Entrepreneurial agency and field relations: A Realist Bourdieusian Analysis

Abstract

This paper combines theoretical resources from Bourdieusian and critical realist scholarship to explore qualitative data about the networking practices of 25 self-employed and entrepreneurial human resource consultants. The analysis, which concentrates on a regional economic field in the UK, assesses (i) how the field was structured to support entrepreneurial careers (socio-economic structure) and (ii) how these consultants differentially enacted and experienced relations within this field (entrepreneurial agency). Concepts taken from critical realism are used to deconstruct the field in terms of its constituent parts, or field elements, and concepts taken from Bourdieu are used to reconstruct these parts in terms of their resources and local agential struggles. Field elements were also analysed in terms of their (critical realist) institutions and (Bourdieusian) doxa, and in terms of (Bourdieusian) habitus and (critical realist) reflexive imperatives. We argue that the form of analysis which develops, which we call Realist Bourdieusian Analysis, reveals more about the causal properties of the field than forms of analyses that are limited to the Bourdieusian lexicon, and so additions from critical realism enrich our understanding of fields and, agents' relations and experiences within the field. More specifically, the analysis reveals a field constituted of a complex normative geography, which consultants navigate through reflexive struggles in relation to a range of field elements with which they were engaged. The analysis concludes by highlighting the practical, theoretical, methodological contributions of this research.

Not all Entrepreneurship Is Created Equal: Theorising Entrepreneurial Disadvantage through Social Positionality

“…Social structure is conceived of as systems of relationships between social positions, while culture is defined as systems of belief, thought and ideology; both are reasonably durable, yet dynamic, reproduced or transformed over time by the processual actions of agents (Archer, 1995; Porpora, 1998; de Souza, 2014). Agents engage closely with both when considering and undertaking entrepreneurial action (Vincent et al ., 2014; Vincent and Pagan, 2018), reflexively exploring unique constellations of concerns (Archer, 2007) in light of their specific social positionality. Examples of these may include: whether and which employment opportunities are available, familiarity with doing business and with networks of business owners; if yes, what kinds of businesses they run, whether they have access to sufficient financial and material resources either personally or within their networks to undertake initial business activities, and whether family members and friends support the entrepreneur enough to support the business with labour and favours.…”

“…As positionality is explicitly concerned with the unequal distribution of resources – material, cultural, and economic (Anthias, 2001b) – that are key to start‐up and success (Alvarez and Busenitz, 2001; Jayawarna et al ., 2014), it can enhance conceptualisations of entrepreneurial disadvantage. However, the resource asymmetry facilitating entrepreneurial pursuit has not yet been theorised in terms of a social field characterised by pervasive and lasting structural hierarchies (Anthias, 2013; Vincent and Pagan, 2018). Once again, the inattention to structure and agency in the literature produces problematic outcomes.…”

Restoring the missing context in HRM: Habitus, capital and field in the reproduction of Japanese repatriate careers

“…Although recognizing the controversies over Bourdieu's highly abstract and sometimes unclear conception of action and structure (Mutch et al, 2006), we argue that a close focus on the manifestations of habitus, capital, and field can provide powerful and sociologically rich insights into the diverse forms of social context which exert powerful influences over the employment and HRM systems into which they are embedded. Such is the degree of stability in the Japanese career field; our analysis leans towards the structural and “realist” end of Bourdieusian analysis (see, e.g., Vincent, 2016; Vincent & Pagan, 2019). Rather than acting as free agents or “career capitalists” (Dickmann & Doherty, 2010, p. 322) whose careers are their “personal property” (Inkson & Arthur, 2001, p. 50), Japanese employees involved in international assignments are strongly influenced by the structural conditions of the field in which they are employed.…”

Related variety and firm heterogeneity. What really matters for short-run firm growth?

“…The practice tradition (also known as practice-based studies, the practice approach or the practice lens) in the social sciences forefronts the notion that practices and their connections are fundamental to the ontology of all social phenomena (Rouse 2006;Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina, and Savigny 2001). Ventures, firms or startups, in this view, are not ontologically separate phenomena from the performance of everyday, materially accomplished and ordered practices (Chalmers and Shaw 2017;Hill 2018;Johannisson 2011;Vincent and Pagan, 2019). This is to say that no description or explanation of features of entrepreneurial lifesuch as, recognizing, evaluating and exploiting opportunitiesis possible without the 'alternate' description and explanation of how entrepreneurial life is actually lived in and through practices (Gross, Carson, and Jones 2014;Keating, Geiger, and Mcloughlin 2013).…”