<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

When it comes to entrepreneurship, the conceptual framework of economics is disjointed: On the one hand almost everyone agrees that entrepreneurial initiative and creativity are critical for economic progress. On the other hand neither initiative, nor creativity, plays any role in formal models of choice and economic behavior. This creates a blind spot on the behavioral aspects of entrepreneurship. It has also spawned a dichotomy between the functional and behavioral aspects of entrepreneurial actions in the economics literature. Most importantly, it prevents economists from developing a coherent unifying theoretical framework for making sense of entrepreneurs. The problem is reinforced by the language and semiotics of economics and is reflected by the lack of behavioral research on entrepreneurs in the literature. As suggested by Baumol (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_csci.59_ref_002">1968</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_csci.59_ref_004">2010</xref>) initiative and creativity are the obvious defining traits of entrepreneurship. Even so, the literature has spawned a variety of different and occasionally nonsensical definitions of entrepreneurship that obscure and divert our attention away from these defining characteristics. The divergent definitions in the literature are further exacerbated by discordant conceptual structures and ideas that cannot easily be translated from one field to another. In the absence of a unifying framework, different fields have focused narrowly on entrepreneurship from dissimilar angles. The bottom line is that researchers in different fields sometimes rely on such incompatible definitions of what constitutes entrepreneurship that interdisciplinary dialogue is impossible. The end result is akin to the problem of radical translation between different languages. The paper concludes that the definition debates will not be resolved without a unifying structure that focuses on initiative and creativity as the defining attributes of entrepreneurship. This calls for some new tools and behavioral models that can explicitly account for initiative and creativity as integral aspects of human choices and actions.</abstract>

What’s in a Name? On Language, Concept Formation, and the Definition Disputes in the Entrepreneurship Literature

Themed Section: The CCI Final Symposium 2014

The Creative Economy: Who needs it?

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_csci.62_ref_022">Hartley and Potts (2014)</xref> argue that cultural science represents a new theoretical and methodological approach to the study of cultural structure, dynamics and use. We explain how this differs from the extant analytic frameworks of cultural studies, both as a research program and as a policy platform. The central idea is to reconceptualize what culture is, through a reinterpretation of what culture does. We argue that the semiotic productivity of culture makes groups – which we call demes – and demes make knowledge (what we call the externalism hypothesis); and the interaction of demes makes <italic>newness</italic> – new knowledge. Cultural science, then, is a new model of the cultural processes involved in socio-economic evolution and innovation of knowledge-making demes. The paper is in three sections, the first on the exhaustion of cultural studies; the second on the emergence of cultural science; and the third on some implications for cultural policy – illustrated by reference to Matthew Arnold’s policy on language preservation.</abstract>

What is Cultural Science? (And what it is not.)

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

This paper reviews the changing landscape of the publishing industry, which is being reshaped by dynamics of user co-creation, social networking and open licencing. It briefly touches on possible research themes associated with disruptive changes in the world’s oldest media/creative industry, particularly under the umbrella of “Cultural Science”. Two new models of publishing are discussed: literary self-publishing in China and open innovations in academic publishing. It argues that evolution in the publishing industry goes beyond “digital publishing” towards “new publishing in a digital world”, demanding new models serving population-wide creativity and open knowledge communication.</abstract>

Creative Users, Social Networking, and New Models of Publishing

Future Forming: A Rethink on the Creative Economy

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

The ARC Centre of Excellence in Creative Industries and Innovation (herewith CCI) was established with two simple policy objectives. One was to assess anecdotal and boosterish claims about the growth rates of the creative industries, and hence, to measure the size of the creative industries contribution to gross domestic product (GDP). The other was to ascertain the contribution of the creative industries to employment. Preliminary research detailed in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_csci.65_ref_005">Cunningham and Higgs (2009)</xref> showed that the existing industrial classifications did not incorporate the terminology of the creative industries, nor did they disaggregate new categories of digital work such as video games. However, we discovered that occupational codes provide a much more fine-grained account of work that would enable us to disaggregate and track economic activity that corresponded to creative industries terminology. Thus was born one major centrepiece of CCI research – the tracking of national occupational codes in pursuit of measuring creative industries policy outcomes. This paper commences with some description of empirical work that investigates creative occupations; however, the real point is to suggest that this type of detailed, occupation-based empirical work has important theoretical potential that has not yet been fully expended (though see <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_csci.65_ref_006">Cunningham 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_csci.65_ref_015">Hearn and Bridgstock 2014</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_csci.65_ref_001">Bakhshi, Freeman and Higgs 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_csci.65_ref_014">Hartley and Potts 2014</xref>).</abstract>

Creative occupations as knowledge practices: Innovation and precarity in the creative economy

Youth development or media innovation? The outcomes of youth media enterprise

Limitless Information – The Challenge for Copyright: A Panel Presentation at the CCI Symposium

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 13 (2021): Issue 1 (December 2021)

Volume 12 (2020): Issue 1 (January 2020)

Volume 11 (2019): Issue 1 (January 2019)

Volume 10 (2018): Issue 1 (January 2018)

Volume 9 (2016): Issue 1 (January 2016)

Volume 8 (2015): Issue 2 (December 2015)

Volume 8 (2015): Issue 1 (January 2015)

Volume 7 (2014): Issue 2 (February 2014)

Volume 7 (2014): Issue 1 (January 2014)

Volume 6 (2013): Issue 1 (January 2013)

Volume 5 (2012): Issue 2 (July 2012)

Volume 5 (2012): Issue 1 (January 2012)

Volume 4 (2011): Issue 1 (January 2011)

Volume 3 (2010): Issue 2 (January 2010)

Volume 3 (2010): Issue 1 (January 2010)

Volume 2 (2009): Issue 1 (November 2009)

Volume 1 (2008): Issue 2 (January 2008)

Volume 1 (2008): Issue 1 (January 2008)

Cultural Science Journal

 Cultural Science Journal is a multidisciplinary journal publishing original work on dynamics and change in culture, media and communications. It investigates structures, interactions, and processes of cultural systems at all levels of analysis and scales of application.  The Journal takes advantage of advances in cultural analytics, cultural data science, and cultural semiotics. It encourages active dialogue with evolutionary and institutional economics, cultural evolution studies, biosemiotics, complexity science, and network analysis, specifying the ‘uses of culture’ from personal meanings to planetary platforms and systems of meaning:   micro: individual agents, texts, objects, concepts, dialogues,  meso: groups, institutions, industries,  macro: planetary cross-system processes, the semiosphere.   Cultural Science Journal looks forward to publishing new work that could be critical, analytical and/or empirical, but is most often dialogical: interested in the production and translation of new ideas and knowledge, especially across perceived and disputed borders between systems, groups, and identities as well as academic disciplines.  Cultural Science Journal is a double-blind peer reviewed journal. There is no Article Processing Charges (APCs) or article submission charges.  Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 