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

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 (1968 and 2010) 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.

Hartley and Potts (2014) 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 newness – 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.

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.

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 Cunningham and Higgs (2009) 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 Cunningham 2013; Hearn and Bridgstock 2014; Bakhshi, Freeman and Higgs 2013; Hartley and Potts 2014).