An in-depth study of entrepreneurs and PhD students practical processes and self identities: Are they really two

different species? Abstract

This paper is a brief summary of my doctoral research thesis (Heywood, 2011). My PhD research was a critical investigation of two externally and internally polarised occupations; entrepreneurs and PhD research students. Primary data was gathered and examined using critical narrative analysis (Langdridge, 2007) and social identity theory (Jenkins, 2004). It highlights the similarities in practical processes and challenges perceived differences in the social identities of both occupations. This explorative bottom up approach involved interviewing six entrepreneurs and six doctoral researchers from as varied backgrounds as was possible. Comparisons were conducted from a critical view of entrepreneurship speculation and mythology (Ogbor, 2000). An assertion is made as a result that repositions PhD research workers as having much of the creative destruction element in their work as is weaved into the entrepreneurship discourse. It shows that some PhDs create new knowledge in their very private and less celebrated role and that most of those we label entrepreneurs are in fact merely buying-a-job. This development positions PhDs alongside entrepreneurs in their similarly creative and risky endeavours and dismisses the species premise of both roles. The study focussed on the people in both these occupations and compared what they do and how they feel about their social identity as either an entrepreneur or as a PhD student. More differences were uncovered within each cohort than between them inviting new occupational typologies to be put forward which bridge the established divide. Implications for research include support for Cheng et al. (2009) appeal for studying quality, not quantity or more simply, value over volume in entrepreneurship research. The same can be seen as helpful to doctoral student research too suggesting that determining what for is more instructive than studying why people enter these and other challenging occupations. Implications for practice include raising questions such as whether academics will remain the most suitable people to supervise doctoral research students in the future when so few plan to be employed in academia or as professional researchers. Keywords: entrepreneurs; PhDs; purpose; alterpreneur; conformist; vocationalist; changemaker; Prior Work Historically there has been a tendency to differentiate entrepreneurs from the rest of society. Published studies have compared them with managers (Busenitz and Barney, 1997), leaders (Czarniawska-Joerges, and Wolff, 1991; Kets de Vries, 1985), inventors (Drucker, 1985), small firm owners (Carland, et al., 1984; Critical 2 Limited, 2005) and business students (Dew et al., 2009) highlighting how different they are to their comparative cohorts. This research began by dismissing established differences (Malach-Pines, et al., 2006) and examined similarities between entrepreneurs and PhD research students. Interdisciplinary Literature Survey - Product, Process or Person An examination of the literature surrounding both entrepreneurship and PhDship identifies three distinctly different focuses of research. These are identified as research that focuses on the product, the enterprise; business or venture in entrepreneurship and the thesis or programme in PhDship; the process, or how people go about their enterprising and research activities but much less frequently the person, the individual enterprise founder or individual research student. Whilst mainstream media focuses on the lone heroic entrepreneur, scholarly researchers appear less willing to study the person. The findings from my literature review support Katsikis and Kyrgidou (2009) suggestion that teleological divisions exist in entrepreneurship research specifically but the same issue was shown to be equally prevalent in the PhDship literature. The product and process areas still dominate the vast majority of research on PhDs. Statistical Evidence Although the research was overwhelmingly qualitative it did draw from existing statistics which document the levels of self employment and small business growth in the UK using BERR/BIS data and similarly the HESA statistics on doctoral student completion rates over a fifteen year period. These statistics make for very interesting reading on their own as they show the rapid growth of both occupations over the period. I was also able to show that whereas doctoral study before the turn of the century had primarily been a part time endeavour, the new century showed that full time study became more popular and part time study less so. This fascinating development invites recognition that doctoral work has become an occupation in itself (Taylor, 2007).

Methods and Methodology Employed This section examines the phenomenological based approach used in my study (Cope, 2001, 2003). Phenomenological approaches enable exploration of perceptions of self and role in this small sample of twelve people of different ages, gender, class, ethnicity and economic standing of these two externally polarised occupational cohorts. It also permits a comparison and contrasting of both similarity and differences between the two roles and enables latent disparities between bottom-up interpretations and top-down interpretations to be explored fully (Cope, 2005; Langdridge, 2007). The narrative method provided the most suitable means of eliciting information about how a selection of widely variable individuals who have volunteered to commit themselves to either of these occupations absorb or reject both the external understanding of their roles, and the internal alternatives they may develop to compensate for any perceived misrepresentations. Narratives are themselves influenced by societys cultural norms and symbolic structures (Gartner, 2007; Pitt, 1998). Several authors celebrate the value of narratives in entrepreneurship identity research (Hjorth, 2007; Johansson, 2004; Smith and Anderson 2004; Steyaert, 2007) but there has been very little attention given to the identity or the expectations of people entering doctoral research programmes. Research work itself exists as an opportunity to discover and perhaps change what already exists in scientific, economic, medical, artistic and collectively the social realm (Aittola, 2008).

Empirical Results - socioeconomic versus socioemotional Purposes.

Of the many what for declarations that were expressed in this research a division can be drawn between those that satisfy a socioemotional desire from a socioeconomic expectation (Jenkins, 2004; Leonard et al., 2005; Schjoedt and Shaver 2007). The separation of socioemotional factors from socioeconomic ones are significant and when examined thematically can be identified as serving one of three different purposes. The three differing purposes are identified and separated into either principles, profit/prestige or problem solving as a result of extensive critical engagement with the narratives. Profit/Prestige Principle - Problem These three broad purposes surfaced in this study universally by identifying explanations for action and original intentions for becoming either a business founder or a doctoral researcher. These three purposes reflect the self identities of the interviewees at the time of commencement but not necessarily maintained for the duration of their role, particularly if their desires and intention had not met their expectations. Originality of Theory Development - What for, not why? Entrepreneurship scholars have attempted for many years to answer the why question posed by amongst others Baron (2004), and Sarasvathy (2004). McClelland (1961), is most often attributed with recognizing that motivation is a key contributor to understanding individual actions and this argument has been developed and adopted widely by scholars in a multitude of disciplines. Other authors and a great many policymakers ask not why but why not, or why more people dont establish their own ventures. This may be based on the widely held assumption that more enterprise is good and that it is an instrumental contributing factor to both economic growth and positive social development (Shane, 2008). This study showed that both of these beliefs are flawed in several ways. Interviewees were encouraged to dictate what they considered fundamental to their own experiences. They talked extensively in terms of what they intended to accomplish at the outset and also for some, how their initial intentions altered once they had commenced. These modified intentions were attributed in large part to institutional and interactional factors which suggests identifying purpose is potentially more informative than motive and corroborates Jenkins (2004) thesis that social identity includes both personal and institutional roles which are enabled or even prohibited by interactional aspects. Two overarching themes emerged from the narratives. That has been made possible by uncovering not just why people entered these occupations, but more specifically what for, or what they hoped to achieve by participating in either role. This has been drawn out from critically engaging with the narratives of the interviewees in both roles. What surfaced suggests an interesting advancement of established wisdom of motive being a precursor to action (McClelland, 1961; Ward, 2004) because in this study it was by exposing individuals purpose and the differences between those purposes that illuminate much more than merely motive. Determining the what for as oppose to the why is taken from adapting Schutz (1967) observation that people act either because-of something, or alternatively in-order-to achieve something. It was recognised that to inquire why someone does something limits interviewees to providing a reactionary response or explanation. To inquire what was their intention prior to commencement accommodates a proactive response as well as a possible reactive one. This microscopic deviation provides an understanding that actions are

taken either because-of something that individuals have experienced or that the actions were taken in-order-to achieve this or that. Reconceptualising and Relabelling This recognition of the important differences between these three purposes invites a proposed recategorisation and relabelling of both the entrepreneurs and the doctoral research students into four distinct types. These relabelled types are conformists, alterpreneurs, changemakers or vocationalists. This theory dismisses the established separation of these two occupations as being made up of almost two different species and relabels them according to type finding many parallels between the broadly used umbrella terms of entrepreneurs and PhD students. The people contributing to this research also experienced many of the same obstacles in both the practical processes and their adoption of self identity of being either an entrepreneur as we have come to understand it, or of being a PhD research student. Conformists Identifying conformists in this study showed that they are more tolerant of limitations imposed on them by institutional barriers. They felt able to overcome barriers due to their sense of belief that they are almost destined to become this or that. This type felt a greater willingness to adapt their own beliefs about behaviours to conform to the expectations of their intended peers (Bernheim, 1994). The conformists in this research were the most risk averse by their own admission and saw their immediate sacrifice as being a necessary investment in what they hoped would be a stable future career (Scheff, 1988). They regarded routine and continuity as much more favourable to discontinuity and uncertainty. Conformists are inspired by either emotional or economic purposes or even a combination of the two. The interviewees who were conducting their PhD in order to be eligible for an academic post in the future fit this label well as do those who want to achieve a PhD degree to improve their employability outside of academia (Merton, 1959). The Dr Title was what these individuals were pursuing as potential currency for furnishing their employability after completion. Entrepreneur conformists include those who set up (or inherit) a venture for which they have specifically trained such as professional practices in law, general medicine, accountancy, vetinary practices and other highly educated and skilled professions. The professions are most reflective of this type of entrepreneur but also the less revered industries in low value services and manufacturing would also be included. Bakers, care workers and construction workers all now have to be trained in their professions and a great number of them go on to self employment or form very small enterprises around their specific specialisms. Alterpreneurs The term alterpreneur first appeared to me in 2005. A UK insurance organisation MORE TH>N commissioned a research company called Critical 2 Ltd to uncover what small and micro business owners felt was important. The results of that study showed that the vast numbers of people start a small business or become self employed merely as a way of earning a living, not generating growth or captaining an empire (Schjoedt and Shaver 2007). The report was entitled: Alterpreneurs Life Makers not Risk Takers. It is from this report that I have borrowed the term as fitting several of the contributors to this research in both the entrepreneur category and the PhD student category. PhDship can be seen equally as an occupation one buys in order to gain prestige and on completion earn a better living, but not necessarily be committed to the grander association of demonstratively furthering knowledge for the benefit of wider society (Aittola, 2008; Bent, 1962; Gardner, 2008; Taylor, 2007). Alterpreneurs who form small businesses or work as self employed differ from conformists slightly in that they have significantly lower expectations of what should be provided to enable them to achieve their goal. This goal is overwhelmingly to earn a living and maintain them selves without too much interference. This is accompanied with knowledge that their limited capacity is not a hindrance but furnishes their modest aspirations. They prefer to buy-a-job so they dont have to take orders or be beholden to an employer (Shane, 2008) or they buy-a-job when other employment opportunities and occupations are perceived as either unavailable or unworthy of them (Hytti, 2005; Jenkins and Johnson 1997). These were seen in doctoral students as well as in new enterprise founders. Several had entered doctoral research purely on the basis that the employment opportunities they had witnessed on completion of their first postgraduate degree were deemed unsatisfactory so had stayed on in higher education hoping the situation would improve (Pole, 2000; Salmon, 1992). Changemakers

Whilst there is more familiarity with what it means to be changemakers, the term first presented itself to me through Kleins (2003) book The Changemakers: From Carnegie to Gates; How the Great Entrepreneurs Transformed Ideas into Industries. In his book Klein categorizes his 26 businessmen into five schools or more accurately, trades. They are Producers, Organizers, Merchandisers, Technologists and Investors. Whilst I strongly disagree with Kleins interpretation of entrepreneurial endeavours, the term changemaker applies well to those I have identified as such in my small study. The results of this study concur with Hytti, (2005). Changemakers are the ones who without question have a problem driven purpose. This however may stem also from a principled purpose of feeling they have to do something to alleviate whatever problem they have recognised. It is those who have identified a problem with science, with the community, with society or anything they are familiar with personally. The difference between changemakers and the rest of us is that they are committed to improving those problems whereas the vast majority of people either become tolerant of the problems they face or expect someone else to fix them. For this reason they can have either or both a principled and problem solving purpose. Changemakers should not necessarily be regarded as superior or more valuable to the other three categories. It is perfectly possible that the problems one decides to fix or alleviate may be quite mundane or not recognised as a serious problem by the majority of people. A problem might only be recognised as a problem to the person who experiences it. It may have become commonplace and acceptable for everyone else for instance. In this study three people are recognised as changemakers. One changed one industry and created an entirely new one that has benefited more than just the founder. Another changemaker set up three ventures in-order-to improve the health and wellbeing of others who are unable to do it themselves because of their disabilities. Finally, another changemaker through her PhD research hopes to expose levels and frequency of (alleged) institutional corruption by one of our most highly regarded professions in the UK. Vocationalists The vocationalists category includes those who are intent on perfecting their own ability. Their purpose is to be better at what they do which has an element of competition incorporated into it, if only with themselves. These are believed to be principle driven because improving their individual performance at any given skill is a self satisfying purpose. This category is as likely to be as applicable to growing the largest pumpkin for horticultural enthusiasts as it is to being the best independent researcher or most widely cited author for PhD students, or being the founder of the most highly respected enterprise in any sector. None of the interviewees in this research fell into this category but it is included as an alternative type due to an acknowledgement that some people are constantly in competition with their own performance and are driven to constantly improve themselves. Athletes would be one classic example. The omission of such a finding may therefore be related to the small number of contributors from either occupation. Implications for Research It has been acknowledged for some time that counting how many people are self employed or operating micro and small firms is only partially informative without determining if the operators are growth and innovation focussed. Critics of the statistical weaknesses are beginning to question why we count the volume of start up firms at all which grows year after year across the UK and beyond (Parker, 2004). Cheng et al. (2009) propose measuring entrepreneurship quality as oppose to quantity and are critical of the rather uninformative trend of measuring how many firms exist when they state previous literature focuses on the sheer quantity (breadth) of entrepreneurship but overlooks the quality (depth) of entrepreneurship . This criticism has been raised in the past (Carland et al, 1984; Carland and Carland 1996; Storey, 1994) but as yet large scale surveys have failed to include quality in their measurement capabilities. This small study has addressed the value over volume factor by looking at the self identities and practical processes of people occupying the role of entrepreneur as well as those occupying the role of PhD research worker. The four reconceptualised labels suggested here surfaced from how the frequent misrepresentation of an entrepreneur label adds to the frustration of identifying what entrepreneurship is and indeed, what it is not (Barton-Cunningham and Lischeron 1991; Jones and Spicer 2005). Consequently the entrepreneur label was rejected almost universally by those who were self employed or had set up an enterprise. The only person willing to accept the label explained that it was only once he was employing a large number of people that he felt qualified to introduce himself as an entrepreneur. PhD students also rejected their label of student and some even tried to deny being a PhD student at all, whilst another had reconceptualised his identity as that of a research psychologist in preference to the

student identity. This suggests a negative aspect of doctoral researchers self identity that invites reconceptualising and re-labelling of PhDs. One that recognises the individuals purpose for entering into a PhD programme and what they intend to accomplish. Several published policy documents acknowledge that the student identity is not appreciated by doctoral research students (Kehm, 2007; Sadlak, 2004; SRHE Report 2010). Artificial Polarisation These externally polarised occupations, PhDship and entrepreneurship begin to appear to be significantly less opposite than mainstream media leads us to believe. Both share intentions of contributing to a problem, sometimes only the individual has identified or of joining a team of likeminded people to work on something they believe could be improved. The people involved have to operationalise and invest themselves in working towards a solution to a problem that may not be solved, and that they may not be able to complete satisfactorily. That invested effort and outcome may ultimately be an expression of not only who and how they see themselves, but also how they will be labelled and judged on successful completion, withdrawal or perhaps failure to accomplish their aims. Self and social identity then becomes a significant factor for both occupations whereas the product and process have dominated research in both realms. Implications for Practice - Purpose as a reflection of self and social identity This study has looked at the identities and practical realities of what people labelled entrepreneurs and people labelled PhD research students feel about themselves and the work they are doing, but also their perceptions and beliefs about what effect the work has on them and their sense of self. Work has often been regarded as fundamental to how we exhibit our identities to others and also, on how we form judgements about others in the same and different occupations. Work however should not be automatically associated only with employment and paid labour and there is perhaps too fragile a distinction between the two in common understanding. There is a scarcity of understanding of what purpose doctoral students have for entering PhD programmes with the innate assumption that if not all, then most intend to become academic lecturers and researchers. This study found only two people out of six declared that that was their intention. The remainder all expressed an absolute rejection of working in universities after completion. This is an area that desperately needs more accurate data on the purposes of PhDs before, during and after graduation it seems.

Institutional implications
In doctoral participation there has not yet been any appetite for understanding what doctoral students are doing PhD research for. Perhaps with the extraordinary growth in numbers of individuals conducting PhD research and other doctoral degrees, now might be time to consider whether determining what for can help in the provision of support and development of early stage researchers across the UK and Europe. To accomplish this will require an examination of existing barriers and it is suggested here that the institutional identity of early career researchers working in HEIs is not as resistant to acknowledging they engage in enterprising and socially beneficial practices as the literature and policy documents imply (Shibayama, 2012; Zalevski and Swiszczowski 2009). Policy Implications Numerous initiatives from national and European policymakers target entrepreneurship support because it is still widely believed that economies and employment levels increase if people adopt more enterprising behaviours. Entrepreneurs are misrepresented as being high growth, innovative firm founders. Similarly, research funding bodies and HEIs fail to adequately address the purpose of doctoral research work from the individuals perspective. This study shows there are many more alterpreneurs buying themselves a job and conformists operating risk avoidance ventures than there are changemakers driven by passion and principles to correct an identified social or economic problem. The findings of the study raises uncomfortable questions about supporting those who select self employment or small business management but who care more about survival than growth or innovation and those who undertake extensive research training through a PhD, but who have either no intention, or no opportunity of becoming a professional researcher as an occupation.

REFERENCES

Aittola, H. (2008). Doctoral education and doctoral thesis Changing assessment practices. Ch 11 in Valimaa, J, and Ylijoki , O. (Eds) Cultural Perspectives on Higher Education. Springer Science+Business Media: Dordrecht Baron, R. (2004). The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool for answering entrepreneurships basic why questions. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 221-239. Barton Cunningham, J. and Lischeron, J. (1991). Defining entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 29, No 1, 45-61. Bent, H. (1962). The meaning of the PhD degree: A tribute to an ideal The Journal of Higher Education,33, No 1, 13-19. Bernheim, D. (1994). A Theory of Conformity. The Journal of Political Economy, 102, No 5, 841-877. BERR - Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform [BERR] later BIS BIS - Department for Business, Innovation and Skills [BIS] available from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://stats.bis.gov.uk/ed/sme/ [accessed on 17 August 2010] Busenitz, L. and Barney, J. (1997) Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making Journal of Business Venturing, 12, No 6, 9-30. Carland, J. and Carland, J. (1996). Seeing whats not there: the enigma of entrepreneurship Journal of Small Business Strategy, 7, No 1, 1-20. Carland, J., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. and Carland, J. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization Academy of Management Review, 9, No 2, 354-359. Cheng, S., Stough, R. and Jackson , R. (2009). Measuring and building high-quality entrepreneurship: a research prospectus Innovation - The European Journal of Social Science Research, 22, No 3, 329-340 Cope, J. (2001). The entrepreneurial experience: towards a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of Lancaster Cope, J. (2003). Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection: discontinuous events as triggers for higher-level learning. Management Learning 34, No 4, 429-450 Cope, J. (2005). Researching Entrepreneurship through Phenomenological Inquiry. Philosophical and Methodological Issues. International Small Business Journal, 23, No 2, 163-189. Critical 2 Limited (2005) Alterpreneurs Life Makers not Risk Takers. Commissioned by MORE TH<N Insurance Company available from http//www.newsroom.morethan.com/micro-business (accessed on 19 June 2007). Czarniawska-Joerges, B. and Wolff, R. (1991). Leaders, managers, entrepreneurs on an off the organizational stage Organization Studies, 12, No 4, 529-546 Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S. and Wiltbank, R. (2009). Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial decision-making: Differences between experts and novices. Journal of Business Venturing 24, 287-309. Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Principles and Practice. Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford Gardner, S. (2008). Whats too much and whats too little?: The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education The Journal of Higher Education , 79, No 3, 326-350. Gartner, W. (2007). Entrepreneurial narrative and a science of the imagination. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, Iss 5, 613-627. HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php? option=com_datatables&Itemid=121 (accessed 2006 2011)

Heywood, D. (2011). An in-depth study of entrepreneurs and PhD students practical processes and self identities: Are they really two different species? Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of Manchester. Hjorth, D. (2007). Lessons from Iago: Narrating the event of Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 22, 712-732. Hytti, U. (2005). New meanings for entrepreneurs: from risk-taking heroes to safeseeking professionals. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18, No 6, 594611. Jenkins, M. and Johnson, G. (1997). Entrepreneurial intentions and outcomes: a comparative causal mapping study Journal of Management Studies, 34, No 6, 895-919. Jenkins, R. (2004). Social Identity 2nd ed. Routledge: London. Johansson, A. (2004). Narrating the Entrepreneur, International Small Business Journal 22, No 3, 273-293. Jones, C. and Spicer, A. (2005). The Sublime Object of Entrepreneurship, Organization, 12, No 2, 233-246. Katsikis, I. and Kyrgidou, L. (2009). Entrepreneurship in teleology: the variety of the forms International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 15, Iss 2, 209 231. Kehm, B. (2007). Quo Vadis doctoral education: New European approaches in the context of global changes European Journal of Education, 42, No 3, 307-319. Kets de Vries, M. (1985). The dark side of entrepreneurship, Harvard Business Review Nov-Dec, 160-167 Klein, M. (2003). The Changemakers: From Carnegie to Gates, How the Great Entrepreneurs Transformed Ideas into Industries Times Books: New York. Langridge, D. (2007). Phenomenological Psychology: Theory, Research and Method , Pearson Prentice Hall: Harlow. Leonard, D., Becker, R. and Coate , K. (2005). To prove myself at the highest level: The benefits of doctoral study Higher Education Research & Development, 24, No 2, 135149 Malach-Pines, A., Levy, H., Utasi, A. and Hill, T. (2006). Entrepreneurs as cultural heroes: A cross-cultural, interdisciplinary perspective, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, No 6, 541-555. McClelland, D. (1961). The Achieving Society, Free Press: New York. Merton, R. (1959). Social Conformity, Deviation, and Opportunity Structures: A Comment on the Contributions of Dubin and Cloward, American Sociological Review, 24, No 2, 177-189. Mitchell, R. (1997). Oral history and expert scripts: demystifying the entrepreneurial experience International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research , 3, No 2, 122-139. Ogbor, J. (2000). Mythesizing and reification in entrepreneurial discourse: ideologycritique of entrepreneurial studies, Journal of Management Studies, 37, No 5, 605-635 Parker, S. (2004). The Economics of Self-Employment and Entrepreneurship , Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Pitt, M. (1998) A Tale of Two Gladiators: Reading Entrepreneurs as Texts, Organization Studies, 19, No 3, 387-414. Pole, C. (2000). Technicians and scholars in pursuit of the PhD: some reflections on doctoral study, Research Papers in Education, 15, No 1, 95-111 Sadlak, J. (Ed), (2004). Doctoral Studies and Qualifications in Europe and the United States: Status and Prospects, Studies on Higher Education. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES Salmon, P. (1992). Achieving a PhD Ten Students Experience Trentham Books: Stoke on Trent. Sarasvathy, S. (2004). The questions we ask and the questions we care about: reformulating some problems in entrepreneurship research , Journal of Business Venturing, 19, Iss 5, pp 707-717.

Scheff, T. (1988). Shame and Conformity: The Deference-Emotion System, American Sociological Review 53, No 3, 395-406. Schjoedt, L. and Shaver, K. (2007). Deciding on an Entrepreneurial Career: A test of the pull and push hypotheses using the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics Data, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, September, 733-752. Schutz, A. (1967). The Phenomenology of the Social World, North Western University Press: Illinois. Shane, S. (2008). The Illusions of Entrepreneurship: The Costly Myths that Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Policy Makers live by , Yale University Press: New Haven. Shibayama, S. (2012). Conflict between entrepreneurship and open science, and the transition of scientific norms, Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, Iss 4, 508-531 Smith, R. and Anderson, A. (2004). The devil is in the e-tale: forms and structures in the entrepreneurial narratives Ch 6 in Hjorth, D. and Steyaert, C. (Ed). Narrative and Discourse Approaches in Entrepreneurship: A Second Movements in Entrepreneurship Book Edward Elgar: Cheltenham. SRHE Report (2010). Enhancing induction of postgraduate research students: The context, change and complexity in doctoral education in the 21 st century, 17th July 2010 Society for Research into Higher Education: London Steyaert, C. (2007). Entrepreneuring as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19, No 6, 433-477. Storey, D. (1994). Understanding the Small Business Sector Routledge: London. Taylor, J. (2007). An autoethnographic Exploration of an Occupation: Doing a PhD, British Journal of Occupational Therapy , 71, No 5, 176-184. Ward, T. (2004). Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship Journal of Business Venturing,19, 173-188. Zalevski, A. and Swiszczowski, L. (2009). Gender and attitudes to enterprise Survey of UK doctorate students in science, engineering and technology Equal Opportunities International, 28, No 1, 65-79.