BECOMING AN ENTREPRENEUR: ENTREPRENEURIAL IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION OF AFGHANS IN PESHAWAR
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND BUSINESS
Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Entrepreneur Economic Business" essay for youCreate order
Wealth creation and economic growth has been one major factor which distinguish the developed countries from the third world countries and entrepreneurship is one of the main reasons, responsible for of the current progress of nations (Baumol, Litan et al. 2007). The identification of ‘entrepreneurship’ as a differential factor raises numerous challenges. One of those is to replicate the economic success in nations which lag behind, the developing countries and the third world countries. However it is of importance to answer some basic questions about entrepreneurship, what are its causes? What are its effects? And its different understandings and meanings specially when applied to wide arrays of contexts.
In the seminal literature there exists an inherent divergence. Richard Cantillon’s (who used the term entrepreneurship for the first time) defined an entrepreneur are “wholesalers in Wool and Corn, Bakers, Butchers, Manufacturers and Merchants of all kinds who buy country product to work them up and resell them gradually as the inhabitants require them”. This description essentially included ‘replicative’ entrepreneurs who set up a business for livelihood purposes. This type of entrepreneurship can be found in abundance in capitalist economies however in terms of impact on economic growth ‘innovative entrepreneurship’ is of higher significance. Schumpeterian entrepreneur is one of its kinds among thousands, a hero, motivated by higher order goals than mere profit earning, fights against the odds, battles risks and achieves success.
One implication of a celebrated figure of hero entrepreneur is that there is an elite group of higher order ‘homo-sapiens’ who are considered the driver of economies and whose vision will be followed by ‘lower order humans’. Those working for ‘real entrepreneurs’ will be working either as ‘cogs in a machine’ or entrepreneurially in some respects, depending on the type of organization and the economy they are in. While the few ‘real entrepreneurs’ enjoy the fruits of their success and find infinite reasons for their success the rest have to be content with what they are allowed to take. The speed and trajectory of progress of ‘the rest’ differs, e.g. someone working for Donald Trump or Bill Gates can earn a fortune and easily spun out their own organization. While a lady working on handicrafts in far flung mountains of Afghanistan may never get to know the real value of the art her fingers create. Surely not even in terms of monetary rewards leave alone the artistic and aesthetics appreciation of it.
Entrepreneurship is a multidimensional concept. For entrepreneurial venture to materialize many factors must get aligned at a critical junctures. Because of the ‘hero entrepreneur’ model considers the ‘successful innovative entrepreneurs’ it might ignore all those potentially innovative entrepreneurial ventures which could not materialize. In other words ‘innovative entrepreneurship’ will be appreciated if it goes the distance. This essentially believes that humans will either be entrepreneurial or not. However Hornaday (1992) proposes that entrepreneurship rather lies on a continuum along three dimensions of organization creation, economic Innovation and profit-seeking in the market. This approach relies on the fact that entrepreneurship can only be rated (like rating points in gymnastics) and not measured (like clocking the exact time in 100 meter race) along three dimensions. This view is more humanistic, as the difference between an innovative entrepreneur and a mere factory worker is not that the former was born with abilities (and led a track) which implies 1 while the later was a zero.
If all human beings are entrepreneurial to some level, that is that they essentially form unique combinations to create or add value, then entrepreneurship lies at the heart of human spirit. However it is necessary to see why it expresses itself in differently under different conditions. The question of where to find an entrepreneur is elaborated by Baumol, (1990) giving examples from history, suggests that variation can be found among societies in terms of both the total supply of entrepreneurs as well as their allocation between productive activities such as innovation and unproductive ones such as rent seeking and organized crime. This allocation is influenced by the relative payoffs society offers to such activities. It follows that numerous reasons pertaining to context actually allocate the entrepreneur to different sectors and thus there is no reason to eliminate any sector from entrepreneurship.
For the developing countries and the third world, entrepreneurship is more significant than only economic development “Replicative entrepreneurship is important in most economies because it represents a route out of poverty a mean by which people with little capital, education or experience can earn a living”. ((Baumol, Litan et al. 2007, page 3). However it does not qualify everyone as an entrepreneur. There must be some scale on which one can segregate entrepreneurialism.
Gartner’s (1990) reports distinct perceptions of entrepreneurship as ‘focus on characteristics’ and ‘focus on outcomes’ of entrepreneurship. Resource acquisition and integration under the head of new venture creation and organization creation emerged as the most agreed upon parameters for assessment of being entrepreneurial. This means that perceptually organizational creation will be creation of new organization will be one of the foremost requirement for people to start considering as entrepreneurship to be taking place.
This research investigates entrepreneurial identity as it perpetuates the entrepreneurial process. The study takes a dynamic view of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial identity is seen as becoming rather than static phenomenon.
In Pakistan, cultural orientations discourages independent thinking which is a significant impediment to research, this results into low level scientific knowledge. The hierarchal system at every level of society means that elders can ‘never be wrong’ and children are ‘not expected to speak’ unless asked to (Jafarey, 2005). Though efforts have been made to stimulate research activities, the solution is still elusive. Social Sciences have emerged as the weakest, Altaf (2006,s.1) expresses his views:
Research is mostly funded, demanded by foreign donor agencies and has no internal demand and thus never translates, locally, into actions. Pakistani culture predominantly oral, the response to written word is lukewarm and the world view deriving form this kind of wisdom is renewed very slowly. Researchers must direct existing and future knowledge and research to permeate popular wisdom and help it update much quicker. The situation is unique to us and cannot be achieved by only as setting up research and policy institutions and publishing journals.
This has now led to the stagnation of continuous process of making sense and understanding. Educational institutes and faculty should be the mainstay of research, have failed to produce the desired results in Pakistan and they have not produced significant contributions (Inayatullah, 2005). A considerable increase in disciplines and number of teachers in social sciences has still resulted in low to average research output. Economics and business administration also suffer from the lack of local research and knowledge. A deeper analysis reveals that education is perceived as a direct means to employment. In the absence of well defined, overarching strategies in pursuance of clear goals corresponding to long term vision has resulted in mushroom growth of institutions following a convoluted meaning of ‘education and research’. Whatever local indigenous, research activity is produced in these circumstances is neatly summarized by “We might have gone beyond the point of diminishing returns and we are researching in the state of habitual mindlessness” (Altaf,1, 2006).
Research in Pakistan has been largely initiated and funded due to foreign (donor bodies and funding agencies) interest (as mentioned already). This type of research, though beneficial, cannot drive the research towards the knowledge and understanding which can direct action. Thus there has been little effort to understand the local scenario. Particularly, there are very few mentionable publications on entrepreneurship and SMEs. Predominantly highlighting problems has been much more prevalent rather than exploring success stories. This study takes different and deeper view that explores success stories which are deeply ingrained with social and cultural factors.
This research aims to make sense of the business successes achieved by Afghan Entrepreneurs in unfavourable business conditions. This research aims to answers the question of how this group of people construct their success as entrepreneurs. Peshawar, not the best city in Pakistan for business, where the local population grapples for any business opportunities and jobs are hard to find, Afghans appear to be highly entrepreneurial and successful entrepreneurs (Inayatullah, 2005). This study takes departure from a position where this phenomenon has been considered as a refugees’ practice of livelihood.
The conventional idea of Business functions such as Finances, Marketing and Human Resource though highly relevant with self-employment their contribution is secondary to the entrepreneurial success in this case. The Success of Afghan Entrepreneurship is about a group of people with ancient culture and strong traditions faced with odd circumstances. The interpretation is that Self-employment and creation of sustainable business ventures translates into a strong entrepreneurial identity which leads to successful entrepreneurial activities.
As a knowledge quest his study, firstly, will contribute to opening up new avenues of research in entrepreneurship. Understanding of entrepreneurship can be enhanced through contextualization (Morrison, 2006). Secondly, exploration of research consistent with local interests and more inline with local wisdom can be helpful in improving local business opportunities. My personal conclusion, based on me living for the last 15 years among Afghans in Peshawar, is that socio-cultural factors are the key factors in forming their entrepreneurial identity. Thirdly an Afghans are open to talking about their culture and their relationships which affect their business; this is compatible with an in depth research.
My experience with Afghans come from living together with them or 15 years as well as carrying out business transaction as I work for family business, “Junaid Paper Mart”, a printing and packing paper and board business , headed by my father. I have observed the rapid rise on many Afghans; they take part in diverse range of businesses. So much so that Afghans are found in every kind of business and it will be next to impossible to find a business without any Afghan Entrepreneur.
1.3 Expected Contributions
This study researches a group among Afghans who are involved in entrepreneurial business activities; it opens up new areas for future research e.g. comparative studies with other groups. This study actually tries to find the roots of entrepreneurial identity as a social process in a refugee/immigrant context. In particular, the proposed study will have the following implications.
i) This study is beneficial for wide range of audience (e.g. Governments, United Nations, humanitarian non Governmental organizations) concerned with refugees. From policy making to directing of aids and grants in efficient manner, the results form this study can be of importance.
ii) The context of study makes it unique but is not the only one in the world (War Refugees crossing into nearby countries). As a contribution to knowledge, entrepreneurial identity has not been explored in a refugee context.
iii) Underdeveloped and developing countries do not necessarily need to “Export Policies” from developed countries in order to progress. This research will explore the way entrepreneurship as a social practice, thus opening up new ways for promoting entrepreneurship.
iv) Geographically, the area of study lies at the heart of South Asia and is of high importance to China, India, Iran , Pakistan and the oil rich central Asian states. Afghanistan, after the defeat of invading Russian forces, never settled. From the policy perspective, one main reason for failure is lack of local knowledge. This study will also prove to be a first step towards this direction.
On the practice front, firstly, this research will make potential contributions to refugee and immigrant knowledge. The interest in this research is consistent with the current world scenario where population movement is a natural consequence in prevailing circumstances. Chinese economy growing ever stronger by economies of scale, the Europe Union forming an integrated economy and Canada and Australia encouraging valuable human resources to immigrate. The integration of new settlers is a matter of importance. The utilization of these immigrants in entrepreneurial ventures will be highly desirable by the host countries. This research can contribute to formulate better policies that govern current and new immigrants and refugees.
CHAPTER 2: Literature review
There is no one agreed upon definition of entrepreneurship and it has led to an ever increasing debate. The word ‘Entrepreneur’ is derived from French word ‘entreprendre’ which means ‘to do something’ and it was used in the sense of ‘a person who is active, who gets things done’ (Hoselitz, 1951). In 1730, Richard Cantillon, a Paris banker gave the first economic theory of entrepreneurship in an article titled ‘Essays on the nature of commerce in general’. In the mid nineteenth century John Stuart Mill, an economist, gave the term general currency. Since then the term has been used in variety of ways, all having some justification as they point towards different dimensions and forms of entrepreneurship.
The distinction and relationship in basic terminologies can serve as a starting point. Essentially, the phenomenon, ‘entrepreneurial process’, is made up of an activity (entrepreneurship) where a market place combines individual (entrepreneurs) act in a certain way (entrepreneurially) (Virtanen, 1997). Theories from different fields have been used in effort to capture the essence of entrepreneurship. This chapter will highlight different views of entrepreneurship as progressed by theories from various fields.
2.1 Views of Entrepreneurship: Definition and Meaning
The research in quest for the how, what and why of entrepreneurship has been undertaken under the umbrella of social science, traditionally. However business schools are responsible for the current surge in studies of entrepreneurship (Swedberg, 2000). The contributions of Social Sciences can be broadly categorized as studies under Economics and non-Economics social Sciences. Social sciences (such as economics, anthropology, sociology and economic history) and business studies alike have contributed to highlight the different aspects of entrepreneurship, however the debate among different disciplines about the ‘usefulness’ of their insights still goes on (Swedberg, 2000) . A view progressively posed by business studies community is that Social sciences answer the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of entrepreneurship however they lack in terms of explaining the ‘how’ question (Jarillo & Stevenson 1990:23). Though it is right to argue that business school ought to concentrate more on the ‘How’ aspect of entrepreneurship, at the same time social sciences have contributed to the preclinical side of entrepreneurship though the emphasis on what and why have been deeper than business studies. The different understandings given by social sciences and business studies gives a complex but deep insight in the phenomenon.
2.1 Contributions of Economics
Economics literature on entrepreneurship is not nearly as intensive as it should be on entrepreneurship because mainstream economics have great difficulty in fitting entrepreneurship in its theory. The work done in economics (on entrepreneurship) has therefore only been possible through invention in conventional economic model.
2.1.1 Early contributions the legacy of Joseph Schumpeter
Among economists, Joseph Schumpeter’s contributions are a landmark because firstly, he is able to give a comprehensive account of entrepreneur and entrepreneurship and fitting it in economic theory. Secondly his views on entrepreneurship have evolved into a multi-dimensional and eventually (1940 and onwards) into multidisciplinary perspectives.
Joseph Schumpeter was born in 1883 in today’s Slovakia in family with business background; he also tried his hand in venture capital later on. There is some evidence which suggest that Schumpeter did not had much success in his business endeavors. He started with a thesis in economics and followed Leon Walrus, the great mathematical economist; believing equilibrium theory is the solution to every problem in economics. Schumpeter developed felt that Walrus’s static economic model does not take account some essential parts of economy. According to Walrus’s model economy is static and responds to external impulses (e.g. population growth) by trying to adapt and get back into equilibrium. In his book The Theory of Economic Development (1911) Schumpeter progressed dynamic view of entrepreneur. He emphasized that entrepreneurs are responsible for all important changes in economies, thus changes in economies are not only form external impulses. Schumpeter classified the activities in all phenomenon (including economics) as consists of two types of activities, the routine and repetitive ones and the new and innovative ones.
In 2nd edition of the same book (1926) Schumpeter suggested a comprehensive theory of economics with entrepreneur placed in centre. His views became more moderate e.g. Innovation, described in terms of business cycles was simply ‘new production function’ (Schumpeter 1939; 87). Entrepreneurship was defined as making of new combination of already existing resources, it is innovation not invention. Accordingly no one is an entrepreneur forever but only when they are doing an act of entrepreneurship. In other words it can be concluded that humans are essentially entrepreneurial, though they differ on the extent to which they are entrepreneurial and for the time they act entrepreneurially. Schumpeter’s view of newness is applicable to variety of situations; he broadly categorized entrepreneurial behavior consisting of ‘essentially new’ a) Good; b) Method of production; c) Market; d) Source of supply and e) Organization of industry. Schumpeter also highlighted the motives behind an act of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs are not purely motivated by profit; in his view three main factors motivate the entrepreneur
Considering profit motive as a contributing factor and not the foremost primary motivational factor is well founded in research. Hirschman (1967) argues that many businessmen would never start a business if they come to know in advance how difficult it was going to be. Though without any profit motive, an act of entrepreneurship may not be considered entrepreneurial. Profit motive might be acting as a catalyst which induces the act of entrepreneurship. Whereas, afterwards the entrepreneurial process requires further motives and money is not enough as motivator.
After 1940’s Schumpeter’s works consist of sociological work, mainly Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942), where he argues that routinization of change, demystification and rationalization of innovation has created an environment of less opposition towards entrepreneurs. This environment is not conducive for breading real entrepreneurship (Schumpeter). The presence of opposing force for ‘unleashing’ entrepreneurship has been evident throughout history, though in different forms, ranging from dissatisfaction with current job to need for a basic ‘bread earning’ activity. Schumpeter’s views entrepreneurship as not limited to a single person and organization (social or business) or institution (even as a society) can be entrepreneurial; this argument comes from his belief that theory of entrepreneurship should be based upon the actual activity of entrepreneurship rather than researcher’s personal injunctions.
Schumpeter’s views on entrepreneurship does glorify entrepreneur to some extent. This element does not lend Schumpeter’s entrepreneur to be explained through mathematical economics. Some may view this as detrimental even unacceptable in terms of economic contribution, however in essence Schumpeter’s work lives on even today only because his views are ‘practical’. Schumpeter ‘spoke of realities’ which he tried to explain through theories rather than theories trying to explain the reality.
2.1.2 The Contributions of Mainstream Economics
Economics is unable to place Entrepreneurship in its mainstream theory, though the presence of entrepreneurship has been largely accepted by economists. The lack of entrepreneur from economics has been termed as the performance of Hamlet with Danish Prince missing (Baumol 1968; 64), so much so that Blaug (1986; 229) calls it a ‘scandal’ of keeping the students of economics unaware of entrepreneurship. Economics does have some thoughts on entrepreneurship mainly Schumpeter’s thoughts, which are supplemented by theories of Israel Kirzner and mark Cason. Other also takes account of William Baumol and Austrian economics such as Friedrich Von Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises.
The first two economists who considered entrepreneur were both French. Richard Cantillon defined entrepreneur as those willing to buy at a certain price and sell at uncertain one. (Blaug 1986; 220) while Jean Baptise Say tertmed entrepreenruship as combining of factors of production into an organiasm. Entrepreneur and capatilst were also confused however it was suggested that entrepreneurial profit can be termed as rent of ability (Hans Von Mangoldt 1824-68).
Among the Neo-classical economists entrepreneurship was classified as ‘rent on ability’ (Marshal 1842-1924) while others ignored entrepreneurs as neutral entities in terms of profit or loss in equilibrium conditions (Walrus cited by Schumpeter 1954: 893). Frank Knight’s Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (1921) explained entrepreneurship in terms of risk (where objective probability can be calculated) and Uncertainty (where nothing can be known). She classified entrepreneurial profit as profit derived from bearing uncertainty which is consistent with neo-classical framework as entrepreneurs. Mark Cason views entrepreneur as specialist on decision making regarding coordination of scarce resources (Cason 1983; 23). Isreal Kirzner termed entrepreneurship as alertedness to profit making opportunities; he argues that entrepreneurs restore the equilibrium of economy. The argument is often contrasted with Schumpeter’s thought of entrepreneurs as disrupting the equilibrium. Mises and Kirzner both agree that one entrepreneur’s error becomes other entrepreneur’s opportunity. Kirzner’s insights also draw from Ludwig Von Hayek (199-1992). Hayek’s relates entrepreneurship to knowledge. The knowledge about local condition where profit can be made come more in form of ‘discovering new information ‘ rather than being preceded by analysis of already present information and diagnosing it as incomplete.
The above insights are of significant importance for theory and practice. An entrepreneur is someone who takes on selected uncertainties as he is alert to ‘appropriate for profit’ uncertainty. Entrepreneur is specialist decision maker and goes through ‘discovery of information’ process. A comprehensive sketch of entrepreneurship consists of various external and internal forces shaping the process of entrepreneurship. At an individual lies the ability of a human to interpret opportunity, decide to take on an uncertain situation while discover information throughout the process. Economy is but one element of the ‘habitat’ of entrepreneurs, they are doing all these activities in a social setting where all non-economic social sciences become relevant to exploring the concept in further detail.
2.2 Contributions of Non-Economic Social Sciences literature
Non Economic social sciences have contribution from a much larger variety of perspectives on entrepreneurship though it lacks the coherence which is the mainstay of economics literature on entrepreneurship
2.2.1 The contribution of psychology
Psychological theories of entrepreneurship pay attention to personality traits, motives and incentives of one individual.
Entrepreneurship has been researched by focusing on the individual since long mainly under the field of psychology. The approach used in this study adheres to these traditional approaches (that are going to be discussed in the following) which consider Entrepreneurs as unit of analysis, however it takes a more holistic view. Various studies researched the traits responsible for entrepreneurship (e.g Gartner 1998, 1989; Bird 1989, baron 1998). Psychology has mainly contributed two broad categories of insights, both have at its core, the personality of an entrepreneur 1) the trait theories of entrepreneurship take a view that internal characteristics of an individual are responsible for entrepreneurial behavior, 2) the more social psychological insights into entrepreneurship take a view that an entrepreneurs personality is shaped by outside forces (Swedberg, 2000). Entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs are differentiated on the basis of attitudinal and behavioral factors. In general, trait theorists see non-monetary rewards as the main source of motivation for entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship is dictated by innate characteristics. Nature rather than nurture is what would determine entrepreneurship.
McLelland & Winter (1971) concluded that a strong need for achievement is a distinguishing trait of entrepreneurs. Yet as Virtanen (1997) summarize
In analyzing entrepreneurial behavior we should pay more attention to expectations, motives and incentives. “The forces in the brain region” (needs) foster expectations, motives and incentives to take some action. What kind of motives and incentives are required to enforce entrepreneurial activity? Why would someone start a new venture? The reasons, as well as the businesses, may differ from case to case.
Why do People act entrepreneurially? The Motivation for entrepreneurship comes from diverse sources but at the individualistic level Vroom’s (1964) expectancy model takes into account the desirability and the feasibility of becoming an entrepreneur. Recent studies of OECD-Member nations shows that dissatisfied people draw satisfaction from the very acting of creating own business (Noorderhaven et al., 2003; Hofstede et al., 2004).
Results of studies focusing on trait theories show a large variation of characteristics that are held responsible for entrepreneurialism e.g. need for achievement and strong urge to build (David McClelland ,1961), toughness, pragmatism unwilling to submit to authority (Collins and Moore, 1970), mercurial, cunning, opportunistic, creative, and unsentimental behaviour (Bird, 1992), overconfidence (Busenitz and Barney 1997). Trait theories project the image of entrepreneur as some one who is (or assumes to be) in control historically because of higher need for achievement and high self-efficacy. This high level of self control has roots in Descartes philosophy of self, which argues:
While the external world, including the thinker’s body, is subject to the laws of physics and other external contingencies, the mind is not. I, being pure mind, enjoy a supreme degree of independence from my body and everything physical. …..The radical separation of mind and body–and of the mental and the physical in general–is known as "Cartesian Dualism”. (frostburg, September 2007)
The field of Psychology has produced more studies than either in mainstream economics or sociology (Chell et al 1991). The status of psychological theories of entrepreneurship is fairly low among social scientist mainly because firstly, the existence of a distinct blueprint for ‘entrepreneurial’ personality is doubted and secondly, psychology has tried to explain about entrepreneurship what other fields e.g. sociology or economic history would be better equipped to explain (Swedberg, 2000).
2.2.2 Sociological view of entrepreneurship
Indeed, some theories have pointed at the dynamic view of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial process feeds on change and in fact can create it, as Bagby (1988, 5) concludes: “Entrepreneurs capitalize on change, or even create it.” This means that Change and dynamism can be favorable for entrepreneurship. This thought leads to a process view of entrepreneurship which is dynamic “Entrepreneurship is the process of doing something new and something different for the purpose of creating wealth for the individual and adding value to society” (Raymond 1993).
The notion of ‘becoming’ emphasizes the nature of the entrepreneurial process as a dynamic rather than static phenomenon. According to Bygrave & Hofer (1991, 14) the later contains all the functions, activities, and actions associated with the perceiving of opportunities and the creation of organizations to pursue them”. The process itself is not taking place in vacuum. Social institutions play a major role, they are defined as the written and unwritten ‘rules of the game’: laws, norms, beliefs, etc. (North 1990). How the social system works varies and different social system that places a high value on innovation, risk-taking, and independence is more likely to produce entrepreneurial events than a system with contrasting values (Amir, 2006). The way in which culture, societal values and personality create this effect is complex and highly interrelated
2.3 Entrepreneurship as an embedded process
In this thesis I will propose that entrepreneurship is deeply rooted in society. It is a dynamic process of interaction between socio-cultural factors and personal attributes; change is the essential ingredient of this process.
Such embeddedness perspective is highly relevant to most of the eastern part of the world. The reasons for greater need for affiliation, strong family structure and embeddedness is one plausible explanation is given by Amir (2006), the environment of weak resource-sharing institutions are vulnerable and thus entrepreneurs ‘must’ bond themselves by affiliating with a social network.
For deeper insights the entrepreneurial process rather than entrepreneur in isolation should be researched. Entrepreneurship is an economic process drawing from the social context which influences outcomes, so it is fitting to call it socio-economic. Jack and Anderson (2002) emphasize that;
“Embeddedness is process whereby entrepreneur (acting as agent) becomes a part of the local structure; both the agent and structure affect each other through diverse mechanisms. The social structure’s nature is understood; ties forged through enactment of re-enactment and maintained, this leads to drawing on resources and creating opportunities.”
Entrepreneurs give different understandings to their own selves and may be acting entrepreneurially and not knowing, For instance, a businessman may say that why would he want to know if he is entrepreneurial or not, he thinks he is (Gartner, 1990). It is more like a case of artist performing a piece of art and an art critic analyzing it. Entrepreneurs keep churning out entrepreneurship oblivious of the fact that ‘they are entrepreneurs’. Regardless of how unaware the entrepreneurs are of their own activities being entrepreneurial or not, there has to be some broad categories of activities which can be labelled as entrepreneurial.
It may seem that the multifaceted nature of entrepreneurship has led researchers into creating further complexity rather than explaining it for better understanding. However it is easy to call a half filled glass of water a half empty one. Starting from a broad view about entrepreneurship where one can ferret out the ‘active ingredients’ of innovative business practices falling in realm of entrepreneurship can turn apparently complexity creating views into enrichment elements. Though it must be admitted that contradicting point of views will still exist and that is what will and does propels research. In other words the diversity and apparent contradiction of views can be turned into a comprehensive picture viewed through a broader spectrum.
To start with it is useful to accept entrepreneurship as a spirit and a way of life. A definition which summons the spirit of entrepreneurship is given by Schlanger (Youtube, 2007), who summarizes Entrepreneurship as:
“Entrepreneurship is really the process of seizing or creating an opportunity regardless of the resources that you have at hand, an entrepreneur you could say is someone who would give up eight hours a day job working for someone else to work 24*7 for himself, I think entrepreneurship is a way of life, entrepreneurship is an attitude.”
In terms of the interaction between the agency of an entrepreneur and with the environment, trait theories take a radical view indicating high individualism. The theories are problem ridden because traits found among entrepreneurs show high heterogeneity than if we compare entrepreneurs to non entrepreneurs (Gartner 1988, Bird 1989, Baron 1998). While trait theories have contributed to mystification of the term entrepreneur a look for possible and actual behavior and attitudes, to explain entrepreneurship they have shaped rather homogenous view of entrepreneurship- one that contributes to ‘mystify’ the term rather than explain it. Before going further it is important to outline that lack of generalizablity and the ‘fitting in’ of entrepreneurship into some kind of unitary theory has been difficult. so it is recommended to start viewing entrepreneurship from a broader lens, ferret out the factors in play and move on the measurement and comparisons later on. It is necessary to find some sort of answer for what this way of life, called entrepreneurship, actually is and what shapes can it take? The literature informs of the contexuality perspective, where entrepreneurship differs in terms of processes.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
3.1 Community of Practice and Embeddedness
While considering the embeddedness perspective for entrepreneurship this research proposes that it is needed for the process of identity construction. Identities are anchored around moral propositions which regulate values and behaviour, identity construction involves the idea of opposing poles; right and wrong, desirable and undesirable (Schöpflin, 2001).
Entrepreneurship is not an isolated activity but a social process and entrepreneurial identity is shaped by structures of social relations (Gartner, 1985). Social process, structure and relations are a complex phenomenon. Wegner (2007) informs on his website that the term Community of practice (CoP) was coined by Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger while studying an apprenticeship relationship and in the process finding out deeper and complex relationship then one way learning from master to apprentice. Mainly focused on the learning and legitimation mechanisms triggered by social interaction. Interactions can act on Individual identities i.e reflexivity is powerful enough to make social context part of individuals’ system of values and motivations (Rullani, 2005).
Three crucial aspects of communities of practice are emphasized.
In relation to entrepreneurial identity, Warren (2004, p28) says:
In a CoP three modes of belonging exist as a source of identity:
a) Engagement: active involvement in mutual Process of negotiation of meaning
b) Imagination: Creating Images of the world and extrapolating through time and space through our experience
c) Alignment: Coordinating energy and activities to fit with broader structures and contribute to broader enterprise
A network of practitioners interacting in a common domain (no matter how geographically disperse of loose) learn (formally or informally) together to enhance (intentionally or unintentionally) their skills of dealing with different situations they may encounter in field. The process of formation of these CoP is of interest as Wegner (1988, p149) coins the process of formation of CoP negotiation and re-negotiation of identities. Drawing from identity literature from organizational perspective, individuals value the perceived attractiveness of organizational identity while deciding to identify themselves with organization’s identity (Dukerich, J., B. Golden, and S. Shortell. 2002). The perception of oneness or belonging to a group can lead to formation of CoP and prompt members, encouraged by attaining the desired identity to participate in CoP. From the symbolic interactionists perspective identity centrality is valued in terms of total perceived value of relationships (number and importance), a greater the number of valued ties will translate into higher importance of that role identity (Hoang & Gimeno, 2005). The higher valued CoP corresponds to the factors such as cohesion of a CoP, learning and active participation.
3.2 Afghan Entrepreneurship in Peshawar
In a refugee situation the identities can be impacted. The mounting uncertainty can lead to taking refuge in collective identities, national and ethnic identities are far reaching and they are portrayed strongly by relaying on natural metaphors; Blood, Kinship etc. once constructed will not vanish under the impact of some universal utopia or claim to rationality. (Schöpflin, 2001)
At its core “Afghan entrepreneurship in Peshawar” is the product of the struggle initiated as a basic bread earning activity of “back to the wall” war refugees. It is an effort to exploit all the available resources to survive. Though the largely undocumented, growth has gone much further and established some multi million enterprises. “Some of the most successful entrepreneurs among Afghans in Peshawar were businessmen who were involved in large scale cross-border trade”. Afghans were an integral part of Peshawar’s emergence as a hub of cross border trade which has greatly benefited its commercial sector greatly. (AREU, 2005).
This study targets a gap in literature and proposes that entrepreneurship in immigrant and refugees can be better explained where they, faced with odd conditions, seek acceptable identities where CoPs can be responsible for breeding entrepreneurial identity through the act of negotiating and re-negotiating. The skill sets learnt starts form basic survival strategies and through its own informal mechanism innovates unique ways of dealing with the surmounting situation. It is proposed that Afghan Entrepreneurs in Peshawar is a similar case where a group of new comers seeking an acceptable, desired identity in volatile conditions and in process forming CoP which became a sanctuary for learning and participation towards the creation of entrepreneurial identity. While most of them were previously successful businessmen, they had to re-establish themselves in different conditions (of Peshawar) and in the process they innovated their way towards a successful entrepreneurial culture.
The need for understanding several unexplored aspects of Afghan refugees is emphasized by Turton and Marsden (2002) “There is a need for undertaking in-depth, qualitative research to improve our knowledge of refugee decision making and of the regional and transnational networks that sustain the incomes of Afghan households and families.”
CHAPTER 4: CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
4.1 Afghan Refugees in Peshawar
UNHCR’s founding mandate defines refugees as people who are outside their country and cannot return owing to a well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group. Regional instruments such as the 1969 Organization of African Unity Refugee Convention and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration in Latin America expanded that mandate to include people who have fled because of war or civil conflict. According to a census conducted in early 2005, 3.05 million Afghans lived in Pakistan. Almost 1.3 million Afghans continue to live in camps today, while 1.7 million live in rural and urban areas outside camps. There have been up to 300 refugee settlements throughout Pakistan; today only 145 remain. (Ockenden., 2007)
The history of population movements between the territories of Afghanistan and Pakistan goes back centuries, if not millennia. Contemporary boundaries between the two states dissect cultural, ethnic and even kinship contiguities. The research population for this study consists of Afghans who are currently resident in Pakistan, and are not naturalized citizens of the country. (UNHCR, 2007)
The North West Frontier Province (NWFP) has the highest number of Afghan refugees (highest Pashton Afghans as well), one out of every 5 people in Peshawar is of Afghan origin (Pakistan Population Census, 1998). As refugees Afghans turned to different means of livelihood and a considerable number of them have established successful businesses. An in-depth enquiry in income strategies to sustain their day to day lives in Peshawar has multifaceted reasons.
Peshawar was also historically a hub of trade and culture, not just for the frontier region in Pakistan but also for Afghans living between Peshawar and Kabul to the west. It offered business opportunities to refugees and migrants, encouraging them to travel cross-border despite the conflict, and it attracted those in search of urban amenities such as hospitals and schools. Peshawar dominated the smaller urban centers in the region, which included Quetta in Pakistan, and Jalalabad and Kandahar to the west in Afghanistan. After Kabul, this was the next major city of opportunity for Afghans. And for Pashtuns on both sides of the border, this was the only major city dominated by their language and culture. (UNHCR, 2007) This relationship between NWFP and Afghanistan and the long standing relationship coupled with the fact that sine 1979 a new generation of Afghans has been born and bread in NWFP and Peshawar does not typically fall in the definitions of spirit of refugees.
This study will consider the geographical location of Peshawar for this study. Afghans do all kind of business in Peshawar from large and high-tech (e.g. wholesale traders of Chinese goods) to retailers and day labours. They are involved in service oriented (e.g auto workshops and Beauty Parlours and wedding halls) to capital intensive business such as money exchange. One can certainly find some business areas in Peshawar which the predominantly or almost completely occupied by Afghans. For instance they have a strong hold on Chinese goods trade to Pakistan through different routes.
The phenomenon of Afghan Business and its growth is largely undocumented largely remains an officially unrecognized phenomenon, sparingly Afghans keep proper record of financial. It is difficult to ask about financial data or in depth measures of business transactions. Although Money exchange businesses is the most capital intensive Afghans business in Peshawar it is known as Hawala system.
In Pakistani context, it is not easy to get accurate information due many reasons ranging from lack of data due to high ratio of informal and undocumented businesses and weak government records to unwarranted secrecy to disclose any business information. Finding information on entrepreneurship is even more difficult. Small and Medium Enterprise (SMEs) development is more in focus. Similarly micro-finance is also well recognized by both foreign donor agencies and for Pakistani government at different levels. Yet surprisingly issue of Entrepreneurship do not gain enough attention. ‘Googling’ entrepreneurship research in Pakistan only returns one research centre for entrepreneurship at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS, 2007). There is no specialized degree program in entrepreneurship bachelors of Masters in whole country.
4.2 Aims of the Study
This study explores the entrepreneurial identity construction of the Afghan Entrepreneur. It is proposed that identity construction of Afghan entrepreneur is embedded in collective practices. Communities of practice are common domains where entrepreneurial identity is shaped through negotiation and re-negotiation. The dynamics of this phenomenon will be studied by exploring the everyday practices in which Afghan refugees engage.
CHAPTER 5: Research Methodology
According to Kuhn (1970) paradigms are models or intellectual frames of reference with which organizational science researchers can affiliate themselves. Researchers must choose a certain paradigm and stick to it (Burrell and Morgan, 1979).
Inductive reasoning generates hypothesis from data, deductive reasoning begin with data and confirm or negate the hypothesis (Holloway, 1997). Deductive approach is represented by positivism while inductive by phenomenological paradigm (Easterby-Smith et al, 1991). Positivist research tries to fit the values and measures of pre-determined variables into pre-set categories. (Patton, 1990).
Guba and Lincoln (1994) suggest that the phenomenological paradigm itself can be further divided up into critical theory, constructivism and realism. The Constructivist paradigm is becoming increasingly influential among researchers working in organizational science. (Girod-Seville & Perret, 2001).
According to Girod-Seville and Perret (2001):
“From constructivist point of view reality is constructed by ‘the act of knowing’ which essentially involves the contribution of the knower (researcher). In other words reality is an object that is dependent on object (the observer in this case). The social world is made up of interpretations, constructed through actors’ interactions in their own peculiar contexts. Context is crucial to constructivist paradigm as realities are seen as wholes which cannot be understood without contexts.”
As Moran explains (2000, p15), “the whole point of phenomenology is that we cannot split off the subjective domain from the domain of the natural world as scientific naturalism has done. Subjectivity must be understood as inextricably involved in the process of constituting objectivity”. This research adopts is Social Constructivism appraoch, it can be framed as:
“Social objects are not given in the world but constructed, negotiated, reformed, fashioned and organized by human beings in their efforts to make sense of happenings in the world”. (Sarbin and Kitsuse 1994. p.3)
With this in mind it can be argued that our daily discourse and engagements play a highly significant role in identity construction. Our identities are constructed between us in ‘oral encounter and reciprocal speech’ (Shotter 1993, p.29). This view is primarily based on the argument that knowing and being are intertwined, and sense making arises from ongoing practice, as opposed to separating ontology from epistemology and theory form observation (Cunliffe, 2001). The reality constructed that is holistic, can be seen as:
What I do now depends of what we, overall, are doing… and what I do is a mixture so to speak- a complex mixture- of influences from within my self and from elsewhere. This is where all the strangeness begins (Shotter 1996, p.3 Quoted in Cunliffe, 2001).
5.1 Research Strategy
Quantitative and qualitative methods are not only research strategies; In fact, these approaches represent epistemological frameworks for conceptualizing, nature of knowing, social reality and procedures for comprehending social phenomenon. (Filstead, 1979:45). This study will use qualitative strategies. Qualitative style can refer to research about “persons’ lives, lived experiences, behaviors, emotions, and feelings and social movements (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p.10). According to Boumard and Albert (2001):
“On one hand lie the objective to be pursued (to discover what is not and/or improve what is known) and the other the existing situation (what is feasible and what is not in terms of data and approach). In making these choices the researcher is trying to reconcile purpose approach and data.”
This research takes entrepreneurship as a “Social Process” occurring in natural setting. While qualitative style portrays real life by focusing on “naturally occurring, ordinary events in natural settings” (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p.10). The research landscape and settings of this study lend itself naturally to qualitative research as it explores how social experience is created and given meaning and produces representations of the world that make the world visible(Denzin & Lincoln, 2000: 3). Researching the realities of life, in a natural setting with a dearth of research is also complemented by using qualitative style, it employs the meanings in use by societal members to explain how they directly experience everyday life realities building social science constructs from members’ “concepts-in-use” and focusing on the socially constructed nature of reality (Schutz, 1973). While Qualitative research generally produces lesser number of manuscripts than quantitative, it provides deeper insights, thick detailed descriptions of real-life actions thus rehumanizing research and theory. This deeper understanding and insight results in direct engagement with everyday management and organizational realities which enables the researchers to make substantial contributions to the field. (Gephart, 2004).
Qualitative style comes with some costs as well, for example it is flexible however the flexibility demands that in qualitative research the designed and doing phase carry on at the same time however is “particularly difficult to pin down” because of its “flexibility and emergent character” (Van Maanen, 1998: xi). This indicates the emphasis on being in contact with the research landscape through pilot studies and referring back to literature iteratively throughout the study.
5.2 Using Ethnographic Case Study
An Ethnographic approach will be used in this study in which everyday practice and experience is employed. Ethnography is derived made up of ‘ethnos’- a Greek word which means a people, a race or a cultural group and ‘graph’ which derives from ‘writing’ (Silverman, 2006).
Entrepreneurship, as viewed by this research, as a social process, it is not what people "ought to do" but "what people actually do". Entrepreneurial identity will be found in the language of action. Empirical data is responsible for giving shape to the researched concept. But before reaching the empirical stage it is necessary to categorize in order to understand. Bauer et al (2000) argues that Social facts can be measured by categorizing social facts; social activities require distinguishing before any quantitative attribution. He further elaborates that qualitative distinctions between categories of people must be unearthed before one can measure how many belong to each category.
What entrepreneurs do is not all knowledge but part knowledge and part habit. Employing ethnography will enable me to see the deeper relationships between language and action. Brewer (2000, p.6) defines ethnography in the following way:
“Ethnography is the study of people in naturally occurring settings or ‘fields’ by methods of data collection which capture their social meanings and ordinary activities, involving the researcher participating directly in the setting, if not also the activities, in order to collect data in a systematic manner but without meaning being imposed on them externally.”
The entrepreneurs will be observed in field in terms of not only what they say but what they do and how they interact. Social practice and activity will be researched by researching links between language and action. Multiple case studies of entrepreneurs will be taken for this ethnographic research. A pilot study will be conducted for further refinement.
5.3 Data Gathering Techniques
The following data gathering techniques will be employed.
5.3.1 Collection of secondary data
Secondary data is data which has been collected earlier by others: individuals or agencies for purposes other than those of a particular research and which has significant, exploratory contribution into the study (Crawford, 1997). In the context of this research, International donor bodies and government documents will be the main source of secondary data. Although there will be no significant amount of directly related secondary data, the qualitative style of study warrants the need for this type of data. According to Davis (2005), secondary data may be defined as the data that has been collected by others for another purpose, and it has the following advantages, 1) it can solve aspects of a project without engaging in expensive primary research; 2) it is quicker to obtain than data from primary research; 3) it can help plan for the subsequent collection of primary data. As the research landscape is largely unexplored as far as this research is concerned, secondary data will also act as signposts throughout the research process.
Secondary data Sources are documents from Union nations, National and international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and government of Pakistan and Afghanistan documents will be used. (it will become part of contexts well)
5.3.2 Collection of primary data
Primary data collection, defined as, data collected for specific purpose from original sources (Davis, 2005), will be gathered using the following techniques.
A systematic observation will method will be used, observing the entrepreneurs 2-3 times a week. They will be at the same time of the day so that the data can lend itself to temporal analysis, if required. Because their business practices are deeply intertwined with their social life it is necessary to observe their social customs, habits and traditions and their communication habits will be observed. Observing them in this way is also less hindering as far as the access is concerned. I will also observe to what they prefer to listen to and what they observe and give attention to.
I would be able to follow 4 entrepreneurs on different days of their works for morning to evening and it will help me learn about what they actually do.
Interviews will be conducted from the following:
i) The entrepreneurs involved in the observation and shadowing steps.
ii) At least 3 tribal elders to take their perspective on deep rooted social customs.
iii) Three leaderless focus groups will be conducted which will comprise the entrepreneurs which I had observed and shadowed.
5.4 Methods of Analysis
The method of analysis for this research is grounded theory approach, which uses thematic analysis to identify differences and similarities between different groups of people. The advantage is that one can construct categories as they arise from the data. So it builds theory from bottom up which emerges from data.
This conditions specific to this study are:
1) The paucity of research in the researched area.
2) Lack of proper documentation.
3) Possible access to deeper understanding due to researcher’s lived experience in social and business life with Afghans.
Grounded theory approach exhibits such characteristics which makes it a preffered choice. Grounded theory was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967), reacting agianst extreme positivism, disputing the view that social sciences like natural sciences, uncover pre-existing and universal explanations. They take their lead particularly from Saunders Peirce (1839-1914) and early symbolic interactionists, particularly George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) and Charles Cooley (1864-1929), whom rejected the notion that scientific truth reflects an independent reality. (Suddaby, 2006)According to Glaser and Strauss (1967) grounded theory focuses on interpretive process by analyzing the “the actual production of meanings and concepts used by social actors in real settings” (Gephart, 2004).
Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit. (2006). Afghans in Peshawar migration, settlements and social networks. [WWW] <https://www.areu.org.af/?option=com_docman&Itemid=&task=doc_download&gid=270> [Accessed 12 May 2007].
Amir, N., Licht., & Jordan, Siegel. (2006) The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship. In: Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Anjum, A. (2004) Op-ed: Against research. Daily Times, 26 January. [WWW] <https://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_26-1-2004_pg3_3> [Asccessed 18 May 2007].
Bauer, Martin., Gaskell, George. & Nicholas, Allum. (2000) Quality, Quantity and Knowledge Interests. In Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook. SAGE Publications.
Baumol, W. J., R. E. Litan, et al. (2007). Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity, Yale University Press.
Baumol, William. (1990) Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5), 893-921.
Bilquees, Faiz. (2006) Review of Inayatullah, Saigol, Rubuna. & Tahir, Pervez. Eds. (2005) Social Sciences in Pakistan: A Profile. Islamabad, Council of Social Sciences.
Blaug, Mark 1986. ‘Entrepreneurship Before and After Schumpeter’, in Economic History and the History of Economics. New York: New York University Press, pp. 219-230
Brewer, J.D. (2000) Ethnography. Open University Press.
Bygrave, W. D.,Hofer, C.W. 1991. Theorizing about Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practiec, 16(2), 13 – 22.
Cason, Mark 1983. The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Census of Afghans in Pakistan. (2005) Islamabad: Ministry of States & Frontier Regions Govt. of Pakistan.
Chell, Elizabeth, Jean Hawworth, and Sally Brearley 1991. ‘The Search for Entrepreneurial Traits’, in The Entreoreneurial Personality. London: Routledge, pp. 29-53
Chell, Elizabeth, Jean Hawworth, and Sally Brearley 1991. ‘The Search for Entrepreneurial Traits’, in The Entreoreneurial Personality. London: Routledge, pp. 29-53
Communities of practice a brief introduction. (2004) Communities of practice [WWW]
Cunliffe Ann L. (2001) Managers ad Practical Authors: reconstructing our understanding of management practice. Journal of Management Studies, 38(3) 351-371.
Davis, D. (2005) Business Research for Decision Making, Sixth edition, Canada: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. 2000. Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.): 1-28. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dukerich, J., Golden, B & Shortell, S. (2002) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 507-533.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. & Lowe, A. (1991) Management Research an Introduction. London: Sage.
Filstead, W.J. (1979) Qualitative methods: a needed perspective in evaluation research. In T.D cook & C.S Reichardt (eds), Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
Gartner, W.B. (1985) A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696-706.
Gartner, W.B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 15-28.
Gephart, R. P. 2004. Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 454-462.
Girod-Seville Martine & Perret Veronique (2001) Epistemological Foundations. In Thiétart, R.A. Doing Management Research: A Comprehensive Guide. Sage Publications.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
Hoang, Ha., Gimeno, Javier., (2005) Becoming an Entrepreneur: A Theory of Entrepreneurial Identity [WWW] <www.rhsmith.umd.edu/entrepconf/2005/pdfs/ Hoang%20&%20Gimeno%20-%20Becoming%20an%20entrepreneur.pdf> [Accessed 25 May 2007].
Hofstede, G. H. (2001).Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd ed. CA: Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Hofstede, G. H., Noorderhaven, N.G., Thurik, A.R., Wennekers, A. R. M., Uhlaner, L., & Wildeman, R.E. (2004).Culture’s Role in Entrepreneurship: Self Employment Out of Dissatisfaction. In J. Ulijn & T. Brown. ed. Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Culture: The Interaction between Technology, Progress and Economic Growth. Cheltenham, UK.
Holloway, I. (1997) Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Hornaday, R. W. (1992) Thinking about entrepreneurship: a fuzzy set approach. Journal of Small Business Management. 30(4):12 – 23.
Hoselitz, Bert 1951 ‘The early History of Entrepreneurial Theory’, Explorations in Entrepreneurial History 3 : 193-220.
Hoselitz, Bert 1951 ‘The early History of Entrepreneurial Theory’, Explorations in Entrepreneurial History 3 : 193-220.
Inayatullah, Saigol, Rubuna. & Tahir, Pervez. Eds. (2005) Social Sciences in Pakistan: A Profile. Islamabad, Council of Social Sciences.
Jack, Sarah., Anderson. & Alistair. (2002) The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 467-487.
Jafarey, N. (2004) Why Pakistan lags behind in research. DAWN, 20 June. [WWW] <https://www.scidev.net/Opinions/index.cfm?fuseaction=readOpinions&itemid=400&language=1> [Accessed 4th May 2007].
Jarillo, Carlos and Howard Stevenson 1990, ‘A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management’, Strategic Management Journal 11: 17-27.
Jarillo, Carlos and Howard Stevenson 1990, ‘A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management’, Strategic Management Journal 11: 17-27.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.
LUMS, https://www.Lums.edu.pk [Accessed 27 May 2007].
Managers ad Practical Authors: reconstructing our understanding of management practice. Journal of Management Studies, 38(3), 351-371.
McClelland, D. C. & Winter, D. G. (1971). Motivating economic achievement. The Free Press, New York.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded Sourcebook. SAGE Publications.
Ministry of states and Frontier Region (SAFRON), Population Census Organization (Government of Pakistan) & UNHCR., (2005) Census of Afghans in Pakistan 2005. Islamabad.
Moran, D. (2000) Introduction to Phenomenology. London: Routledge.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ockenden International. (2007) Pakistan – Tragedy of Afghan Peoples [WWW], <https://www.ockenden.org.uk/index.asp?id=909> [Accessed 3rd April 2007].
Patton, M. (1985) Qualitative evaluation and research method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Philip, B. & Jerome, A. (2001) What approach with which data. In Thiétart, R.A. Doing Management Research: A Comprehensive Guide. Sage Publications.
Population Census Organization. (1999) Peshawar District Census Report 1998. Islamabad, 192-209.
Professor David Schlanger Ryerson Entrepreneurship. (2007) David Schlanger [WWW] <video: https://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0rHuyQnu6kA> [Accessed 25 May 2007].
qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
Raymond, W.Y. (1993) Defining Entrepreneurship: Past, Present and? Creativity and Innovation Management, 2(1), 69-70.
Reynolds, P. D. (1991) Sociology and entrepreneurship: concepts and contributions. Theory and Practice, 16(1), 47-70.
Sarbin, T.R & Kitsuse, J.I. Eds. (1994) Constructing the Social. Inquiries in the Social Construction series. London: Sage.
Schöpflin, George, (2001) The construction of identity [WWW], <https://www.nt.tuwien.ac.at/nthft/temp/oefg/text/wiss_tag/Beitrag_Schopflin.pdf>[Accessed 3rd June 2007].
Schöpflin, George. (2001) The Construction of National Identities. Paper presented at the Österreichischer Wissenschaftstag, Vienna, October 25-27.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1939. Business cycles: a Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1954. History of Economic Analysis. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Schutz, A. 1973. Concept and theory formation in the social sciences. In M. Natanson (Ed.), Alfred Schutz collected papers I: The problem of social reality:48-66. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. In Gephart, R. P. 2004. Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 454-462.
Shotter, J. (1993) Conversational Realities: Constructing life through language. London: Sage.
Shotter, J. (1996) Dialogical Realities: The Construction of Social Worlds in Practice. Paper Presented at New York, April Quoted in Cunliffe Ann L. (2001) Silverman, D. (2006) Interpreting Qualitative Data. SAGE Publication.
Strauss, A. & Corbin J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications.
Suddaby, R. (2006) From the Editors: What Grounded Theory Is Not. Academy of Management Journal. 49, 4, 633-642.)
Swedberg, Richard 2000 ‘The Social Science View of Entrepreneurship’, in ‘Entrepreneurship: The Social Sciences View’
Swedberg, Richard 2000 ‘The Social Science View of Entrepreneurship’, in ‘Entrepreneurship: The Social Sciences View’
Turton, D. & Marsden, P. (2002) Taking Refugees for a Ride? The Politics of Refugee return to Afghanistan. Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit.
UNHCR. (2007) Refugees by Numbers 2006 edition [WWW], <https://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/basics/opendoc.htm?tbl=BASICS&id=3b028097c> [Accessed 3rd April 2007].
Valenzuela, A. (2001) Day Laborers as Entrepreneurs? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 27 (2), 335-352.
Van Maanen, J. 1998. Different strokes: Qualitative research in the Administrative Science Quarterly from 1956 to 1996. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Qualitative studies of organizations: ix-xxxii. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Virtanen, P.M.B. (1997) The role of different theories in explaining entrepreneurship. Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration Small Business Center https://www.usasbe.org/knowledge/proceedings/1997, [Accessed 25th June 2007].
Warren, L. (2004) Negotiating entrepreneurial identity – Communities of practice and changing discourses. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(1), 25-35.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity: Learning in doing. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, https://www.ewenger.com/theory [Accessed 3 June 2007].
We will send an essay sample to you in 2 Hours. If you need help faster you can always use our custom writing service.Get help with my paper