized type of behavior which consists of
several elements, interconnected to one another: forms of bodily
activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things’ and their use, a
background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how,
states of emotion and motivational knowledge.
(Nicolini, 2012) Practice is the real-time doing and saying something in a specific
place and time.
(Gee, 2010) A practice is a social recognized and institutionally or culturally
supported endeavor that usually involves sequencing or
combining actions in certain specific ways.
(Scollon, 2001) A practice is a repeated action: the practice of x exists when the
actions of x-ing have been sufficiently repeated as to be
recognizable as x-ings.
(Chouliaraki & Practices are entities that combine four elements: material
Fairclough, 1999) activity; discourse; social relations and processes; and mental
phenomena.
(Schmidt, 2017) Practices are processing activities that are conveyed, situated,
materially embedded, distributed and interconnected through
cultural knowledge and skilled bodily movements.
(Shove et al., 2012) Practices involve the active integration of material, competence,
and meaning by practitioners.