Drawing on Freire, this article elaborates on how pictures and artefacts benefit processes of ‘prise de conscience’ and ‘conscientization’ among those with powerful voices. Wor(l)d-making was unfolded in the Swedish think-and-do tank, ‘the Smithy’, emphasizing the intrinsically political nature of promoting ‘societal entrepreneurship’ (SE). New words for SE were formulated and a more inclusive world was discerned where all had a role, not just as ‘helpers’, but as equal members of SE practices. Pictures and artefacts enabled hitherto silenced stories to be told and created a common understanding of how SE contrasted with traditional entrepreneurship. When new words were added to entrepreneurship, it was possible to reflect on the actions taken within the Smithy in a deeper sense, not only focusing on actions for the entrepreneurs ‘out there’, but also initiating self-reflection on the roles all had in the Smithy, or in other settings, to promote SE.
AustinJ.StevensonH.Wei-SkillernJ. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1): 1–22.
2.
BerglundK.JohanssonA. W. (2007). Entrepreneurship, discourses and conscientization in processes of regional development. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19(6): 499–525.
3.
BerglundK.WigrenC. (2012). Soci(et)al entrepreneurship: The shaping of a different story of entrepreneurship. Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 10(1–2): (online).
4.
BillF.BjerkeB.JohanssonA. W.(2010). Demobilizing or mobilizing the entrepreneurship discourse: Something else or none of it? In: BillF.BjerkeB.JohanssonA. W. (eds). (De)mobilizing the entrepreneurship discourse: Exploring entrepreneurial thinking and action. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. 1–14.
5.
BruniA.GherardiS.PoggioB. (2004). Doing gender, doing entrepreneurship: An ethnographic account of intertwined practices. Gender, Work and Organization, 11: 406–429.
6.
BuckinghamD. (2009). ‘Creative’ visual methods in media research: Possibilities, problems and proposals. Media, Culture & Society, 31(4): 633–652.
7.
ChiuL. F. (2006). Critical reflection: More than nuts and bolts. Action Research, 4(2): 183–203.
8.
DehlerG. E. (2009). Prospects and possibilities of critical management education: Critical beings and pedagogy of critical action. Management Learning, 40: 31–49.
9.
Drakopoulou DoddS.AndersonA. R. (2007). Mumpsimus and the mything of the individualistic entrepreneur. International Small Business Journal, 25(4): 341–360.
10.
FriedmanV. J.RogersT. (2009). There is nothing so theoretical as good action research. Action Research, 7(1): 31–47.
11.
FreireP. (1970/1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin Books.
12.
FreireP. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company.
13.
FreireP. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
14.
GergenK. J. (1991). The saturated self – Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.
15.
GergenK. J. (2003). Action research and orders of democracy. Action Research, 1(1): 39–56.
16.
GiddensA. (2003). En skenande värld. Stockholm: SNS Förlag.
17.
GrantS.HumphriesM. (2006). Critical evaluation of appreciative inquiry: Bridging an apparent paradox. Action Research, 4(4): 401–418.
18.
GustavsenB. (2008). Action research, practical challenges and the formation of theory. Action Research, 6(4): 421–437.
19.
Hee PedersenC. (2008). Anchors of meaning helpers of dialogue: The use of images in production of relations and meaning. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21(1): 35–47.
20.
HusseinJ. W. (2008). An existential approach to engaging adult learners in the process of legitimizing and constructing meanings for their narrative knowledge. Action Research, 6(4): 391–420.
21.
JackS. L.AndersonA. R. (2002). The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5): 467–487.
22.
JenningsP. L.PerrenL.CarterS. (2005). Guest editors’ introduction: Alternative perspectives on entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2): 145–152.
23.
JohannissonB.(2008). Iscensättande forsknings – om att kunskapa genom skapade evenemang. In: JohannissonB.GunnarssonE.StjernbergT. (eds). Gemensamt kunskapande: den interaktiva forskningens praktik. Växjö: Växjö University Press.
24.
JohanssonA. W.LindhultE. (2008). Orientation in action research – Emancipation or workability? Critical versus pragmatic scientific orientation in action research. Action Research, 6(1): 95–115.
25.
JonesC.SpicerA. (2005). The sublime object of entrepreneurship. Organization, 12(2): 223–246.
26.
JonesC.SpicerA. (2009). Unmasking the entrepreneur. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
27.
KemmisS.(2001). Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: Emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jürgen Habermas. In: ReasonP.BradburyH. (eds). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: SAGE. 91–102.
28.
KuckertzA.WagnerM. (2010). The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions: Investigating the role of business experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 25: 524–539.
29.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press.
30.
LevyD.ScullyM. (2007). Contested fields: The institutional entrepreneur as modern prince: The strategic face of power in contested fields. Organization Studies, 28(7): 993–1012.
31.
NichollsA. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34: 611–633.
32.
OgborJ. O. (2000). Mythicizing and reification in entrepreneurial discourse: Ideology-critique of entrepreneurial studies. Journal of Management Studies, 37(5): 605–635.
ReasonP.BradburyH.(2001). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In: ReasonP.BradburyH. (eds). The handbook of action research. London: SAGE. 1–12.
35.
ShaneS.VenkataramanS. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 217–226.
36.
SpinosaC.FloresF.DreyfusH. L. (1997). Disclosing new worlds: Entrepreneurship, democratic action, and the cultivation of solidarity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
SteyaertC. (2007). ‘Entrepreneuring’ as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19(6): 453–477.
38.
SteyaertC.KatzJ. (2004). Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: Geographical, discursive and social dimensions. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(3): 179–196.
