Bresler Intellectual Entrepreneurs

8/6/2019 Bresler Intellectual Entrepreneurs

1/12


2/12

and learning rom mistakes. Moreover, one o the things that entrepreneurs in eco-

nomic, social, and intellectual domains must do is to develop the projects to ensure

that the product interacts with peoples experiences so as to bring about change.Tis is diferent rom the traditional roles o aculty. Faculty are expected to publish

papers but are not responsible or their impact. Tey are expected to teach, but the

onus on learning is on students. Academic intellectual entrepreneurs embody the

commitment to useulness and impact in their scholarship, teaching, and service. I

regard the entrepreneur as an animator, working with others to render a vision into

an entity that interacts with others experiences.

The Context of Academia

In the contemporary academic scene, two orces seem to operate with great inten-

sity: accountability and subjectivity. Te rst orce, part o a knowledge society

in a globalized inormation age, concerns increased accountability in the primary,

secondary, and tertiary levels. In the tertiary level, accountability entails stron-

ger expectations or research products (e.g., papers, books), generation o grant

money, and evidence o impact within the disciplinary eld. Tis is happening not

just in the United States but also in European and Asian countries, and is evident

in universities where promotion and mission were traditionally related to teachingas opposed to research.

Tese processes and expectations are perceived by academics with apprehen-

sion. Mary Burgan (00), ormer general secretary o the American Association

o University Proessors, regards the steady acceptance o the market model o

competition applied to American education as a colossal blunder that threat-

ens its very identity (p. xxi). Education, she writes, is one o our most precious

services to one another: Under market pressures, colleges and universities are in

danger o losing their ability to provide human answers to the very human prob-lems that are evolving in this st century. Burgans concerns are shared by many,

mysel included. Given these economic contexts o academic lie, it is important

that academics reconsider our roles and missions in order to respond to those pres-

sures with agendas that reect our personal commitments and raison dtre, larger

than the nancial and more meaningul than sheer numbers.

Tese reconsiderations, I suggest, are supported by the second orce operating

in the social sciencessubjectivity. Subjectivity is central to the postmodern turn,

which assumes that social reality is constructed and created (Lincoln & Guba, 98)

rather than objective and single. Te postmodern turn highlights the researchers

perspective, voice, and subjectivities (e.g., Peshkin, 988), suggesting that interpretive

research begins with the biography and the sel o the researcher (Denzin, 989).1

13lira brrVision, Experiential Learning, and Animation


3/12

14 Visual Arts Research sr 2009

Tis subjectivity accommodates a view o the researcher that shares impor-

tant traits with artists. In my own work (Bresler, 00), I have examined the ways

in which the arts provide rich and powerul models or perception, conceptualiza-tion, and engagement or both makers and viewers.2 I have been interested in the

potential o the arts to cultivate habits o mind that are directly relevant to the

processes and products o research.

In this article, I discuss what I regard as important mind-set and characteris-

tics o academics within the current culture o the knowledge society. While many

o these characteristics are related to those habits o mind o the artistically sensi-

tized researcher, the concept o the entrepreneur highlights additional aspects.

Academic Intellectual Entrepreneurs

Beore attempting to dene academic intellectual entrepreneurship (AIE), let

me say what AIE is not. Te goal o intellectual entrepreneurs in academia is not

to satisy short-term university-market demands. It is not to produce a quota o

publications to meet tenure or promotion requirements, nor is it to produce a

prodigious number o (o necessity repetitive) works. Richard Cherwitz (000)

coined the term intellectual entrepreneurship, stressing the goal o educating citizen

scholars, and dened it as ollows:

Intellectual entrepreneurs, both inside and outside universities, take risks and

seize opportunities, discover and create knowledge, innovate, collaborate and

solve problems in any number o social realms: corporate, non-prot, govern-

ment, and education. Te aim o IE is to educate citizen-scholarsindividuals

who own and are accountable or their education and who utilize their intellec-

tual assets to add to disciplinary knowledge and as a lever or social good.

My own ocus on academic settings denes academic intellectual entrepre-

neurship as cultivating high-impact research, teaching, and service. Indeed, these

three traditional components o academeresearch, teaching, and servicecan

be conceptualized as highly entrepreneurial activities, providing a rich space or

creativity and innovation, compatible with the cutting-edge mission o academics.

Te image o the academic as entrepreneur is motivated by the recognition

o unprecedented opportunities to expand the role o academics beyond tradi-

tional, oten sel-imposed boundaries. Te crossing o disciplinary boundaries and

the ensuing cross-ertilization have generated new disciplines such as computa-

tional neuroscience, biophysics, molecular biology, and psychological economics.Not only do contents o academia change, but also their ormats are being shaped

by new inormation technologies and their audiences expanded. Although these

trends have evolved over a long period, they have vastly accelerated in the last 0


4/12

years, reinorcing each other. Te notion o AIE highlights the role o academics

vis--vis these expanding opportunities in terms more traditionally associated with

entrepreneurship.In their study o the impact o learning opportunities in the art curriculum

on students academic learning and general attitudes, Burton, Horowitz, and

Abeles (999) ound a variety o skills and dispositions associated with the arts.

Tey conceptualized these competencies as habits o mind, the interweaving o

intuitive, practical, and logical modes o thought that characterize arts learning.

Similarly, Hetland, Winner, Veenema, and Sheridan (00) discuss the habits o

mind associated with studio art, including learn to envision, plan, and see beyond;

observe; reect; stretch and explore; engage and persist; express; nd personal vi-

sions; and navigate domain and eld. My own thinking o AIE is conceptualized

in the same spirit. Te ocus is on the cultivation o intuitive, cognitive, and col-

laborative ways o doing and being, as they are maniested in an academic context.

It involves envisioning, planning, and seeing beyond; observing; reecting; persist-

ing; and navigating domains and elds with an emphasis on communication and

creation o change.

A Graduate Course on Case Studies of AIEs

My conceptualization o AIE has evolved out o interactions with real people that

I have encountered; aculty members who exempliy a commitment to an idea and

a product (broadly conceptualized) that can be used to enhance lives. o explore

the dynamics and processes involved in academic intellectual entrepreneurship, I

designed and taught in spring o 00 a graduate course on academic intellectual

entrepreneurship. Coupled with readings on innovative entrepreneurship, I struc-

tured the class as a series o case studies, inviting aculty members that I identied

as AIEs to present in my class and share their experiences.3

Faculty across variouscolleges on campus, rom the arts and the humanities to the sciences and engi-

neering, presented entrepreneurial projects that consisted o teaching, research,

and service. For example, one colleague rom Business pioneered new areas o

inquiry and developed valuable synergies among research, teaching, and social

initiatives. Another colleague rom Visual Art Education has collaborated with a

department o psychiatry and a local hospital to create a unique course or HIV

patients that highlighted expression and interpretation. In addition to presenta-

tions by AIEs, university administrators, including the president o the university,

the vice-chancellor o research, and the director o the Academy or Entrepreneur-

ial Leadership, provided an institutional perspective on entrepreneurial processes

and products and discussed tensions between entrepreneurial thinking and the

university bureaucracy.



5/12


Te overall goal o my course was to develop an entrepreneurial perspective

o the role o aculty in academia. Building on their individual passions, commit-

ments, and strengths, the course aimed to empower doctoral students (prospectiveaculty) to experience research, teaching, and service along the three entrepreneur-

ial axes: Recognize opportunities, acquire resources, and create a new entity o

value. Specically, the course addressed the ollowing:

. Expanding the contents, orms, and audiences in teaching.

. Choosing research questions or signicance and impact, garnering means

or efective execution, and creating avenues to bring the ruits o research to

society

. Reocusing academic service as a vehicle or the building and nurturing o

the intellectual community.

Below I address some o the characteristics o AIEs that emerged in this course.4

Vision

A core aspect o AIEs involves a vision and passion. Te passion that drives aca-

demics (Neumann, 00) also characterizes entrepreneurs (e.g., Spinosa, Flores,

& Dreyus, 99). An example o AIE in art education is Elliot Eisner, whose

scholarship has reconceptualized research beyond numbers and words to includethe visual: the enlightened eye(99). Once this vision was articulated in scholarly

works, it took Eisners organizational leadership and political role as president o

the American Educational Research Association, his abilities to team-lead and

animate (qualities discussed in the section Te Academic Intellectual Entrepreneur

as an Animator and a Leader), to transorm others notions o the contents and

ormats o educational research.5

I discuss here one case, that o Proessor Madhu Viswanathan, a colleague

in the College o Business, based on his class presentation, additional conver-

sations, and his coauthored book (Viswanathan, Gajendiran, & Venkatesan,

008). Viswanathans vision concerned the development o consumer educa-

tion and entrepreneurial literacy or low-literate, low-income adults in India.

A ollow-up goal was the encouragement o innovative products targeted at

low-income consumers. Tese initiatives represent basic methodological and

substantive research that charts new directions o enquiry, teaching that builds

on state-o-the art research, and social initiatives that translate the research to

specic applications or societal benet.

Entrepreneurship oten crosses borders, disciplinary and others. Eisnersvisions juxtaposed the disciplines o art criticism with research methodology, ven-

turing into the experiential settings o conerences. Viswanathan combined market


6/12

research with psychology, engineering, and education, and ventured beyond the

ivory tower to rural and urban settings to reach diverse populations. Te notion o

border crossing(Bresler, 00; Solomon, Marshal, & Gardner, 00), undertakingwork that goes beyond traditional boundaries and conventional understanding o

knowledge, is maniested in the crossing o intellectual and organizational bound-

aries so prominent in the work o AIEs.

Experiential Learning, Craft, and Risks

AIEs learn experientially. Experiential learning theory is based on the demonstrated

value o active, personal, and direct experiences in contrast to vicarious experience

o watching others or reading about it (Kolb, 98). Te literature on experiential

learning has ocused on articulating the process o moving dialectically between the

modes o action and reection (Schon, 98). Tis interplay o doing and thinking

enables educators, scientists, artists, and businesspeople, among others, to interpret

the outcome o their decisions and actions and introduce changes.

Creation, whether in art, research, teaching, or entrepreneurship, requires

crat. Sociologist Richard Sennett (008) suggests that, to be at its best, the

cratspersons det use o tools and materials, combined with an intuition devel-

oped rom years o practice, create reciprocity that animates the orm. Sennett

argues that the cratsperson, engaged in a continual dialogue with materials, doesnot sufer the divide o understanding and doing. Te cratsperson must be pa-

tient, avoiding quick xes. Good work o this sort emphasizes the lessons o expe-

rience through a dialogue between tacit knowledge and explicit critique (Sennett,

008). Tese processes are maniested in the crat o AIEs.

An Important part o experiential learning and crat is the learning rom

ailure. Te understanding o ailure as contributing to learning is increasingly

recognized in the scholarly literature in various intellectual disciplines, rom en-

gineering and sciences to design and education (e.g., Cardon & McGrath, 999;McGrath, 999; Petroski, 99, 99; Politis & Gabrielsson, 00; Tornhill &

Amit, 00; Vesper, 980). As part o experiential learning, the act o ailing can

be conronted, studied, and dealt with systematically and productively (Cannon

& Edmondson, 00). Discussing the context o entrepreneurship, Spinosa et al.

(99) suggest that people become competent not by abstracting theories but, by

doing, ailing (and, I would add, analyzing and modiying), and then doing again

until they become sensitized in their habits to what is worthwhile and consider

what is not. Since the question is not whether a ailure will occur, but rather when,experienced entrepreneurs have developed a higher acceptance o ailures (and

thus risk) as a way o increasing variety and expanding the search or opportunities

(Politis & Gabrielsson, 00).



7/12


Viswanathan and his colleagues project involved years o experiential learning

and cultivating crat in research, curriculum development, and testing o the pro-

gram. Tis learning is still going on as they expand the project to reach wider audi-ences. For Viswanathan, the experiential learning involved in conducting qualitative

research in the rural and urban settings o South India is aimed at understanding

lives and marketplace in subsistence contexts. Research ndings are used to develop

consumer and entrepreneurial curricula or inormed buyers or sellers.

Viswanathan discussed learning rom ailures to construct more efective

programs. Just as his consumers embarked on a path to lielong learning, Viswa-

nathan, too, seems to be on a lielong learning path, expanding the model to other

settings. In these ongoing processes o prolonged and intense engagement, data

collection and analysis overlap, ideas and issues continuously emerge, in response

to participants voices and realities.

Te context o academia ofers a unique environment or entrepreneurship,6

where the universitys ethos o success (like business) is juxtaposed with the in-

stitution o tenure (unlike business). An all or nothing system, ailing tenure

means job loss. Consequently, job security looms centrally or junior aculty at

their ormative stage, promoting a risk-adverse culture that suppresses creativity

and innovation. Once tenure is achieved, there is tremendous space or explora-

tion, experimentation, and making mistakes through the institutional structures osabbaticals and by allowing major changes in research direction. Indeed, mistakes

and ailures are an ongoing part o academia in grant proposals, in the processes

o research projects, and in submitting works or publication. Tus, tenure system

unctions as a double-edged sword. As research on motivation has pointed out

(e.g., Amabile, 989; Lepper & Greene, 98), the preoccupation with extrinsic

rewards oten suppresses creativity and innovation.

Te AIEs o our course (all tenured) exhibited intrinsic motivation. Tey

have continued to be engaged in experiential learning in a continuous journeytoward expanded visions and possibilities. Te risks they took consisted o lack

o institutional acknowledgment or some o their unorthodox endeavors,7 some-

times maniested as slower promotion to that next level o ull proessor. Tey per-

ceived the real ailure as stagnation, in giving up or not ollowing their visions.

The Academic Intellectual Entrepreneur as an Animator and a Leader

Miller and Boud (99) reer to the unction o working with the experience o

others as animation (p. ) and to the person who works to promote others learn-ing as an animator. Te notion o animator draws on such connotations as to give

lie to, to quicken, to viviy, to inspire, and to activate. Miller and Boud

see the unction o animators to be that o acting with others in situations where


8/12

learning is an aspect o what is occurring. Indeed, I regard AIEs as educators in

the deepest sense o the word. Behind any endeavor, but particularly one that is

innovative and cutting edge, exists the need to give it lie so that it interacts withpeoples experiences. Te concept o animation captures the unction o intellec-

tual entrepreneur as working with others to inspire, negotiate, and lead in making

things happen. Animators create the persuasive conditions that help members o a

eld or domain to accept their work.

Viswanathans work with organizations in India and in the United States and

the various participants in his research and teaching exemplies his ability to ani-

mate. Similarly, another AIE in chemistry inspired students to rethink their notions

o chemistry and then worked with a publisher to create a diferent kind o chemis-

try textbook. Te role o working with others in product development practices that

exists in any organization, whether in industry or the university, has generally been

ignored or trivialized in the academic literature. Focusing on serial innovators and

their innovation processes across diverse, mature corporations, Price, Grin, Vojak,

and Burgon (008) examined the political actions that benet new product develop-

ment practices. Teir results show that, though the innovators began with the belie

that politics were avoidable, they eventually adopted a positive political outlook. Te

shit prompted them to use political actions, such as engaging people, positioning

products, inuencing action, breaking the rules, and iterating across the diferenttypes o actions, which enabled them to push cutting-edge projects and products

through the organization and into consumers hands.

All o these are clearly maniested in the dispositions o AIEs in the course,

whether it was in developing and introducing an innovative interdisciplinary pro-

gram; courses that involved new contents, ormats, and audiences; or a diferent type

o textbook. Even the modest development o products, suggest Price et al. (008),

meets resistance during invention and implementation, and the resistance surround-

ing a breakthrough new product is substantially greater. Te same was oten trueor our AIEs. Successul AIEs assumed several o the diferent roles identied in

new product development (Price et al., 008), including building mutual respect

and trust, sharing credit, engaging people by valuing individuals and their contribu-

tions, and, in general, recognizing the necessity o having people on board in order

to accomplish the tasks to which they were completely dedicated. Just as innovators

worked to gain a deep understanding o their customer requirements and possibili-

ties or the project and to demonstrate value to the business, AIEs had to do the

same. Like Prices innovators, they were determined, working at the issues until they

ound the solutions to technical and institutional problems. Viswanathans mission,

or example, required prolonged and continual dialogue with people and organiza-

tions in a collaborative process that included research participants, coresearchers,



9/12


and colleagues in other colleges to create intercollege courses. Tese negotiations in-

used the various stages o an entrepreneurial project.

Persistence in carrying a project necessitates a capacity or sustained at-tention. Attention is at the core o perception and exploration and the building

block o intimacy, wisdom, and cultural progress. Attention, writes William

James, is the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid orm, o one out

o what seem several simultaneous possible objects o trains o thought. It implies

withdrawal rom some things in order to deal efectively with others (quoted in

Jackson, 008, p. ). Te opposite o attention is the scatterbrained state o dis-

traction. Jackson (008) portrays the increased states o distraction in our society

where we are pulled constantly by virtual universes and the addictive allure o

multitasking people and things in a state o constant motion. Constant distraction

and multitasking are increasingly part o academic lie. In particular, working with

people on projects poses a challenge to create spaces or an undistracted ocus.

However, these spaces are crucial. Te challenge in intellectual entrepreneurship is

to combine the intense ocus o deeper thinking involved in a vision with multi-

tasking involved in working with others, allocating time and space or both.

Creativity

What is the role o creativity in entrepreneurship? Creativity was clearly mani-ested in the visions o AIEs in the course. It was also maniested in the practical

aspects o experiential learning and animating.

In his study o nearly 00 creative scholars, authors, and artists in various

disciplines, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (99) identies 0 dimensions of complex-

ityo creative people, tendencies o thought and action containing contradictory

extremes that in most people are segregated. Tough the AIE course did not ocus

on these dimensions, a postpresentation analysis showed that the AIEs exhibited

our o these characteristics: (a) passionate, yet objective; (b) ambitious, yet sel-less; (c) playul, yet disciplined; and (d) divergent, yet convergent. Viswanathan,

or example, was passionate about his project, yet thoughtully discussed problems

and areas or improvement. While ambitious in making the project happen, he

communicated clearly that the project was not about him but about something

bigger. Te multiple tasks oten involved playul, divergent thinking, yet the proj-

ect was convergent and required tremendous discipline.

Academic Intellectual Entrepreneurship as a Mutual Shaping Endeavor

We teach who we are, wrote Parker Palmer (998) amously, making a case that

teachers inner landscapes are central to what they do. I have noted elsewhere


10/12

(Bresler, 008b), that other occupations, too, to various extents, are shaped by

those who occupy them. Indeed, one can distinguish occupations by the degree

to which they ofer opportunities to express onesel. Being an artist is an obviousexample o an occupation that allows space to express who one isas importantly,

who one is shaped by their artistic experiences. I believe that academic intellectual

entrepreneurs, like artists, pattern themselves ater their visions, thus giving orm

to their spirit. In this article, I suggest that academic intellectual entrepreneurship

allows aculty to maniest who we are, and in turn, be shaped by this experience.

Acknowledgments

I am grateul to the Academy or Entrepreneurial Leadership or their tremendous

support o this work. I am indebted to Ann Abbott, Laura Hollis, Donna Murray-

iedge, Mike Parsons, Ray Price, Alex Ruthman, and Michael widale or their

reading o this paper and or insightul comments.

Notes

1. Ar a a diii a da wi jivi r a ar ad a drivd a ra d da wi i. A a fd, w av dvd wa jdi wi arii jivi: tr ar i wa dii d ad d di a-

kwd idra ( ) jivi. or diii ji ri wi jivi d ar r ii ad dar ird iv, adad a diii ad i ii, ad -iad iv ( ar a ai rrria aivii).

2. Rad ( dii) i ari a rarr av ariad ad-i ar dar, a Ria Irwi ad gra siva. Irwi aiza-

i a/r/ra r rar, ai, ad ar-aki (Irwi & d c,2004), ad rard r r a d ii. siva (2005),rdi ii a ia a arii iqir a -drva ar, ra, ad ia iifa via ar , ar a via ar a rizd a a r rar.

3. I a, w rrria r d rvd frad, irviwwr id wi rvai.

4. t r rad a rar rj AIe (brr, 2008a) a i dd uivri Iii Aad r errria ladri.

5. eir rvid a r d xadi vii daia iiii ar.o a ik ar dar a i wa ik rrr, arkiarii xri a ariia advad a drad, aria, adj . A ar xa idd sir Wd r ar. edaia rr-r i r diii id K br r ir, s hawki r ar-i, ad car saa r ar.

6. or i ir r, irarri, idia wrk wii iii.

7. W ir wrk a i vii, iii wa ia riv (n-a, 2006).



11/12


References

Aai, t. (1989). Growing up creative. ba, ny: craiv edai dai.

brr, l. (2003). o r: t j (ad rik) r-diiiar arai.Council o Research in Music Education, 152, 1739.

brr, l. (2006). tward d: Aia ad rar. Studies in Art Education,48(1), 5269.

brr, l. (2007, ma).Academic intellectual entrepreneurs: Reconguring possibilities. par r-d a r rd Visual Arts Research a naji uivri, na-

ji, cia.

brr, l. (2008a). The academic intellectual entrepreneur: A study o mission, excellence, andimpact. Rar rj i rr, dd uIuc (uivri Iii, uraacaai) Aad r errria ladri, caai, Il. uid.

brr, l. (2008). Rar a xri ad xri rar: ma ai i ar ad i qaiaiv iqir. LEARNing Landscapes, 1, 123132.

bra, mar. (2006). What ever happened to the aculty? Drit and decision in higher education.bair: J hki uivri pr.

br, J., hrwiz, R., & A, h. (1999). lari i ad r ar: crri i-iai. I e. ik (ed.), Champions o change: The impact o the arts on learning(.3546). Wai, Dc: Ar edai parri ad prid ci Ar ad haii.

ca, m. D., & edd, A. c. (2005). aii ar ad ari ai (ii):hw ra raizai air wrk ad iva ad irv. Long Range

Planning, 38, 299319.

card, m. s., & mgra, R. g. (1999). W i : tward -rrria air ad r-ivai. I p. Rd, W. D. brav, K. g. savr, c. m.ma, & s. maiar (ed.), Frontiers o entrepreneurship research (. 5872). W,mA: ba c.

crwiz, R. (2000). Ia rrri: ca ia iva i wa a r-d a r wrd? Rrivd rar 29, 2008, r ://wia.r.d/eee/a/i.a.

cikziai, m. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology o discovery and invention. nwyrk: harr ci.

Dzi, n. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. tad oak, cA: sa.

eir, e. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement o educational prac-tice. nw yrk: maia.

had, l., Wir, e., Va, s., & srida, K. m. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benets ovisual arts education. nw yrk: tar c pr.

Irwi, R., & D c, A. (2004).A/r/tography: Rendering sel through arts-based living inquiry. Va-vr, bc: paif edaia pr.

Jak, m. (2008). Distracted: The erosion o attention and the coming dark age. Ar, ny:pr bk.

K, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source o learning and development.ewd ci, nJ: pri ha.

lr, m., & gr, D. (1978). The hidden costs o reward. hida, nJ: leA.


12/12

li, y. s., & ga, e. g. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. nwr park, cA: sa.

mgra, R. g. (1999). ai rward: Ra i rai ad rrria air.Acad-emy o Management Review, 24(1), 1320.

mir, n., & bd, D. (1996). Aiai ari r xri. I D. bd & n. mir (ed.),Working with experience: Animating learning(. 313). ld: Rd.

na, A. (2006). pri ai: ei i ari rr a rarivrii.American Educational Research Journal, 43, 381424.

par, p. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape o a teachers lie. sa ra-i: J-ba.

pki, A. (1988). I ar jivi w. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 1721.

prki, h. (1992). To engineer is human: The role o ailure in successul design. nw yrk: Viabk.

prki, h. (1996). Invention by design: How engineers get rom thought to thing. carid, mA:harvard uivri pr.

pii, D., & gari, J. (2007, J 69). Entrepreneurs attitudes towards ailures: An experi-ential learning approach. par rd a ba c errri R-ar cr (bceRc 2007), Ii d era bi s, madrid, sai.

pri, R., grif, A., Vjak, b., & br, h. (2008, J). Innovation politics: How serial innovatorsgain organizational acceptance or breakthrough new products . par rd a i 15 Iraia prdiv Dv maa cr,har, gra.

s, D. A. (1983). The Refective practitioner: How proessionals think in action. nw yrk: bai

bk.s, R. (2008). The cratsman. nw hav, ct: ya uivri pr.

s, J. l., mara, p., & gardr, h. (2005). cri dari raiv wid: Aaai ria wrk. I R. srr & J. Jrda (ed.),A handbook o wisdom(. 272296). nw yrk: carid uivri pr.

sia, c., r, ., & Dr, h. (1997). Entrepreneurship, democratic action, and the cultivationo solidarity: Disclosing new worlds. carid, mA: mIt pr.

siva, g. (2005).Art practice as research: Inquiry in the visual arts. tad oak, cA: sa.

tri, s., & Ai, R. (2003). lari a air: bakr, fr a, ad rr-

ad viw. Organizational Science, 14, 497509.Vr, K. h. (1980). New venture strategies. ewd ci, nJ: pri ha.

Viwaaa, m., gajdira, s., & Vkaa, R. (2008). Enabling consumer and entrepreneurialliteracy in subsistence marketplaces. Drdr, t nrad: srir.

Contact Liora Bresler University o IllinoisDepartment o Curriculum and Instruction Education Building0 South Sixth Street

Champaign, IL 80E-mail: [email protected]


Documents

Bresler Intellectual Entrepreneurs