Journal of Small Business and Enterprise DevelopmentEntrepreneurial learning in family business: A situated learning perspectiveEleanor Hamilton

Article information:To cite this document:Eleanor Hamilton, (2011),"Entrepreneurial learning in family business", Journal of Small Business andEnterprise Development, Vol. 18 Iss 1 pp. 8 - 26Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14626001111106406

Downloaded on: 22 December 2014, At: 09:04 (PT)References: this document contains references to 67 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3617 times since 2011*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:David Rae, Mary Carswell, (2001),"Towards a conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial learning",Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 150-158 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006816Jason Cope, Gerald Watts, (2000),"Learning by doing – An exploration of experience, critical incidents andreflection in entrepreneurial learning", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research,Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 104-124 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552550010346208David Deakins, Mark Freel, (1998),"Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process in SMEs", TheLearning Organization, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 144-155 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696479810223428

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 529950 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Entrepreneurial learning infamily business

A situated learning perspective

Eleanor HamiltonLancaster University Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute towards understanding how entrepreneuriallearning might be understood as being socially situated, embedded in everyday practice in the contextof family business. The study is framed by three main principles drawn from situated learning theory.First, the family and the business are examined as overlapping communities of practice, as sites ofpractice-based knowledge. Second, the concept of legitimate peripheral participation is explored inrelation to members of the family business. Finally, how practice is both reproduced and transformedover time is examined in the context of two generations’ participation in a family business.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on an empirical study of two generations fromfive families, the founders of a business and their successors. The interview approach adoptedphenomenological techniques. A thematic analysis identified conceptual frameworks to make sense ofthe data in a “quasi grounded” approach. Finally, the three main principles introduced from situatedlearning theory – communities of practice, legitimate peripheral participation, and cycles ofreproduction and transformation provided a conceptual framework to analyse the empirical material.

Research limitations/implications – This is an interpretive, qualitative study based on a smallsample of families based in the North West of England. The findings are not intended to be generalisedto a population, but to offer empirical insights that extend theoretical frameworks in order to betterunderstand the entrepreneurial phenomenon.

Practical implications – The experience of the second generation both in the family business andin overlapping contexts of learning-in-practice brings innovation and change as well as continuity.The study also suggests that the complex process of succession might be informed by theunderstanding of the importance of the nature and extent of participation in the family business overtime.

Originality/value – This paper introduces conceptual frameworks that capture the socialcomplexity of intergenerational entrepreneurial learning and contributes an empirical illustration ofsituated learning theory within the context of family business. The situated learning perspectivecontrasts with much of the existing entrepreneurial learning literature, which has tended to focus on“the entrepreneur” and individual learning processes. This study demonstrates that applying alearning lens brings theoretical insights to the study of family business.

Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Workplace learning, Employee participation, Narratives, Family firms

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionThe aim of this paper is to introduce and examine the concept of intergenerationalentrepreneurial learning in family business. It is draws on an empirical study of thefounders and second generation in five family businesses. A conceptual framework isdeveloped derived from a socially situated learning perspective (Lave and Wenger,1991). This perspective suggests that learning is “an integral and inseparable aspect ofsocial practice” (p. 31). Learning is embedded in everyday practices in particular social,cultural and historical contexts. It supports theorising learning as an inherently social

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1462-6004.htm

JSBED18,1

8

Journal of Small Business andEnterprise DevelopmentVol. 18 No. 1, 2011pp. 8-26q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1462-6004DOI 10.1108/14626001111106406

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

as well as an individual phenomenon (Tusting, 2005). In this paper it is argued thatentrepreneurial learning is embedded in participation in everyday practice in familybusinesses.

The complex social phenomenon of family business has received increasingattention in the management literature during the last 20 years (Sharma, 2004). This isperhaps unsurprising given the scale and scope of family firms worldwide (Howorthet al., 2006). A recent study described the family business form as “especially vibrant”(Miller et al., 2008, p. 73). It has been proposed that more research attention should bepaid to family business, described as the “dominant form of organisation in the world”(Miller et al., 2008, p. 74). In addition, it has been strongly argued that the familydimension of family firms warrants greater research attention (Steier et al., 2004); andexisting research has not always acknowledged that the “family” and “business” areinextricably linked, with the family impacting in important ways on the business andvice versa (Aldrich and Cliff, 2003; Rogoff and Heck, 2003; Heck, 2004). Specifically,there have been calls for more studies “connecting family systems and entrepreneurialphenomena” (Aldrich and Cliff, 2003, p. 575).

Entrepreneurial learning in family systems, the focus of this paper, has not yet beenexplored. Entrepreneurial learning is defined here as the acquisition and developmentof the propensity, skills and abilities to found, to join or to grow a venture. Althoughthere appears to be a consensus that family business and entrepreneurship areimportant overlapping fields of interest (Zahra and Sharma, 2004), there has not to datebeen an examination of entrepreneurial learning in the context of family business. Avital gap, therefore, exists in understanding how the family and entrepreneuriallearning processes might be related (Heck, 2004). This study aims to address that gapby studying two generations in five family businesses. It explores the nature andextent of entrepreneurial learning in the context of a family business.

Entrepreneurial learning has been identified as an important emerging area ofstudy, yet it remains relatively undeveloped (Harrison and Leitch, 2005). Severaltheorists have touched on the social dynamic inherent in entrepreneurial learning,particularly in relation to network relationships. Gibb (1997) defines the “learningenvironment domain” for small business as embedded within the transactional andbusiness relationship networks of the entrepreneur including suppliers, customers,bankers, staff as well as family and peers. Similarly, Hines and Thorpe (1995) arguethat a complex network of entrepreneurial “learning agents” exists and that experienceshapes learning (p. 680).

However, much of the emergent entrepreneurial learning literature focused on “theentrepreneur” and broadly assumed individual learning through cognitive processes(Deakins, 1996; Rae and Carswell, 2000; Minniti and Bygrave, 2001; Cope, 2003,2005a,b; Politis, 2005; Corbett, 2005). Taylor and Thorpe (2004) particularly emphasisethat the literature on learning in small firms “links learning to individual entrepreneurswithout explaining the context in which learning takes place” (p. 203). Theyconceptualise entrepreneurial learning as “a process of co-participation” – in which“learning and influence are seen to emerge as part of an ongoing negotiated process” (p.203).

In 2005 a Special Issue of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice published whatwas understood to be the “leading edge of research in entrepreneurial learning”(Harrison and Leitch, 2005, p. 361). It represents a major contribution to the field. Three

Entrepreneuriallearning

9

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

of the seven articles in that Special Issue cite Lave and Wenger (Cope, 2005a, p. 388;Corbett, 2005, p. 482; Dutta and Crossan, 2005, p. 33) but there is no discussiondeveloped, either theoretically or empirically, of the situated learning perspective.Corbett (2005) also points to the large body of research in the field of entrepreneurshipled by those taking a cognitive perspective. He underlines its value, but points out thatlearning in relation to entrepreneurial processes has been neglected and calls for a“more fine grained examination of learning” (p. 474).

A key argument presented in this study is that adopting a situated learningperspective introduces a coherent social basis to understanding entrepreneuriallearning which has to date been principally viewed as an individual phenomenon. Cope(2005a,b) specifically calls for more empirical research examining entrepreneuriallearning within a social context and through social relationships. Taylor and Thorpe(2004) conclude that considerable theoretical development is required to create aconceptual framework that captures the social complexity of entrepreneurial learning.Some are leading the way; Gherardi and Nicolini (2002) draw on accounts of thepractice of main contractors, site foremen and engineers in their study of learning in amedium-sized building firm. They point to the potential contribution of practice-basedtheorising to the “analysis of knowledge intrinsic in practice” (p. 420).

This paper makes a case for a conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial learningin family business as a phenomenon emerging from everyday social practice. It isargued that the study of entrepreneurial learning might benefit from a broaderapplication of learning theories than has been the case to date. Situated learning theorysupports an examination of entrepreneurial learning emphasizing social and relationalcontexts. The intention is to challenge the dominant understanding of entrepreneuriallearning as principally an individual phenomenon by demonstrating empirically that itis embedded in social practice in particular historical and cultural contexts.

This paper briefly introduces the socially situated perspective of learning andexamines a number of the ways it has been critiqued in the last decade. It then focuseson three main principles, or core concepts, drawn from that perspective:

(1) communities of practice;

(2) legitimate peripheral participation; and

(3) cycles of reproduction and transformation.

The research study is outlined and the rationale for the research approach provided.The empirical data is then examined using the three principles as a framework. Thisanalysis points to the specificity of the “social” and the “situated” of the practice in thefamily businesses. Finally, there is a discussion of the implications of using situatedlearning theory as an interpretive framework and what it contributes to the study ofentrepreneurial learning. The main argument is that socially based theories of learning,in this instance situated learning theory, can extend our understanding of the complex,highly contextualised, process of entrepreneurial learning.

Situated learning as a conceptual frameworkThe aim of this study is to provide insight into the nature of learning in familybusiness by conceiving of the family business as a “community of practice” establishedby the founding generation in which the succeeding generations engage andparticipate. As individuals, we become members of a community of practice through a

JSBED18,1

10

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

process of “legitimate peripheral participation”. Through increasing engagement with,and participation in, particular practices in different social contexts we becomemembers of multiple, overlapping communities (Gherardi and Nicolini, 2002).

Situated learning theory provides a particular framework to explore forms oflearning in a social context, but is not without its critics. Existing studies have beencritiqued for failing to address issues of conflict and power (Fox, 2000; Contu andWillmott, 2003). In their original monograph Lave and Wenger (1991) were largelysilent on aspects of power and control. Contu and Willmott (2003) observed that asLave and Wenger (1991) moved from the presentation of the theory to analysis of theempirical studies of situated learning practices the significance of those aspects fadedRoberts (2006), in reviewing community of practice as an approach to knowledgemanagement, presents a number of unresolved issues and difficulties. She points tosome challenges: first, the need to differentiate communities of practice in terms of sizeand spatial reach; second, the problematic use of the term “community”; third, theappropriateness of communities of practice in an era of accelerated changes. Robertsfurther suggests that the approach may be limited in its relevance to small- andmedium-sized organisations, but this appears to be in relation to its use as a knowledgemanagement tool of some kind. There is a suggestion that researchers should focusmore on “practice” than community (Roberts, 2006) and there have been calls to clarifythe concept of “participation” and distinguish between “practice” as activity andparticipation as “meaningful” activity, where meaning is developed throughrelationships and shared identities (Handley et al., 2006).

Mindful of these challenges, this study focuses on three main principles drawn fromthe original seminal work of Lave and Wenger (1991) – communities of practice,legitimate peripheral participation and cycles of reproduction and transformation. Thethree concepts are briefly outlined below, with a view to then using them as aframework for analysing practice articulated in the family business.

Communities of practiceCommunities of practice are places where we develop, negotiate and share ourunderstanding of the world, “an intrinsic condition for the existence of knowledge”(Lave and Wenger, 1991, p. 98). The social structure of a community of practice with itspower relations and conditions of legitimacy defines the possibilities for learningthrough participation. Gherardi and Nicolini (2002) point to the specific contribution ofpractice-based theorising. The emphasis on practice, they suggest, focuses research onthe “doing” and the materiality of social relations, detaching understanding learningfrom the idealist tradition and cognitive approaches. Adopting this stance, leads to afocus on how the participants articulate their practice in the context of the familybusiness, particularly in relation to the definition proposed for entrepreneurial learningas the acquisition and development of the propensity, skills and abilities to found, tojoin or to grow a business.

Legitimate peripheral participationThe concept of legitimate peripheral participation focuses on the examination of therelationship between the members of a community of practice in one generation beingjoined by others from the next generation. It is concerned with the process by which

Entrepreneuriallearning

11

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

newcomers become part of a community of practice through engagement in socialpractice that entails learning as an integral constituent (Lave and Wenger, 1991).

Legitimate peripherality is a complex notion, implicated in social structuresinvolving relations of power. In her study of organisational learning Tempest (2003)warns against assumptions about where knowledge resides, and suggests caution inrelation to power-laden notions such as “novice” and “expert”, “master” and“apprentice”.

This paper focuses on the participation of the two generations at different stages inthe life cycle of the family and the business, particularly at the point of successionwhen the family business literature would suggest issues of power and conflict are atthe fore (Sharma et al., 2001; Shepherd and Zacharakis, 2000; Le Breton-Miller et al.,2004; Howorth et al., 2006).

Cycles of reproduction and transformationIf the family and the business are conceptualised as overlapping communities ofpractice then they are engaged in a “generative process of producing their own future”(Lave and Wenger, 1991, p. 57). That generative process implies continuity andenduring practice. However as social, cultural, technological contexts change over timeit must also entail discontinuity and new practice. A view exists that whilstincremental change is possible, radical change is difficult in communities of practice,and might only be achieved through the destruction of old communities (Roberts,2006). Fox also points to a limitation of community of practice theory in that it “tells usnothing about how, in practice, members of a community of practice change theirpractice or innovate” (Fox, 2000, p. 860). Others have pointed to the danger ofcommunities of practice becoming “static in their knowledge base and resistant tochange” (Roberts, 2006, p. 629).

The temporal dynamic of communities of practice is little understood. This paperexplores continuity and discontinuity in practice in the family business, andparticularly looks for ways in which practice may be articulated as introduced, ortranslated, between overlapping communities of practice.

The research studyThis study draws on in-depth interviews with the founders of a business and theirsuccessors from the next generation in order to explore how entrepreneurial processesmight be understood through a situated learning conceptual lens. The analysispresented here is but one interpretation of the empirical material with no intention togeneralise the findings. Rather the empirical data offers some tentative support for thetheoretical propositions of the situated learning perspective.

The sampleThe study is based on two generations in a total of five families. Interviews wereundertaken with a generation that founded a business and those members of thefamily who had taken over, or were working in, the business in the next generation.The series of interviews within each of the five families were designated“intergenerational sets”.

The businesses were identified through contacts or referrals, all based in theNorth West of England. The decision about who, and how many, to include in the

JSBED18,1

12

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

study was informed by other qualitative researchers undertaking similar approaches(see for example, Fournier, 1998; Cope, 2005a; Woodruffe-Burton, 2005; Warren andBrewis, 2004). Based on their studies, it was decided that the sample of participantswould be purposive. A purposive sample is determined by the experience of theprocesses being studied that any particular individual or group may be able to drawupon. Individuals are selected, therefore, on the basis of being “information rich”about issues related to the purpose of the research (Patton, 1990, p. 169). With thisapproach, it is the research study and its purpose that drives who and what shouldbe included. In a discussion of selecting cases Stake (1995) echoes this view byurging researchers to select on the basis that a particular case will provide an“opportunity to learn” about a given phenomena (p. 243). Morse (1995) calls thisform of selection “intensity sampling” when participants are chosen because theyare what she calls “experiential experts” (p. 229).

The selection process, although primarily purposive, also incorporated aspects ofwhat Morse (1995) calls “maximum variety sampling” in selecting a heterogeneoussample. The researcher was looking for different contexts when choosing families tointerview, for example businesses from different sectors, different ethnicity or differentconfigurations of succession. The businesses were from a range of sectors:manufacturing, services, and retail. The different configurations in terms of genderprovided intergenerational diversity. For example, one of the businesses was foundedby a woman whose daughter followed her into the business; in another case it was adaughter who had taken over the business from her father in the second generation; inother cases it was sons following fathers.

The decision to focus on founders and the second generation was influenced byreference to the entrepreneurship literature, particularly to the entrepreneurialprocess theorists who, following on from Gartner (1985, 1988), conceptualiseentrepreneurship in terms of the processes and behaviours linked to new venturecreation. Critiques of the entrepreneurial process theorists contest the implicationthat entrepreneurial behaviours and processes occur only at the point of businesscreation. They call for a view of entrepreneurship as a more dynamic, complexphenomenon going beyond the founding of a business to the survival, growth andexpansion of the business over time (Cope, 2005a,b). By focusing on the founder andthe second generation owner manager it was hoped to offer insights onentrepreneurial behaviours and processes in a different context, not only in onelifetime but beyond into the next generation.

The interviewsIn total, 12 in-depth individual and group interviews were conducted. Sixteenindividuals took part in total. In nine cases the interview was one-to-one with anindividual, three interviews were with two or more members of the same familytogether. Four interviews were with the founders on their own (three male, one female),two with male founders and their spouses, one with one of the wives on their own, threewith individual successors (two male, one female), one female successor with spouseand finally a brother, his wife and sister who were successors. (See the Appendix for abrief summary of the participants).

The interviews lasted between one to three hours, they were audio-taped andtranscripts produced from the tapes. The interview approach adopted

Entrepreneuriallearning

13

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

phenomenological techniques (Cope, 2005a,b). Interviews began with openconversational devices, such as “tell me about the family and the business” or“where did it all begin?” The second generation were asked questions like “when didyou first become aware of the business?” The aim was to encourage and supportparticipants to feel at ease and be able to respond freely, to tell their own story.

The analysisThe transcripts were read and re-read in a process of coding recurrent themes.Following this thematic analysis the next step, based on what emerged from theempirical material, was the identification of conceptual frameworks to make sense ofthe data in what Warren and Brewis (2004, p. 222) term a “quasi grounded” approach.The participants articulated learning in terms of daily activity, in the micro context ofthe family and the business, connected to everyday practice. There was a resonanceand a theoretical “fit” between what the participants talked about and the core conceptsof situated learning theory.

Finally, the three main principles taken from situated learning – communities ofpractice, legitimate peripheral participation and cycles of reproduction andtransformation provided a conceptual framework to analyse the empirical material.Interpretation continued with a close examination of the texts of the transcripts andwhat linguists identify as “idea units, stanzas, strophes” (Riessman, 2008) offeringempirical support for the theoretical frame.

The findings of this analysis are presented in the following sections of this paper.First, specific forms of “practice” articulated are explored with a view to understandinghow practice might be articulated as learning in overlapping communities of practice.Second, participation in the family business at different stages in the life cycle of thefamily and the business is examined in the light of the notion of legitimate peripheralparticipation. Finally, the concept of cycles of reproduction and transformation incommunities of practice over time provide a framework to understand thatdiscontinuity and innovation might be as important as continuity and tradition infamily business. The data illustrates empirically these aspects of situated learningtheory, with a view developing a theoretical understanding of entrepreneurial learningembedded in participation and practice.

Communities of practice in family businessThe interviews were littered with references to learning embedded within everydaypractice, in “constellations of interconnected practices” (Gherardi and Nicolini, 2002, p.420). If practice is a primary generative phenomenon of communities of practice and“learning is one of its characteristics” (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p. 34) then anexamination of how the participants articulate practice might serve to illuminateentrepreneurial learning in the context of family business. In this study “practice” inthe family business is articulated in three contexts:

(1) as the founders speak about the skills needed to found the business;

(2) as the second generation recall childhood experiences emphasising theirparticipation in the practice of business; and

(3) as radical new practice is introduced as individuals move betweeninterconnected communities of practice.

JSBED18,1

14

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Communities of practice (1): founding a business – bringing practice to bearFor the first generation of the Cheese Makers the decision to go into the business ofcheese making was drawing on the knowledge and practice of being situated withinthe wider farming community. At start-up it relied on the “mastery” of someone with alifetime of practice to share. The process was described as being shown how to makecheese and participating together in the process over three days:

And I have to say I didn’t know anything about cheese-making so I got an elderly gentlemanwho had been a cheese-maker all his life to come in. And he came the first day and showed usexactly what to do and he said “You do exactly like this tomorrow” then he said “on the thirdday I’ll come back and show you the next process”.

From that practical demonstration over three days, the mother of the Cheese Makersthen developed her own expertise over many years, which her daughter describes as a“fount of knowledge”. In the second generation the pattern is replicated to the extentthat the daughter is the one with the technical expertise. The daughter in herparticipation in cheese making from the age of 12, working every day in the schoolholidays, had learnt the technology of cheese making. She describes her role when sheand her husband joined the business: “I was the one who made the cheese, my mumtaught me to make the cheese. I was on the technical side.”

The business was founded by drawing on existing overlapping communities ofpractice. The family business then emerges as a community of practice itself asmembers of the family, and other employees, develop the “practice” of cheese makingas a business in a changing social, technological and cultural context. In this way, otheroverlapping and tangential communities of practice reproduce, but at the same timetransform themselves.

The father of Engineers spoke of the expertise he brought from his previousemployment when he founded the business “I knew how to buy and I knew how to lookafter subcontractors”. In describing the business in the second generation the sonechoes his father in terms of knowing how to buy: “You make your money as muchwhen you buy as when you sell”, and looking after sub-contractors: “You support themif they’re worth it to you.” The son has developed particular, practice which mirrors hisfather’s, but is applied in a different temporal and spatial context.

Communities of practice (2): childhood and the business – immersed in practiceFor the second generation of participants who subsequently joined the business,some of their earliest memories are engaged with the practice of the business. TheBrokers’ daughter recalls the shed in the garden where her parents first ran thebusiness and swivelling on an office chair. She articulates the early days of herchildhood in terms of what she did, the practice of being in the office: “Answer thephones, draw pictures, tidy up, go for coffee, go for the cake.” The son of theGrocers remembers being in the shop as soon as he could walk, following hismother and father around. His parents talk of the son’s childhood, of his continualinvolvement in the shop and how that influenced his decision to come into thebusiness. His mother articulates the participation of her children in the day-to-dayrunning of the shop as learning: “Yes, I mean we have never taught them anything,they have just watched how we do things.”

The family and the business as communities of practice become blurred andoverlapping. The practice of the business and the practice of the family are one and the

Entrepreneuriallearning

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

same thing for the second generation, so that it becomes an inextricable part of their“knowledgeably skilled identities in practice” (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p. 55). The sonof the Large Group describes how he worked from an early age in the hardware shopthat they lived above: “I used to stand on a box behind the counter, I don’t know I wastiny.” As a boy when he came home from school he couldn’t wait to get his schooluniform off and get to work in the shop. He describes working with his father in theshop and the lack of boundaries between work and home. The family lived in a flatover the hardware store when he was a child:

I had a classic above-the-shop upbringing . . . the best business training I had if you like wasround the dinner table.

Communities of practice (3): introducing new practiceThe daily lives of the family and the business are entwined. Therefore the learningopportunities might be extended, but at the same time bounded, by that overlap. How“compartmentalised” is learning in communities of practice? To what extent mightlearning be transferred or translated between communities of practice? It appears thatas well as participation within the family business, participation in another context,business or educative, can impact on the practice of the family business. Thisintroduces the concept of transferable learning through participating in inter-relatedcommunities.

All of the second-generation participants talked about engaging in practice outsidethe family business, in part-time or full-time employment in small and largeorganisations or in forms of education or training. They describe how throughincreasing legitimate peripheral participation they introduce new practice in thebusiness, triggering cycles of reproduction and transformation in the family business.

The daughter of the Cheese Makers went on to further education studying foodtechnology and then worked for a large food and drink company, she then instigatedpractices, which allowed the business to supply the big supermarket chains. Similarly,the son of the Large Group introduced corporate practice he had learned as a Europeansales director of a large company to grow the family business he joined. The son of theGrocers introduced computing systems into the shops, and helped his father introducenew retail technologies having undertaken a computer studies course.

It appears that legitimacy in the family business community of practice is based toan extent on legitimate peripheral participation in overlapping communities ofpractice. They overlap to the extent that individuals participate in them and movebetween them, translating practice and introducing both incremental and radicalchanges without necessarily destroying the existing community of practice. Thefollowing section examines the increasing legitimacy of the second generation, throughthe application of new knowledge and practice, and the consequent decreasinglegitimacy of the founding generation.

Legitimate peripheral participation: coming and going in the familybusinessThe social dynamic of a community of practice, its power relations and conditions oflegitimacy define the possibilities for learning through participation. In terms of familybusiness, conditions of legitimacy could refer to the immediate context of the family –

JSBED18,1

16

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

that is who can join in the activity of the business, the nature of that participation, howand when it occurs and under what conditions.

The empirical data indicate that knowledge, which can benefit the business, canreside in both generations. Tempest (2003) helpfully warns against assumptions aboutwhere knowledge resides, and suggests caution in relation to power-laden notions suchas “novice” and “expert”. In a family business it might be assumed that the foundershave the knowledge of the business and the second generation learn from them.However, the second generation bring their experience, education and imagination tobear in relation to the practice within the business. The founders of the Grocersarticulate how the first generation can learn from the second, and do so in relation tothe way specific things are done:

They say Mum you made a mistake there you shouldn’t do that and I say I’ve been doing thisall the time and they say no Mum you must do it this way, it’s amazing what bright ideas youget from the young generation.

The father of the Large Group says that had his eldest son not joined the business,bringing his experience of working in a large corporate organisation, he would neverhave been able to expand the business. They both talk about the introduction ofcorporate practice as underpinning the changes in the business. As the fatherrecognises, it was “tremendous learning curve for me” as the business moved from a“small self-employed business, one man band would be a good term, to thisconglomerate we’ve got now.”

It seems that in the processes of entry to the business and eventual succession,transformation of practice in the family business is as necessary as the reproduction ofpractice. Discontinuities are an essential part of the development of the business in thesecond generation. This study suggests that through increasingly legitimateparticipation in the practice of the business, the second generation bring innovationand change as well as continuity.

The ability to engage in the business is signalled by commitment in terms ofparticipation. The daughter of the Insurance Brokers pointed to increased levels ofbureaucracy and new demands on the practice of the business. This is seen to have animpact on the ability of the increasingly peripheral founders to engage in the practiceof the business and this was symbolised by not working Saturday mornings: “It’s adifferent ball game. And I tell you when, since legislation came in, directorates, theylost touch. I think shortly after Peter came in, they stopped doing Saturday morningsstraight away.” The increasing peripherality of the founders leads them to rely on thefully participative next generation and reduces their legitimacy. The next generationhave the knowledge of how to run the business having developed a skilled identity byparticipating in the community of practice. The peripherality of the founders isarticulated as “they’ve got old views” “they’ve not contributed to the business.”

Participation as the intrinsic condition of having knowledge is also illustrated bythe daughter of the Cheese Makers when she describes how her role in the familybusiness changed after she had children and she could not spend quite as much time inthe business: “ So you’re less involved so you have less knowledge.” Learning throughparticipation in social practice is an on-going part of the everyday life in the family andthe business. Legitimacy is gained through increasing participation, which leads to anincreasingly knowledgeable identity. Reduced participation leads to reduced

Entrepreneuriallearning

17

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

legitimacy linked to a lack of knowledge. The final findings section examines how thechanging nature of participation and legitimacy between the generations bothreproduce and transform practices within the family business.

Cycles of reproduction and transformation: some things change and somethings stay the sameThe data from the intergenerational sets illustrate cycles of reproduction andtransformation of practices in the context of a family business. One generationparticipates in and develops the business and is joined by others who eventuallysupplant that first generation. There is continuity and, at the same time, discontinuityin that process. The cycles of reproduction and transformation ensure the survival ofthe family business as it seeks to reconstitute itself as a community of practice in thenext generation. The complex, and often troubled, process of succession can beunderstood in terms of reproducing the family business as it moves from the hands ofone generation to the next. At the same time, however, it must be transformed as itmoves from one social, historical, technological, cultural context to another.

The participants in this study articulate how the knowledge base of the familybusiness is expanded and innovation takes place through the introduction by thenewcomers of new practice that they have acquired in other overlapping communities,including other work-based and formal education communities. Increasing legitimateperipheral participation is not just about acquiring knowledge but about introducingnew knowledge, not just about reproducing practice but transforming it.

The founder of the Cheese Makers points to legislative changes and inspections askey areas of change in the practice of the cheese making, but also refers to changesmore generally in practice: “Very much an art in the early days, now it has become verytechnical, a different set of rules, and all the various inspections that one gets now youjust couldn’t do what you did.” She declared: “I hated the first day we sold to asupermarket, I just hated it, I hated it even more when they put it in plastic bags, Icouldn’t bear the thought.” But these changes, implemented by the second generationwhen they joined the business, were necessary for the business to survive and grow,given the huge power of the large retailers in the grocery market in relation torelatively small manufacturers.

The father of the Engineers was good at building, and controlling a small but loyalteam: “He’s very good at running a business up to about 10 or 12 people, after that, hecan’t control everything, so he has a team of about 10 or 12 very loyal people,incredibly loyal people, who’d do anything for him.” The son of the Engineersarticulates the difference between them:

I could never run the business the way he ran it. No chance. Because one is, I’d forget.Secondly, it would bore me out of my brain. Thirdly, I wouldn’t do it because I’m lazy and it’sjust not my attitude. I’ve got to rely on people . . . I’ve got to give people freedom and then letthem develop and let them go and come.

This difference in practice and resulting discontinuity in the business has been anecessary difference for the business to grow and develop in the way it has. The sontold many stories about the difference in their attitudes to money. Again for the fatherit was all about control and building cash in the business. The son learned how to usemoney to make money when working in the sports shop as a teenager, buying and

JSBED18,1

18

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

selling fishing rods. He has no hesitation in borrowing money to grow the business.But he knows that his father could never work that way: “He’d be absolutely horrified.”

These intergenerational “differences” or discontinuities and the way the secondgeneration begin to dominate the business in terms of practice that they introduce iscentral to the shift in power from one generation to another. It calls into questionRoberts (2006) view that “we might then regard the traditional community of practiceto be a ‘slow community’” in an era of “fast capitalism”. The process of one generationtaking over from another in a community of practice through legitimate participation isaccompanied by reversals in legitimacy as the older generation participate less. Thisprocess can trigger both incremental and radical practice introduced by the nextgeneration, imported from overlapping communities of practice or driven by changesin institutional, technological or market forces.

DiscussionFox (2000) suggested that situated learning “draws our attention to learning that takesplace in everyday life” (p. 860). In this study the founders of the business articulate thepractices they bring to bear to found the business and the second-generation talk abouttheir everyday childhood experience of participation in the business. The participantsarticulate “learning-in-practice”, or what Brown and Duguid (1991) call“learning-in-working” (p. 41).

In considering the ebb and flow of participation in the family businesses, this studyreveals that the founders bring accumulated learning from a number of communities ofpractice including their own families, their work-based and educative communities ofpractice. They then form, with others, the community of practice that is the familybusiness. The second generation become members of that community, and others, in acycle of reproduction and transformation through participation. The dynamic ofentrepreneurial learning goes beyond a generation and manifests itself as cyclical,generational and acquired through participation in overlapping communities ofpractice.

This study also highlights an aspect of entrepreneurial learning that could betermed “learning to let go”, which has significance in terms of succession It seems thatin the context of the family business the process of leaving is as important as theprocess of joining. Participants identify that spending less time immersed in thebusiness and its context of practice leads to “less knowledge”. The second generationidentify that the founders would not understand or cope with changes, for example inmarkets, regulatory frameworks or technology. The founders participate less, or in adifferent way, as they leave the running of the business to the next generation. Theconcept of legitimate peripheral participation construes learning as a process ofparticipation. The theoretical focus within existing communities of practice literaturehas largely focused on the practice of joining, but what about the practice of leaving?Changing the nature and extent of participation as a process of departure is articulatedby both generations.

For intergenerational entrepreneurial learning discontinuity and new practice are asimportant as continuity and enduring practice. This challenges the view that radicalchange is problematic in communities of practice and might only be achieved throughthe destruction of old communities as suggested by Roberts (2006). The twogenerations of the family businesses articulate transformational practice that has been

Entrepreneuriallearning

19

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

learned through participation in other work or educative settings. Translating andtransferring practice from other communities of practice brings innovation. This goesone step to addressing what Fox (2000) saw as a limitation of community of practicetheory in that it “tells us nothing about how, in practice, members of a community ofpractice change their practice or innovate” (p. 860). As the second generation draw onpractice honed elsewhere they change the practices of the business often in radicalways – the farmhouse cheese to supermarket chain, the corner store embracescomputer systems, the engineering company expands internationally and diversifies.The warning that communities of practice may become “static in their knowledge baseand resistant to change” (Roberts, 2006, p. 629) may well be sound, but this studysuggests that transformational change is possible as newcomers join the old timers andintroduce new practice. Entrepreneurial learning is embedded in thesetransformational processes brought about through new combinations of practices.

Both generations articulate the specificity of entrepreneurial learning embedded inparticipation in everyday practice of the families. More specifically, entrepreneuriallearning relies on the ability to replicate, but also to transform, practice. The ability totransfer and translate practice appears to play an important role in the generative(entrepreneurial) capacity of a family business. The generality of any form ofknowledge lies in the power to renegotiate the meaning of the past and possible futuremeanings to fit present circumstances (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p. 34). Issues of powerand conflict go hand in hand with legitimacy – who can participate, and in whatpractices? Legitimacy may not be just about participation but about how practice isrenegotiated in the family business.

This study reveals entrepreneurial learning – the acquisition and development ofthe propensity, skills and abilities to found, to join or to grow a venture – manifested ina myriad of interconnected practices which are replicated, translated and renegotiatedover time embedded in a social and historical context. This study takes one particularframework from learning theory to begin an exploration of entrepreneurial learning asa socially based phenomenon, in the context of family business.

It has been suggested in the literature that as a theoretical perspective communitiesof practice has not fulfilled its early promise and continues to present theoreticalchallenges (Fox, 2000; Contu and Willmott, 2003; Handley et al., 2006; Roberts, 2006).

Lave and Wenger themselves indicated that communities of practice was proposedin their monograph as an “intuitive notion” requiring more rigorous treatment (Laveand Wenger, 1991, p. 42). They also suggest that: “theorizing about social practice,praxis, activity and the development of human knowing through participation in anongoing social world is part of a long Marxist tradition in the social sciences” (p. 50).

ConclusionExisting theorising on entrepreneurial learning has pointed to the potential importanceof a situated learning perspective (Corbett, 2005; Dutta and Crossan, 2005). This studyadopted a situated learning framework to examine entrepreneurial learning as sociallysituated in the everyday practice of the family and the business. In doing so it answerscalls for conceptual frameworks that capture the social complexity of entrepreneuriallearning (Taylor and Thorpe, 2004; Cope, 2005a,b) and contributes an empiricalillustration of situated learning theory within the entrepreneurial context of familybusiness.

JSBED18,1

20

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

This study articulates aspects of entrepreneurial learning as profoundly social, associally embedded rather than individually acquired. It contributes a specificunderstanding of the generative and transformative nature of situated learning. Interms of situated learning theory this suggests that communities of practice can act aseffective sites of innovation as much as the preservation and transmission of practice.This research has illustrated empirically how members of a community of practicetransfer, and translate, practice from inter-linked communities of practice to fosterinnovation. This has, to date, been perceived as a gap in community of practice theory(Fox, 2000; Roberts, 2006). In the entrepreneurial learning literature generative,transformative forms of learning have previously been theorised from an individual,cognitive perspective (Cope, 2003). This study augments that understanding byillustrating how learning is embedded in the social practise of everyday life.

So how might this study contribute to our understanding of family business? Muchof the literature in family business focuses on succession (Dyer and Handler, 1994;Sharma et al., 1996). Some family business researchers have observed that disciplinesare shaped by fundamental questions; they identify succession as the fundamentalquestion for the study of family business (Fletcher, 2000; Steier et al., 2004). Familybusinesses represent a significant proportion of the world economy (Sharma et al.,2001, p. 17) succession is therefore an important issue at the micro level of theindividual firm but also at the macro level of the economy worldwide.

Many researchers acknowledge that succession is a long term and complex process(Shepherd and Zacharakis, 2000; Westhead et al., 2002; Le Breton-Miller et al., 2004). Nosingle theoretical lens will unravel that complexity, but this study demonstrates thatapplying a learning lens brings theoretical insights to the study of family business. Inparticular an examination of entrepreneurial learning as socially situated phenomenonsheds light on the complex processes of transition in family business.

First, the concept of a family business as a community of practice illustrates thedynamic of entrepreneurial learning going beyond a generation and manifests itself ascyclical, generational and acquired through participation in overlapping communitiesof practice. Learning-in-practice in the family business is confirmed as a “long termendeavour initiated early in the heirs’ lives” (Stavrou, 1999, p. 45), but not confined tothe family business. The participants articulate transformational practice that hasbeen learned through participation in other work or educative settings. Translatingand transferring practice from other communities of practice brings innovation. Thenotion community of practice introduces an understanding of how, in the transitionbetween generations, practice is both reproduced and transformed.

In further developing this interplay between reproduction and transformation thetheoretical concept of legitimate participation revealed that through increasinglyparticipation in the practice of the business, the second generation bring innovationand change as well as continuity. It also revealed a form of entrepreneurial learning inwhich participants have to learn to leave a community of practice, a vital part of thesuccession process. Theorising has mainly focused on joining a community of practice,as newcomers join old timers. This study explored the process of leaving a communityof practice and the relationship between participation and legitimacy as a generationlearn to let go.

The study has illustrated that in family business the social dynamic of a communityof practice, its power relations and conditions of legitimacy define the possibilities for

Entrepreneuriallearning

21

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

learning through participation. It appears that socially situated learning theory canoffer insights into the complex processes of succession and the forms of transitionbetween the generations, a fundamental area of enquiry in family business research.

References

Aldrich, H.E. and Cliff, J.E. (2003), “The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: toward afamily embeddedness perspective”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 573-8.

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1991), “Organisational learning and communities of practice: towarda unified view of working, learning and innovation”, Organisation Science, Vol. 2 No. 1,pp. 40-57.

Contu, A. and Willmott, H. (2003), “Re-embedding situatedness: the importance of powerrelations in learning theory”, Organisation Studies, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 283-96.

Cope, J. (2003), “Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection: discontinuous events as triggersfor higher-level learning”, Management Learning, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 429-50.

Cope, J. (2005a), “Towards a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship”,Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 373-99.

Cope, J. (2005b), “Researching entrepreneurship through phenomenological inquiry:philosophical and methodological issues”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 23No. 2, pp. 163-89.

Corbett, A.C. (2005), “Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification andexploitation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 473-91.

Deakins, D. (1996), Entrepreneurship and Small Firms, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.

Dutta, D.K. and Crossan, M.M. (2005), “The nature of entrepreneurial opportunities:understanding the process using the 41 organisational framework”, EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 425-50.

Dyer, W.G. Jr and Handler, W. (1994), “Entrepreneurship and family business: exploring theconnections”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 71-83.

Fletcher, D. (2000), “Family and enterprise”, in Carter, S. and Jones-Evans, D. (Eds), Enterpriseand Small Business: Principle, Practice and Policy, Pearson Education, Harlow.

Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumerresearch”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-73.

Fox, S. (2000), “Communities of practice, Foucault and actor-network theory”, Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 853-67.

Gartner, W.B. (1985), “A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venturecreation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 696-706.

Gartner, W.B. (1988), “‘Who is an entrepreneur?’ is the wrong question”, American Journal ofSmall Business, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 11-32.

Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2002), “Learning in a constellation of interconnected practices:canon or dissonance?”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 419-36.

Gibb, A.A. (1997), “Small firms training and competitiveness. Building upon the small businessas a learning organisation”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 13-29.

Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R. and Clark, T. (2006), “Within and beyond communities ofpractice: making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice”, Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 641-54.

JSBED18,1

22

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Harrison, R.T. and Leitch, C.M. (2005), “Entrepreneurial learning: researching the interfacebetween learning and the entrepreneurial context”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 351-72.

Heck, R.K.Z. (2004), “A commentary on entrepreneurship in family vs non-family firms:a resource-based analysis of the effect of organisational culture”, Entrepreneurship:Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 383-90.

Hines, T. and Thorpe, R. (1995), “New approaches to understanding small firm networks –the key to performance, managerial learning and development”, Proceedings of the 18thISBA National Small Firms Policy and Research Conference, Paisley.

Howorth, C., Rose, M.B. and Hamilton, E. (2006), “Definitions, diversity and development:key debates in family business research”, in Casson, M., Yeung, B., Basu, A. and Wadeson, N.(Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Le Breton-Miller, I., Miller, D. and Steier, L.P. (2004), “Towards an integrative model of effectiveFOB succession”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 305-28.

Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I. and Scholnick, B. (2008), “Stewardship versus stagnation:an empirical comparison of small family and non-family businesses”, Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 51-78.

Minniti, M. and Bygrave, W. (2001), “A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning”,Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 5-16.

Morse, J.M. (1995), “Designing funded qualitative research”, in Denzin, N.K. andLincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage, London.

Politis, D. (2005), “The process of entrepreneurial learning: a conceptual framework”,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 399-424.

Rae, D. and Carswell, M. (2000), “Using a life-story approach in researching entrepreneuriallearning: the development of a conceptual model and its implications in the design oflearning experiences”, Education þ Training, Vol. 42 Nos 4/5, pp. 220-7.

Riessman, C.K. (2008), Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences, Sage, London.

Roberts, J. (2006), “Limits to communities of practice”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43No. 3, pp. 623-40.

Rogoff, E.G. and Heck, R.K.Z. (2003), “Evolving research in entrepreneurship and familybusiness: recognising family as the oxygen that feeds the fire of entrepreneurship”, Journalof Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 559-66.

Sharma, P. (2004), “An overview of the field of family business studies: current status anddirections for the future”, Family Business Review, Vol. XVII No. 1, pp. 1-36.

Sharma, P., Chrisman, J.J. and Chua, J.H. (1996), A Review and Annotated Bibliography of FamilyBusiness Studies, Kluwer, Boston, MA.

Sharma, P., Chrisman, J.J., Pablo, A.L. and Chua, J.H. (2001), “Determinants of initial satisfactionwith the succession process in family firms: a conceptual model”, Entrepreneurship:Theory and Practice, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 17-35.

Shepherd, D.A. and Zacharakis, A. (2000), “Structuring family business succession”,Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 25-39.

Stake, R.E. (1995), “Case studies”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook ofQualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Entrepreneuriallearning

23

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Stavrou, E.T. (1999), “Succession in family business”, Journal of Small Business Management,Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 43-61.

Steier, L.P., Chrisman, J.J. and Chua, J.H. (2004), “Entrepreneurial management and governance infamily firms: an introduction”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 4,pp. 295-303.

Taylor, D.W. and Thorpe, R. (2004), “Entrepreneurial learning: a process of co-participation”,Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 203-11.

Tempest, S. (2003), “Intergenerational learning: a reciprocal knowledge development process thatchallenges the language of learning”, Management Learning, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 181-200.

Tusting, K. (2005), “Language and power in communities of practice”, in Barton, D. andTusting, K. (Eds), Beyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power and Social Context,Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Warren, S. and Brewis, J. (2004), “Matter over mind? Examining the experience of pregnancy”,Sociology, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 219-36.

Westhead, P., Howorth, C. and Cowling, M. (2002), “Ownership and management issues in firstgeneration and multi-generation family firms”, Entrepreneurship and RegionalDevelopment, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 247-69.

Woodruffe-Burton, H.R. (2005), “Compensatory consumption and narrative identity theory”,paper presented at Advances in Consumer Research (Association for Consumer Research,Conference, Portland, Oregon, USA).

Zahra, S.A. and Sharma, P. (2004), “Family business research: a strategic reflection”, FamilyBusiness Review, Vol. XVII No. 4, pp. 331-46.

Further reading

Beech, N. and Sims, D. (2007), “Narrative methods for identity research”, in Pullen, A., Beech, N.and Sims, D. (Eds), Exploring Identity: Concepts and Methods, Palgrave Macmillan,Basingstoke.

Burgoyne, J.G. (1995), “Learning from experience: from individual discovery to meta-dialogue viathe evolution of transitional myths”, Personnel Review, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 61-72.

Burgoyne, J.G. (2001), “The nature of action learning: what is learned about in action learning?”,New Directions in Action Learning Seminar Series: Paper No. 2, The Revans Institute forAction Learning & Research, February.

Burgoyne, J. (2002), “Learning theory and the construction of self: what kinds of people do wecreate through theories of learning that we apply to their development?”, in Pearn, M. (Ed.),Individual Differences and Development in Organisations, John Wiley & Sons, New York,NY.

Cope, J. and Watts, G. (2000), “Learning by doing: an exploration of experience, critical incidentsand reflection in entrepreneurial learning”, International Journal of EntrepreneurialBehaviour and Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 104-24.

Czarniawska, B. (2004), Narratives in Social Science Research, Sage, London.

Deakins, D. and Freel, M. (1998), “Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process in SMEs”,The Learning Organisation, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 144-55.

Fournier, V. and Lightfoot, G. (1996), “Identity, work and family business”, paper presented at19th ISBA National Small Firms Policy and Research Conference, UCE, Birmingham.

Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D. and Odella, F. (1998), “Towards a social understanding of how peoplelearn in organisations”, Management Learning, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 273-97.

JSBED18,1

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Hamilton, E. (2006a), “Whose story is it anyway? Narrative accounts of the role of women infounding and establishing family businesses”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 24No. 3, pp. 253-71.

Hamilton, E. (2006b), “Narratives of enterprise as epic tragedy”, Management Decision, Vol. 44No. 4, pp. 536-50.

Johansson, A.W. (2004), “Narrating the entrepreneur”, International Small Business Journal,Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 273-93.

Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R. and Zilber, T. (1998), Narrative Research: Reading, Analysis& Interpretation, Sage, London.

Mishler, E.G. (1986), “The analysis of interview-narratives”, in Sarbin, T.R. (Ed.), NarrativePsychology, Greenwood Press, New York, NY.

Ogbor, J.O. (2000), “Mythicizing and reification in entrepreneurial discourse: ideology-critique ofentrepreneurial studies”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 605-35.

Propp, V. (1968 [1928]), Morphology of the Folktale, University of Texas, Austin, TX (trans.Laurence Scott, revised by Louis A. Wagner).

Sharma, P., Chua, J.H. and Chrisman, J.J. (2000), “Perceptions about the extent of successionplanning in Canadian family firms”, Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration,Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 233-44.

Taylor, D.W. and Thorpe, R. (2000), “The owner-manager – no isolated monad: learning as aprocess of co-participation”, Proceedings of the 23rd ISBA National Small Firms Policy andResearch Conference, pp. 1185-99.

Wenger, E. (1999), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, MA.

Young, J.E. and Sexton, D.L. (1997), “Entrepreneurial learning: a conceptual framework”, Journalof Enterprising Culture, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 223-48.

Appendix. Summary of the families participating in the studyThe EngineersThe father worked in engineering and was made redundant at Director level when he was 50. Heand his wife set up a business and worked together to build a successful engineering company,relatively late in life. Previously she had not been employed during their married life. Their sonleft school, joined a graduate training scheme, and went on to a successful career in sales. In his20s, he went on a visit to a customer with his father. On the journey home, in conversation withhis father, he decided to join the business rather than take an apparently more attractive sales jobon offer at the time. He expanded the company internationally was committed to growth anddiversification in the business.

The BrokersThe mother and father set up an insurance brokerage with another couple when the daughterwas young. Her mother always worked in the business but never had the status of “partner”. Thetwo men were partners; both wives worked in the business, unpaid in the early days. Thedaughter left school, went to college, but was not happy and asked her father for a job. Herefused, advising her to get some experience first. She worked in a bank but when an officejunior’s job was advertised in her father’s business, she formally applied for it, was interviewedand given the job at the age of 19. She worked her way up in the business, finally achieving therole of Senior Partner after more than 20 years.

Entrepreneuriallearning

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

The Cheese-MakersA farmer’s daughter, married to a farmer, set up a cheese-making operation on a farm in the1950s. She grew the business to become a major supplier of farmhouse cheese. Her daughter andson- in-law have taken over the business to grow and develop it further over the last 15 years.

The GrocersThe family was forced to leave Uganda in 1972 when General Idi Amin ordered the expulsion ofall non-citizen Asians from the country. They came to the UK and borrowed money to buy acorner shop. They grew the business, with other members of the family, eventually owning 14corner grocery stores. As they grew up, their son and daughter worked in the shop. They all livedin a flat over the shop for many years. The mother and father moved out of the flat over theoriginal shop and the son and his wife moved in. It was assumed that they would take over, asthe mother and father were due to retire. However the parents had not yet relinquished control.

The Large GroupEncouraged by his wife, the father went into business at the age of 28, buying the local petrolstation and hardware shop in the village they lived in. He subsequently built up a large portfolioof businesses across the UK. The wife worked as a teacher, based on her work earnings andability to borrow capital, the business was able to expand. The children were brought up “overthe shop”. Both sons work in the business. Following his younger son’s critical illness at the ageof 17, the father created a business to provide employment for him. The desire of his older son toescape from corporate life led him to join the business at a later date.

Corresponding authorEleanor Hamilton can be contacted at: e.hamilton@lancaster.ac.uk

JSBED18,1

26

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. Elena San Román, Paloma Fernández Pérez, Águeda Gil López. 2014. As old as history: Family-controlledbusiness groups in transport services: the case of SEUR. Business History 56, 1201-1222. [CrossRef]

2. Nicholas Theodorakopoulos, Nada K. Kakabadse, Carmel McGowan. 2014. What matters in businessincubation? A literature review and a suggestion for situated theorising. Journal of Small Business andEnterprise Development 21:4, 602-622. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

3. Nicholas Theodorakopoulos, Carmel McGowan, David Bennett, Nada Kakabadse, Catarina Figueira.2014. Diversifying into technical clothing manufacture as entrepreneurial learning. Journal ofManufacturing Technology Management 25:5, 676-693. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4. Catherine L. Wang, Mohammed Rafiq, Xiaoqing Li, Yu Zheng. 2014. Entrepreneurial preparedness: anexploratory case study of Chinese private enterprises. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour& Research 20:4, 351-374. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

5. Pieter Seuneke, Thomas Lans, Johannes S.C. Wiskerke. 2013. Moving beyond entrepreneurial skills:Key factors driving entrepreneurial learning in multifunctional agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies 32,208-219. [CrossRef]

6. Lukasz M. Bochenek, Sam BliliSocial Media Champions — Drivers and Sophistication Process of SocialMedia Strategic Management 143-167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]

7. Harry Matlay, Navjot Sandhu, Javed Hussain, Harry Matlay. 2012. Entrepreneurship education andtraining needs of family businesses operating in the agricultural sector of India. Education + Training54:8/9, 727-743. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Allan Discua Cruz, Eleanor Hamilton, Sarah L. Jack. 2012. Understanding entrepreneurial cultures infamily businesses: A study of family entrepreneurial teams in Honduras. Journal of Family Business Strategy3, 147-161. [CrossRef]

9. Dirk J. Geldenhuys, Frans Cilliers. 2012. Transforming a small business: A learning intervention. SAJournal of Industrial Psychology 38. . [CrossRef]

10. ANAT BARNIR, ERIN MCLAUGHLIN. 2011. PARENTAL SELF-EMPLOYMENT, START-UPACTIVITIES AND FUNDING: EXPLORING INTERGENERATIONAL EFFECTS. Journal ofDevelopmental Entrepreneurship 16, 371-392. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

KD

EN

IZ U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 09:

04 2

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)