
































Microsoft Word - 16 Summer 112 layout final.docx


Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Art  Volume 5, Issue 2 
http://artivate.org         pp. 23-42 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Copyright © 2016, the authors   
 

“CREATIVE?”… “ENTREPRENEUR?” – UNDERSTANDING THE CREATIVE 
INDUSTRIES ENTREPRENEUR 
Tena Patten 
Letterkenny Institute of Technology 
 

Abstract 
 This article explores the lived experience of being an entrepreneur in the creative 
industries. Entrepreneurial and creative organizations are frequently cited as necessary 
ingredients for thriving economies. While the individual/society nexus has been well 
documented by entrepreneurship scholars, the experiences of individuals within the creative 
industries remains under-theorized. This study seeks to contribute to an understanding of the life 
of the creative industries entrepreneur and is underpinned by a social constructionist philosophy. 
 Three creative industry entrepreneurs were interviewed twice, and the data were analyzed 
using the principles of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Detailed idiographic accounts 
were created of each entrepreneur before cross-case analysis occurred. 
 While the sample size for the study is small, the results indicate that creative industry 
entrepreneurs do not align themselves with traditional entrepreneurship discourses. The need to 
express their creativity through products, experiences, and services is balanced against the need 
to generate income and varying strategies are employed to do so. Research findings have 
implications for the education and support of creative industry entrepreneurs, and for policy-
makers.  
 

Introduction 
 Discourses surrounding creativity separate the creative person from the mainstream and 
present her as an interesting and slightly mysterious object of study (Caves, 2000; Dixon, 2010). 
Entrepreneurship debates meanwhile emphasize the benefits to society of a lively and productive 
entrepreneurial eco-system that contributes to economic growth (Henry and De Bruin, 2011). 
Countries seek to capitalize on entrepreneurial activity to drive employment and to promote 
innovation at the national level (Flew and Cunningham, 2010). This article aims to examine the 
experiences of the creative individual in the context of the broader “entrepreneurial society” 
(Audretsch, 2007) and to uncover the particular challenges that creative individuals face in the 
marketization of their creativity. In particular, this research recognizes that the constructs of the 
“creative industries” and of “entrepreneurship” are themselves ardently debated, and definitional 
and theoretical consensus on both has not been reached. The “creative industries” is chosen 
deliberately, as a rich site of “creative intensity” (Bakshi, Freeman and Higgs, 2012). 
 Entrepreneurship in the creative field is a phenomenon experienced by individuals, 
making sense of life experiences in different ways. Like other social life, entrepreneurship is a 
“collaborative social achievement” (Downing, 2005, p. 196). Meaning is constructed at an 
individual level based on ongoing experience within the social scheme, and is constantly 
changing to incorporate new experiences: although operating in an ostensibly similar 
environment, each creative industry entrepreneur experiences their own social reality. There is 
no single reality; multiple realities exist. Social constructionism regards social reality as “…not 
separate from us, but…social realities and ourselves are intimately interwoven as each shapes 
and is shaped by the other in everyday interactions” (Cunliffe, 2008, p. 124). Entrepreneurs 
construct meaning from experience; the current study attempts to understand and interpret this 
meaning. The ontological position of social constructionism acknowledges that understandings 
of reality are context-based; the world originates in the thoughts and actions of individuals and is 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

24 

“maintained as real by these” (Berger and Luckmann, 1966, p. 33). The situation is made more 
complex by “the temporal structure of everyday life” which “imposes itself” on every individual 
biography (p. 42). As the creative industry entrepreneur absorbs ever more experience, their own 
social reality and the meaning they take from their lived experience is modified: the phenomenon 
is not static. 
 The article is structured as follows: first, I combine the notion of the “creative individual” 
and the “entrepreneur”, drawing on the works of Csiksentmihalyi (1996, 1997, 2012) and 
Sarasvathy (2008). Consideration is given to definitional issues about creativity, creative 
processes, and the creative industries. The entrepreneurship theory base is consulted, in 
particular relating to entrepreneurial opportunity. Following, I offer three accounts of creative 
entrepreneurship, embedding analysis throughout. I conclude with a discussion of how these 
accounts add to an understanding of the “creative industries entrepreneur” as a center-stage actor 
within the entrepreneurial landscape.  
  

Creative entrepreneurs 
 The creative entrepreneur is positioned theoretically at the nexus of creativity and 
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and creativity are closely linked (Schumpeter, 1934; Kirzner, 
1978) and entrepreneurship can be considered to be creative in itself, as “entrepreneurial 
decisions are creative decisions” (Vaghely and Julien, 2010, p. 75). Commonalities in 
experiences, behaviors, and approaches between creative individuals and entrepreneurs can be 
identified: both are transformative and are characterized by innovation and both benefit from 
practice and reflection (Townley and Beech, 2010); entrepreneurs can be regarded as the 
“connective tissue” between creativity and business (Penaluna and Penaluna, 2011, p. 58). The 
“supposed antithesis” of creativity and management (Townley and Beech, 2010) can be 
challenged as each displays evidence of process, of discipline, and of problem-solving. Each 
benefits from practice and each uses specific systems to advance. Consequently, while I reject 
the separation thesis of creativity and entrepreneurship, I accept that it provides a useful 
framework within which to examine current theoretical debates. 
 
Creativity 
 Scholarly debate on the creative individual, that is, the person who works within creative 
settings and generates output considered by the domain to demonstrate creativity (Caves, 2000; 
Hackley and Kover, 2007) has shifted from a traits approach centering on the “lone artist” 
(Guildford, 1950; Torrance, 1962) towards a grand narrative in which organizations are urged to 
commercialize creativity, and to treat it as yet another economic resource (Caves, 2000) to be 
leveraged in supplying the insatiable market. Creative people display contrasting qualities: they 
are considered to be prolific and at the center of a set of activities (Townley and Beech, 2010) 
but also marginal and capable of drawing inspiration from across social groups (Burt, 2004). 
They are positioned as being “different” (Hackley and Kover, 2007) yet the drive to normalize 
creativity surely requires a sameness, which can offer organizations standards of measurement 
for recruitment practices and performance measurement. The “creative class” (Florida, 2014) can 
either accept or reject the place allocated to it by outside forces. 
 Definitions of creativity converge around the concepts of “novelty” and “usefulness” 
(Runco, 2014; Amabile, 1996) and to be recognized in their domain, creative individuals must be 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

25 

able to produce output that can fulfil these criteria. The creative act whereby “that which is 
unknown, or known in another way, becomes translated into an image to be re-presented to 
itself” (Townley and Beech, 2010, p. 12) must be stripped of its mystery if it is to become 
operationalized within organizational settings. Within creative studies, it is accepted that 
“innovation”, that is, creativity which can change a domain, can only happen after years of 
technical knowledge and immersion in a field. Organizations serious about creativity must invest 
significantly and absorb the risk that such investment may not yield hoped for, but still expected, 
results. Creative work encompasses the ethereal and the mundane, the autotelic, suspended state 
of the creative act (Csikzentmihalyi, 1996) and the prosaic view of creative work in which 
“works of art can be made in an orderly, rational and manageable manner” (Dixon, 2010, p. 48). 
 
Process models of creativity 
 Process models of creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Amabile, 2012) offer frameworks 
for considering how creativity functions within social systems. Creativity occurs at the 
intersection of the domain, the field, and the person. Domains (such as poetry, branches of 
science, architecture) are knowledge bases based around symbols, rules, and notation systems 
which allow things to be understood, “…an isolated little world in which a person can think and 
act with clarity and concentration” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 37).  Fields, made up of experts 
in a given domain whose job involves passing judgment on performance in that domain, 
allowing it to be accepted or not, and including teachers, critics, gate-keepers, and other domain 
experts, represent the “gate” (Cooper, 2002) through which the creative work passes. The person, 
as the third element in the model, displays intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Amabile, 1996). 
The extent to which creative individuals respond to intrinsic motivators (satisfaction, fulfilment) 
doing things for which they expect “neither fame nor fortune” (Csikszentmihalyi, 2004) as 
opposed to extrinsic motivations such as market demands, financial reward and domain 
recognition (Fletcher, 2006) is a matter of choice and personal agency. Positioning themselves 
along the continuum of behaviors from “a total focus on creative output to a complete 
commitment to economic performance” (Tjemkes, 2013, p. 122) can result in liberation or 
oppression from the status quo. Different levels of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be 
traced to different sectors within the creative industries (Penaluna and Penaluna, 2011, p. 65): 
fine artists have “primarily intrinsic desires to feed their creativity” while designers have to 
respond to problems identified by clients, and are less “what I want” and more “what they want”. 
Research conducted by Gluck (2002) indicates that “free” creative industries professional (those 
not restricted by external constraints) hold different conceptions of creativity to their fellow 
“constrained” counterparts.   
 Within the creative industries (DCMS, 1998), tacit knowledge, gained through practice 
and reflection, operates to challenge individuals to “…develop their own creative repertoires.” 
(Taylor, 2011, p42). Constraints presented by industry structure, funding, level of porosity, or 
development of the field provide opportunities for creative individuals, as would-be 
entrepreneurs, to identify or make opportunities.  
 The need for autonomy (Penaluna and Penaluna, 2011), the attitude to risk (Taylor, 2011) 
and traits of curiosity, tenacity, and collaboration of creative people (Rabideau, 2015), also 
commonly cited as entrepreneurial characteristics (Ko and Butler, 2007), provide a useful bridge 
to consider current debates in entrepreneurship. Creative ideas must be tradable, either 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

26 

economically or symbolically, to function as capital (Townley et al, 2009) and creators must by 
extension be willing to trade. Reconceptualizing the domain and the field (Csikszentmihalyi, 
1997) to include the market, allows us to examine how creative goods are consumed. Creative 
outputs can constitute “experience goods” or “aesthetic goods” and the buyer’s satisfaction is a 
subjective response. Because the market is unknown prior to production of creative goods, 
production costs cannot be predicted and the future is inherently unknowable. (Caves, 2000; 
Townley et al, 2009). The audience for a creative work responds emotionally, making it difficult 
to successfully locate the “cultural product within the accepted norms of economic practice” 
(Roodhouse 2008, p. 15). The market often rejects the creative product because the creative 
innovator may challenge vested interests within it (Sternberg, Kaufman, and Prettz, 2002). The 
market may not recognize the value of the creation, particularly if it is radical or disruptive, 
posing difficulties for the creative individual. Creative individuals are challenged to create 
products and services that are different enough, but not too different, to be accepted within the 
domain (Ward, 2004). 
 
Entrepreneurial opportunity 
 The entrepreneurship theory base has established opportunity identification and 
enactment as a key aspect of entrepreneurial behavior (Schumpeter, 1934; Kirzner, 1973; Shane 
and Venkataraman, 2003; Fletcher, 2006; Short et al, 2009; Carlsson et al, 2013), adding a new 
dimension to earlier studies of the traits and behaviors of entrepreneurs (McClelland, 1961, 
Geertz, 1973, Gartner 1988) which took an individualistic focus and pointed to the specific 
entrepreneur as the key force in entrepreneurial action. Current debates on the sources of 
opportunities highlight that the process of opportunity identification has a strong relationship 
with creativity and with prior knowledge of the entrepreneur (Shane, 2000; Gartner, 2007; Short 
et al, 2009). The perspective of treating entrepreneurial opportunity as a process has been 
adopted here, following Shane and Venkataraman (2000). The process of identifying 
opportunities is more than an exploration of the “individual-opportunity nexus” (Shane and 
Venkataraman, 2000): it involves investigation of other relational factors between the 
entrepreneur and their various social, cultural, and economic situations (Fletcher, 2006) such as 
opportunity sources, knowledge, the dimension of time, insight, action, and factors of particular 
relevance in the creative industries. Entrepreneurs exploit opportunities related to their previous 
experience (Shane 2000). They must have prior knowledge to be able to identify opportunities 
(Shane and Venkataraman, 2000 referenced in Vaghely and Julien, p. 75). Individuals draw on 
prior knowledge within the opportunity domain, and develop skills and competencies to realize 
opportunities: “…prior knowledge of the opportunity domain influences the generation and 
number of one’s ideas (Shane et al quoted in Dimov, 2007, p. 562). Individuals have different 
stocks of knowledge based on their life experiences and each person’s prior knowledge creates a 
“knowledge corridor” that allows them to recognize certain opportunities but not others 
(Venkataraman, 1997 in Shane 2000, p. 452). The knowledge corridor for individuals are 
personal, socially constructed phenomena and creative entrepreneurs display differences in 
knowledge depth and quantity not only with other entrepreneurs, but with each other. Within the 
creative industries the construct of knowledge encompasses creativity and all of the skills and 
competencies that that entails. 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

27 

 Sources of opportunity. For entrepreneurs to act, opportunities must be available 
whether discovered or created (Eckhardt and Shane, 2003). The understanding of entrepreneurial 
opportunity brought to this article draws on the conceptualization of opportunity identification as 
a subjective phenomenon whereby individuals draw on their personal prior experience and enact 
subsequent events (Yli-Renko and Edelman, 2010). Entrepreneurs do not exist in a world where 
opportunities are equally obvious to all (Kirzner, 1973). Some people are “alert” to opportunities 
while others are not. The “alert” entrepreneur (Kirzner, 1973) uses knowledge to discover 
opportunities and acts as an equilibrating force in the market. New opportunities are created by 
purposeful exploration by nascent entrepreneurs (Edelman and Yli-Renko, 2010). Gorling and 
Rehn contest this position by exploring the nature of different opportunities and concluding that 
“total arbitrariness” characterizes some entrepreneurial discovery (2008, p. 101). While Kirzner 
includes surprise as a characteristic of the entrepreneurial opportunity process, Gorling and Rehn 
go further and suggest that some opportunities far from being anticipated, “…a brilliant 
opportunity cunningly identified…” are instead, “…random attempts made good despite 
themselves as surprising successes” (Gorling and Rehn, 2008, p. 101). 
 Opportunity discovery is aligned with a realist position that opportunities exist “out 
there” waiting for the alert entrepreneur to uncover and act upon, and relies on an objective 
treatment of opportunities. The more subjective creation view holds that the entrepreneur’s 
“perceptions and socio-cognitive enactment processes” (Edelman and Yli-Renko, 2010) are the 
source of opportunities, which are as a result actively constructed by the entrepreneur. The 
opportunity does not exist separate to the entrepreneur. Discovered opportunities come about due 
to “exogenous shocks” in the industry or market (Alvarez and Barney, 2007): the entrepreneur 
only reacts to such shocks. Such a “shock” creates a new set of circumstances (or information) 
that the entrepreneur can exploit before others do. “Ordinary” and “extraordinary” discoveries 
can further be differentiated (Ko and Butler, 2007, p. 366) by their levels of creativity, although 
no basis for the differentiation is offered. 
 Created opportunities, on the other hand, are generated endogenously by individuals 
seeking to explore new product or service possibilities. The final iteration of the opportunity 
cannot be perceived from the beginning and emerges through the exploration stage (Alvarez and 
Barney, 2007), as “entrepreneurs and consumers may be able to recognize an opportunity to 
produce new products or services once it is created, but be unable to anticipate such an 
opportunity before it is created” (Alvarez and Barney, 2007, p. 17). Because the process is 
emergent and iterative, the final outcome may in fact not be the opportunity that was originally 
thought of. It is not clear in this context what drives the entrepreneur in the process, if so much 
uncertainty as to future success exists.  
 Entrepreneurs may demonstrate creativity not only in their own creative output, but by 
their ability to identify resources needed to complete work (Kirzner, 1973, Sarasvathy, 2008). 
Awareness of the limitations of one’s own knowledge prompts alert entrepreneurs to take action 
by using others’ skills and to thereby profit from the input of third parties. The concept of 
entrepreneurship “as a form of expertise” (Sarasvathy, 2008) resonates strongly with the 
“effectual” creative industries entrepreneur, “who ends up fabricating [opportunities] from the 
mundane realities of her life and value system” (p. 10). Creative industry entrepreneurs draw on 
their creative expertise within a domain and build entrepreneurial possibilities around this 
expertise. 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

28 

Creative Entrepreneur Case Studies 
Methods 
 The protagonist of this research, the creative industries entrepreneur, does not have a 
standard profile. She specializes within specific domains but also operates across domains inside 
and outside the creative industries; she may run a solitary enterprise from remote, rural 
hinterlands far away from the world, or lead a large organization in a frenetic urban center. The 
type of work she engages in can involve detailed, intimate crafting but also strategic and 
collaborative negotiations. She is firmly situated within a creative world but demonstrates 
incisive business acumen. It was important to capture the diversity of activities and attitudes that 
are at play within this complex arena at an individual level. Equally important was the desire to 
draw meaningful conclusions about entrepreneurship across the creative industries making 
visible this sector. 
 My criteria for approaching participants were that they had set up and run their own 
business and that they operated within one of the sub-sectors of the creative industries (DCMS, 
1998). The site of study provided a convenient context in which to set my study, as both the 
individuals themselves and the relevant policy bodies regards all of these businesses as creative 
and they represent a particular instance of “creative intensity” (Bakshi, Freeman and Higgs, 
2012).   
 Following Mishler (2003, 2009), in-depth interviewing was selected as the most fitting 
data collection method to elicit lived experiences of individuals working as entrepreneurs in the 
creative industries. My focus was on constructing knowledge in communication with the creative 
industries entrepreneur and to be part of the process, not to stand on the outside as an unattached 
observer. All interviews took place at the place of work of the research participants to provide a 
familiar setting for a conversation to take place. Each entrepreneur took part in two interviews, 
each lasting one hour. The first interview involved questions about the lived experience of being 
a creative individual and being an entrepreneur, and the second interview was an exploration of 
how constructs such as “the creative industries” were understood and embraced. 
 Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) provides a method of compiling detailed 
analyses of individual experiences while also allowing a cross-case comparison at a later stage. It 
specifically recommends small sample sizes to allow the idiographic account to emerge. IPA 
principles informed the data collection and the data analysis stages: my emphasis is on aiming to 
understand the experiences of each of the participants as individuals before attempting to analyze 
broader cross-case themes. 
 My approach to writing up this research emerges from the epistemological belief that the 
individual account should be heard; it consequently draws significantly on the creative 
entrepreneurs’ own words. Three individual accounts of “Creative Entrepreneurial Lives” are 
presented, offering three perspectives and demonstrating the diversity among creative industry 
entrepreneurs. Interview subjects are quoted verbatim from their interviews. 
  
Creative entrepreneurial lives 1 - Peter 
 Peter has run his business in content marketing for the last 15 years, and currently 
employs 25 people in the north-west of Ireland. He creates digital publishing solutions for clients 
around the world and has experienced first-hand the impact that fast-changing technology has on 
creativity and product development. 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

29 

 The experience of entrepreneurship. Peter regards his life as a creative entrepreneur as 
a collage of all the experiences he has had in life, both professionally and personally, “these 
jigsaw pieces I saw, I picked up along the way….” He absorbed knowledge and acquired skills 
that interested him, while not actively planning to make a business from them. Looking back, he 
can see how the pieces fit together to lead him to his current position. When speaking about early 
money-making ventures he pursued as a teenager, he claims that “as informal as it was, all of 
those little things affect your mindset, and shape…your development.”  Again, when discussing 
product development and how different enabling software was used, he repeats that “it’s funny 
how all those little things influence… entrepreneurialism I think definitely comes from your 
branches of knowledge and experience, so in my case it was all about those little bits…” 
 The urge to be self-sufficient drove Peter to make money in the US in a non-related 
business. However, he was still “looking for opportunities there as well” and the financial gains 
were significant, “we were doing other things…to generate revenue…” Financial security 
allowed him to fulfil his ambition of being self-sufficient, “it isn’t for achievement that I do it 
and I think I know that in myself now.” The quest for self-sufficiency is a source of satisfaction 
for him, as “everything I have in my life I got myself”. 
 Peter differentiates between achievement and recognition, suggesting that the 
achievement is important, but the recognition of that achievement, less so, “I don’t want to 
succeed because people will say, ‘oh look at him, he’s done well’.” 
 Creative talent. Peter claims that he is “not artistic in any way”, but identifies strongly 
with showing specific types of creative behaviors, “I would have always, since I was a kid, tried 
to figure out how things work and how people make money off things.” His broader conception 
of creativity encompasses, but is not restricted to, artistic creativity: “I think there’s a lot of 
people who think that the creative industry is just about people who can draw and do ‘arty’ stuff 
and I don’t really think that; I think it’s about mindset”, and “…when I think creative person, I 
think problem solver….” 
 When speaking of “entrepreneurial instincts” he distinguishes between “farmer” 
entrepreneurs and “media” entrepreneurs and places himself in the former category, uninterested 
in media hype about his business but “always bootstrapping” and “ducking and diving.” 
Thinking about things differently, “spawning creativity”, provides new insights and 
opportunities.  
  
Creative entrepreneurial lives 2 - Lisa 
 Lisa has been a graphic designer for 25 years. Winning a high-profile award at the end of 
her degree enabled her to work in the United States as an intern with a world-class design 
organization. She subsequently returned to Europe and worked in the Netherlands and Germany, 
before moving back to Ireland to run her own business. She currently services clients, both 
national and international, from an office at her home in rural Ireland.  
 The experience of entrepreneurship. Lisa has an almost visceral reaction to the notion 
of opportunity, “…I see opportunities right there in front of me”. Opportunities are simply there, 
and the fact that others don’t see them is because they “mightn’t be looking for the same thing.” 
Lisa believes that most people are looking for opportunities and “constantly scanning a particular 
horizon” but different people have different “filters” and “notice certain things.” One person 
might notice one thing and another a different thing, and some people then “don’t act…they 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

30 

don’t want to.” Opportunities are emphatically “out there” and discovering or creating 
opportunities are “inextricably bound.” 
 Lisa is insistent that she is not an entrepreneur, and neither are most other designers, “I 
wouldn’t call myself an entrepreneur: I’m simply working for myself.” She is emphatic that she 
is “self-employed” and sees a clear difference between the two descriptors: entrepreneurs have 
more of a separation between themselves and their output than designers. Designers do not take 
much risk, and are, on the whole, not innovative, they are “basically coming up with the same 
solutions, one might be better than the other, but there’s nothing innovative about what one 
person is doing…they do good or less good work…but I wouldn’t equate that to innovation at 
all.”  
 Differentiating between self-employment and being an entrepreneur is a matter of 
strategy. “An entrepreneur is someone who from the outset has a plan.” The designer is always 
doing the work whereas the entrepreneur has a different relationship with the end product: “there 
isn’t that direct relationship” between the producer and the product. Design is “very safe.” 
 Although Lisa made it clear that she did not have a clear career plan, she had an instinct 
that she would be self-employed, “I had an inclination that that’s how I would work.” The 
freedom of doing things her own way was appealing, and it was “a natural progression…it’s 
much more organic.” However, although she chose a life of self-employment, “there is choice 
and there isn’t choice because once you start there’s no choice after that, you’re committed to it, 
like obviously you could let the thing go, you could drop it but I think once you decide to do 
something, you actually have very little choice after that.” 
 Lisa strongly rejects categorizing concepts believing that something is lost “once you 
start formalizing things….” She is irritated with the word “creativity”, she emphatically refuses 
to be called an “entrepreneur,” and she warns against “packaging” the creative industries. She 
believes that some things are not quantifiable: “it’s not the nature of the people working in the 
creative industries to be kind of, not pigeon-holed, but categorized, and it just, it doesn’t work.”  
The “return” on creative endeavor is not always apparent and by looking for such things people 
have an expectation, which if not met, may create dissatisfaction. Things can be labelled and 
named without being truly understood, leading to superficial and wasteful activities which don’t 
benefit the people involved: “personally I don’t find it very helpful” although for people not “as 
well versed” in the sector it probably is helpful. On the other hand, things have to be formalized 
to be organized, but on the whole “it can’t be the only thing, there has to be scope for 
spontaneous thinking and spontaneous results.” 
 Creative talent. Lisa is emphatic that creativity is not “owned” by a particular sector, 
organization, or type of person, and “some of the most creative people I know don’t work in the 
creative industries.” She insists that creativity is about problem-solving and seeing beyond “the 
surface of things” suggesting that she believes that it is a feature of all human endeavor.  
 Within organizations widely acknowledged as themselves creative, creativity can take 
different forms. In one large American firm where she worked, and which she described as 
“exceptionally creative”, the atmosphere was “corporate…not corporate, but very business-like” 
suggesting that “corporate” and “creative” are antithetical. Not only the work produced by the 
firm, but “the way they went about everything, absolutely everything” was creative. This did not 
mean that it was a “playful form of creativity” but there was a seriousness that allowed creativity 
to emerge, it was “very hierarchical…it’s just that the structure was very clear and the element of 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

31 

work you were given was, too.” On the other hand, other creative organizations can be 
dominated by personality and are “too full of people who have egos” even though they were 
“brilliant designers.” 
 Lisa’s lived experience of creativity is a “feeling of…the satisfaction of knowing that 
you’re going about the job the right way…” and she is critical of the image of the agonized artist, 
“I’m very skeptical about these ‘creative impulses’.” For Lisa, creativity is not “a solitary 
activity”, something that she separates herself from the world to pursue, and is in some way at 
the mercy of being struck by. Rather, it is a reaction to a problem, “…a conversation…as much 
as anything.” “Sitting down and things just emerging and moving around in my soul and in my 
brain, that’s not me.” This co-construction of a solution is more common than is generally 
acknowledged, in her view. External forces are at play even in the output of fine artists, even 
though they might not admit it: “It is extremely difficult to work in isolation.” Doing creative 
work is, for her, not for herself, or at least not just for herself, it is being done “because two 
people want something, you and someone else”. Working with good clients means that both 
sides are satisfied, “…they generally tie in together…and good work is appreciated”. At the same 
time, creative work “is extremely difficult and takes a huge amount of energy and motivation” 
and it can be difficult to sustain this energy, “you get fed up trying to fight your corner.” 
 Carrying out creative work provides a sense of fulfillment. The notion of “enjoyment” 
recurs again and again during our sessions and it is important for Lisa to feel comfortable in the 
way she works. She turned down an opportunity to work with a prestigious firm because she 
didn’t feel comfortable there, opting instead to work in a place where “it was just the whole 
atmosphere of that I liked. I liked the personalities, I liked my boss, I just felt very at home.” 
 However, Lisa does believe that there is a scale of creativity, describing herself as 
“moderately creative” and not “exceptionally creative.” Expanding on this point, she explains, 
“…I find it hard to come up with ideas and I think a lot of my ideas are very good, but I would 
never consider myself a wonderful creative genius….” 
 Lisa says that working creatively for her is “certainly not for self-expression.” Rather, 
“the biggest motivator is the desire to do good work.” “Measuring up to [her own] standards” is 
how she experiences success, a point she emphasizes: “…if I didn’t feel like I was successful at 
things I think it would be pretty unsatisfactory.” Although she won prestigious awards and 
worked in top design agencies in the US and in Europe, Lisa doesn’t believe she is “that good.” 
This points to a disconnect between her internal experience and her external identity, which she 
attributes to being “…just personality…” The external validation she received right through her 
career was mirrored by a “lack of confidence.”  
 
Creative entrepreneurial lives 3 - Helen  
 Helen has worked as a designer/maker of bespoke jewelry since she graduated from 
college in the early 1990s. Her studio is in a small town in the northwest of Ireland although she 
travels frequently.  Helen has been active in the region for the last 20 years in building 
infrastructure around the craft sector and is very familiar with how it operates. 
 The experience of entrepreneurship. Helen is strident in her views on how creative 
industry professionals run their businesses. She is angered by the low value that people, 
customers, and designer/makers themselves place on creative products. “I see over the years an 
awful lot of people viewed crafts as just hobbyists or just like ‘Ah, sure they’ll take this or they’ll 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

32 

take that for it’, but I don’t approach my business like that because I trained in this so I feel, ‘no, 
I’m charging for my -- there has to be a time cost, well there has to be a time cost as well as a 
design cost’.” 
 It is clear that there is a spectrum of both creative talent and financial prowess, “…people 
I was in college with, they were, they weren’t the most creative, but they were good 
businesspeople, you know, they could sell it, they can sell it well…some would sacrifice…the 
unique aspect of creativity for commercialism.” Issues of confidence plague creative individuals 
attempting to monetize their output, however, “…I find that with creatives, they’re very afraid to 
take chances…they’re willing to keep it in a box somewhere, not willing to push it, they lack in 
confidence.” 
 Agencies tasked with supporting entrepreneurs and the creative industries provide mixed 
benefits to Helen. While applauding the help given by individuals within certain bodies she is 
critical of the “agenda” of such bodies at an organizational level. “There was a lady in 
there…and she was so supportive when I started. I mean if I needed help, you know those 
agencies are very good; I’ve often sent people to them afterwards.” This positive experience of 
dealing on a personal level with agency staff is counterbalanced by a deep suspicion of agency 
motive and performance, the resources that they absorb, “they employ staff, so a lot of money 
goes into a wage for people… and a lot of creatives would say it’s better used on the ground”; 
the motivation that they demonstrate when they disburse funding, “If it’s for the creative sector 
what they do is, because they’re like…civil servants, administrators, they don’t really understand 
creativity and business together. They understand business of course, but, maybe I’m being very 
critical but I think they, they lack an understanding of how to approach it.” This attitude amounts 
almost to exploitation in Helen’s mind, for example when agency staff,  whose job it is to 
support the sector, instead put pressure on creators and get them “to do the work on a voluntary 
basis. They’re bringing you over to meetings at 2 o’clock in the day and you’re leaving a 
business of your own to do their work, to help assist with their work, and I’ve a problem with 
that.” She goes further when discussing the fate of one member of a creative network whom she 
felt was actually ostracized from the group by the agency “because he didn’t sort of you know, 
look the way they wanted it to look so it’s like ‘to hell with supporting a business’”. To Helen, 
this is “disgraceful behavior”: invested crafts people in regional areas are discriminated against 
in favor of other groups in what amounts to a two-tier support system. 
 Creative talent. For Helen, expressing herself through her creativity is necessary for her 
to live her life physically and emotionally, “it’s just part of your life and for me now at this stage 
of my life I couldn’t imagine not being creative.” Going even further, she speaks of how at one 
stage, her health began to deteriorate and she realized that, as this happened during a period 
when she was not creating, suppressing her creativity was leading to physical ill-health. Her 
language emphasizes this: “…I nearly have withdrawal if I’m away from the workshop for a 
week.” Tragedy befell her family soon after she graduated from college and creativity provided 
the means for her to get through this dark period, “I became a business and I was grieving badly, 
but through the grief the work became a great source of comfort to me. I just threw myself into 
work.” Expressing herself creatively is more than a job: “I couldn’t ever imagine retiring, that 
just wouldn’t come into my…” although she recognizes that this is dependent on still having the 
ability to physically work “…I’m happy with what I do, as long as I have the power in my hands, 
actually, and my sight.” 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

33 

Being fulfilled through creativity does not, however, automatically provide a satisfactory means 
to live; Helen is challenged to generate income from her creativity and recognizes that market 
structures in the creative industries may not favor the creator. “Working for the shops and the 
galleries…you have to really earn your money for those people, and you’ve to nearly sometimes 
beg for your money and I thought ‘I’m not going to go down that route, I want to do this and get 
paid for whenever I do it’.” 
 When launching a new collection “each show is hugely important. It’s like an artist 
creating a new album, you want to have [a reaction such as] ‘oh my god, this is a fabulous new 
piece’.” She is acutely aware of the demands of the market, acknowledging that there are 
different routes but, for her, being involved in the physical crafting of objects is “…an integral 
part of who I am and what I do.” While it might be easier to position herself as a designer whose 
creations are made by a third party, her decision to instead be a designer/maker satisfies her urge 
to create. 
 Helen creates with specific people in mind, “when I’m designing pieces I’d think of two 
types of customer” and does not see that creating with constraints in mind such as how potential 
customers will like the product restricts her creativity.  
 

Discussion 
 Understanding the “diverse authenticities” (Gubrium and Holstein, 1998) of individuals 
within the creative industries was the basis for adopting a social constructionist view of 
entrepreneurship (Fletcher, 2006) when exploring the experiences of individual creative industry 
entrepreneurs, and examining the ways in which their narratives and actions relate to 
entrepreneurship and creative industry debates. Even among the three entrepreneurs who 
contributed to this debate, the diversity of creative experience and enactment is evident. 
 Entrepreneurs are considered to be a desirable economic presence and, generally, a good 
thing for society. Initiatives to encourage entrepreneurship often emphasize the benefits that 
entrepreneurs offer to economies in terms of job creation and decreasing dependency on foreign 
investors. Political manipulation of the entrepreneurship debate results in the setting of targets 
and agendas that encourage achievable results.  By concentrating on macro-environmental 
outcomes such as these, entrepreneur support initiatives neglect to consider particular issues that 
face those embarking on or pursuing opportunities in the creative industries. Creative industry 
entrepreneurs have a different view. They see their output (products, services or experiences) as 
an expression of something that is woven into the fabric of the person and may reject both the 
“empty signifier” of entrepreneurship (Kenny and Scriver, 2012) and the attempt by policy-
makers to claim credit for their achievements. While Peter accepts that he is an entrepreneur, it is 
a very specific type of entrepreneur, and one that operates under the radar of media and 
officialdom. 
 Contemporary economic ideologies result in attributing the creative industries with 
particular characteristics from the outside, not always recognized by creative individuals 
themselves, forming tensions between the individuals operating within the creative sectors and 
those support structures nominally established to aid their evolution. For Peter, the accepted 
image of the creative industries does not embrace his view on creativity as mindset rather than 
output. Helen, meanwhile, recognizes the supports given to some businesses but laments the 
favoritism which appears to mark the support system. 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

34 

 The diversity of the experiences of creative industry entrepreneurs, however, challenges a 
one-size-fits-all understanding. Entrepreneurs in the creative industries can be found in rural 
hinterlands or in large urban centers, their businesses can be sole traders or micro-enterprises, 
they can produce customized, one-off products or services, or create entertainment spectacles for 
the mass market. They may survive precariously economically, or generate significant 
commercial and private wealth. The “creative industries” is not a homogenous entity: creative 
practice is organized in different ways and varying methods of producing and perceiving value 
are evident (Rabideau, 2015). Struggles within the sector among and between “organizational 
sets” (Gulledge and Townley, 2010) add to the already tension-laden relationships with bodies 
outside the sector. Power struggles between members of organizational sets in monetizing 
creative output pitch creative entrepreneurs against each other in their attempts to survive, as in 
Helen’s experiences in trying to get paid by the big galleries. The power relations that exist 
within the “organization sets” of the creative industries play a significant role in the enactment of 
opportunity.  
 Idealization of the entrepreneur by powerful external stakeholders contrasts with the 
intimate experience of the people concerned.  Responses vary from anger at the “system”, as in 
Helen’s case, to a resigned acceptance of the status quo in power relations between the individual 
and the support structure, Lisa’s view. As a reaction, the creative industries entrepreneur turns 
inward and applies effectual logic (Sarasvathy, 2008) to use existing resources in the form of 
their own creativity to achieve success. They reject orthodox labels of entrepreneurship and 
identify primarily with the occupation they do (designer/maker, digital publisher, graphic 
designer) and only secondly, and reluctantly, with being an entrepreneur. Creative industry 
entrepreneurs position creativity as central to their life experience and, as a consequence, to their 
entrepreneurial experience. Pursuing entrepreneurial activity, far from being a response to an 
external encouragement provided by government, is more likely to represent a mark of self-
determination and self-expression. Discourses elevating the importance and the identity of “the 
entrepreneur” are seen as irrelevant at best and the identity work (Beech et al, 2012) of creative 
industry entrepreneurs leans towards the creative.  
 Creative industry entrepreneurs mediate the relationship between being creative and 
being an entrepreneur: in their narrative, the creative is often elevated above the business 
emphasis, but in their behaviors they demonstrate enactment of entrepreneurial actions 
(planning, strategy, etc.). The relationship between creative and commercial imperatives is 
clearly drawn and navigated consciously. Market logics are understood and incorporated into 
solutions and, in fact, are seen to be part of the creative process; boundaries imposed by the 
market, instead of restricting creativity, instead intensify it. Peter, Lisa and Helen all recognize 
the constraints of time, market demands, and competitive moves and incorporate these into their 
enactment of creative output. 
 Creative industry entrepreneurs are of the world and are consequently impacted by socio-
cultural factors and by the social and temporal contexts within which they operate. Personal or 
family circumstances, for example the death of close family members, impose limits on dreams, 
forcing actions that may have been unanticipated but which are worked around. Far from being 
an ideal career choice, possessing and capitalizing on a creative ability may be the most obvious 
means of facilitating life choices. Opportunity is not something that creative industry 
entrepreneurs identify only at a certain stage, when they “become” entrepreneurs. Their 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

35 

enactment of opportunity is a hallmark of their life as they make and take opportunities as they 
appear, from childhood through adolescence to adulthood, creating their own fortunes along the 
way. 
 

Conclusion 
In this article I argue that creative industry entrepreneurs (CIEs) display an effectual logic not 
only as they embark on commercial initiatives, but also in their lives prior to taking this step. 
Despite the prevailing rhetoric of government and policy makers, CIEs “do their own thing” and 
may ignore or even avoid the programs set up to support them, feeling instead that, as creative 
individuals, they are not understood by government agencies. They feel privileged by being 
creative and find ways to work in parallel with the official system if it is not seen to be working 
for them. They struggle with unknowns in creating their craft and in releasing the result to the 
world.  Their opportunity is not responding to what is “out there” but concretizing what is “in 
here” in their creative hearts and minds. 
 The creative industries are as significant to some economies as the financial services 
sector (Fuller, Warner and Norman, 2011) and are growing twice as fast as the economy as a 
whole (Henry and De Bruin, 2011). This positions them as rich sites of study at a macro level. 
The creative industries are characterized by innovation and, often, unorthodox collaborations in 
which creative practice may be subversive or critical of the financial status quo. Given the 
particular dynamics of the creative industries, however, it may not be useful to apply 
organizational models appropriate to other sectors as a means to understanding them. A fine-
grained analysis of the lives of creative industry entrepreneurs goes some way to achieving an 
understanding of individuals from the inside.  
  

References  
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternatives theories of 

entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1/2), 11-26. doi: 
10.1002/sej.4 

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations. Cambridge MA: Harvard 
University Press  

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and 
loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39-43. 

Amabile, T. M., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. The 
Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 3-15.  

Anderson, A. R., & Warren, L. (2011). The entrepreneur as hero and jester: Enacting the 
entrepreneurial discourse. International Small Business Journal, 29(6), 589-609. doi: 
10.1177/0266242611416417. 

Audrestch (2007), The entrepreneurial society. Oxford: Oxford University Press 
Bakshi, H, Freeman, A and Higgs, PL (2012) A dynamic mapping of the UK’s creative 

industries. London: NESTA. 
Beech, N., Gilmore, C., Cochrane, E., & Greig, G. (2012). Identity work as a response to 

tensions: A re-narration in opera rehearsals. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28(1), 
39-47.  

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for  



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

36 

“mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73.  
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A treatise in the 

sociology of knowledge. New York NY: Anchor. 
Bilton, C. (2011). Managing creativity: Exploring the paradox. Cultural Trends, 20(2), 205-207.  
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349-

399.  
Carlsson, B., Braunerhjelm, P., McKelvey, M., Olofsson, C., Persson, L., & Ylinenpaa, H. 

(2013). The evolving domain of entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics, 
41(4), 913-930. doi: 10.1007/s11187-013-9503-y 

Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Cambridge MA: 
Harvard University Press. 

Chaston, I., & Sadler-­‐Smith, E. (2012). Entrepreneurial cognition, entrepreneurial orientation 
and firm capability in the creative industries. British Journal of Management, 23(3), 415-
432.  

Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology. London: Sage 
Publications 

Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry: A methodology for studying lived experience. 
Research Studies in Music Education, 27(1), 44-54.  

Cooper, R (2002) Optimising the Stage Gate process: What best practice companies do. 
Research-Technology Management, 45(5), 21-27. 

Cope, J. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship 
Theory and Practice, 29(4), 373-397.  

Cowdroy, R., & De Graaff, E. (2005). Assessing highly-­‐creative ability 1. Assessment & 
Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(5), 507-518.  

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York 
NY: HarperPerennial.  

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). 16 Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of 
Creativity, in R. Sternberg (ed) Handbook of creativity (p. 313). London: Cambridge U 
Press  

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Sawyer, K. (2014). Creative insight: The social dimension of a solitary 
moment, in The Systems Model of Creativity: The Collected Works of Mihaly 
Csikszentmihalyi. Dordrecht: Springer 

Cunliffe, A. L. (2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management 
Education, 28(4), 407-426.  

Cunliffe, A. L. (2008). Orientations to social constructionism: Relationally responsive social 
constructionism and its implications for knowledge and learning. Management Learning, 
39(2), 123-139.  

Department of Culture, Media and Sport (1998) Creative Industries Mapping Document. 
London: DCMS. 

Dimov, D. (2007). Beyond the single-­‐person, single-­‐insight attribution in understanding 
entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(5), 713-731.  

Dimov, D. (2007). From opportunity insight to opportunity intention: The importance of person-­‐
situation learning match. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(4), 561-583.  

Dimov, D. (2011). Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities. 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

37 

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 57-81.  
Dixon, M (2010). Labour, work and action in the creative process. In B. Townley,  and N. 

Beech, (eds), Managing Creativity: exploring the paradox (47-49). Cambridge, 
Cambridge University Press. 

Downing, S (2005) The social construction of entrepreneurship: Narrative and dramatic 
processes in the coproduction of organizations and identities. Entrepreneurship Theory 
and Practice, (9)2, 185-204. 

Drucker, P. F (2007). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. London: 
Routledge. 

Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of 
Management, 29(3), 333-349.  

Edelman, L., & Yli-Renko, H. (2010). The impact of environment and entrepreneurial 
perceptions on venture-creation efforts: Bridging the discovery and creation views of 
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(5), 833-856.  

Elliott, J. (2005). Using narrative in social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. 
London: Sage. 

Fillis, I., & Rentschler, R. (2010). The role of creativity in entrepreneurship. Journal of 
Enterprising Culture, 18(01), 49-81.  

Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and 
applications. Cambridge MA: Bradford Books. 

Fletcher, D. E. (2006). Entrepreneurial processes and the social construction of opportunity. 
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 18(5), 421-440.  

Flew, T., & Cunningham, S. (2010). Creative Industries after the First Decade of Debate. 
Information Society, 26(2), 113-123. doi: 10.1080/01972240903562753 

Florida, R. L. (2014). The rise of the creative class, revisited. New York NY: Basic Books. 
Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy 

of Management Review, 21(4), 1112-1142.  
Fritsch, M., & Sorgner, A. (2013). Stepping forward: Personality traits, choice of profession, and 

the decision to become self-employed. Jena Economic Research Papers (2013-004).  
Fuller, T., Warren, L., & Norman, S. J. (2011). Creative methodologies for understanding a 

creative industry in C. Henry and A. de Bruin (eds) Entrepreneurship and the creative 
economy: Process, practice and policy, pp. 79-97. Cheltenham: UK.  

Garavan, T., Birdthistle, N., Cinnéide, B. Ó., & Collet, C. (2010). Entrepreneurship education in 
the Republic of Ireland: Context, opportunities and challenges. Handbook of Research in 
Entrepreneurship Education: International Perspectives, 3, p. 225.  

Gartner,W.B  (1998) Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small 
Business, 12(4), 11-32. 

Gartner, W. B. (2007). Entrepreneurial narrative and a science of the imagination. Journal of 
Business Venturing, 22(5), 613-627.  

Gartner, W.B.  (2015) Perspectives on arts entrepreneurship, Part 2. Artivate: A Journal of 
Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 4(2), 3-9. 

Garud, R., & Giuliani, A. P. (2013). A narrative perspective on entrepreneurial opportunities. 
Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 157-160.  

Geertz C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

38 

Gilad, B. (1984). Entrepreneurship: The issue of creativity in the market place. The Journal of 
Creative Behavior, 18(3), 151-161.  

Glück, J., Ernst, R., & Unger, F. (2002). How creatives define creativity: Definitions reflect 
different types of creativity. Communication Research Journal, 14(1), 55-67.  

Glăveanu, V. P. (2010a). Creativity in context: The ecology of creativity evaluations and 
practices in an artistic craft. Psychological Studies, 55(4), 339-350.  

Glăveanu, V. P. (2010b). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of 
cultural psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(1), 79-93.  

Groen, A. J. (2005). Knowledge intensive entrepreneurship in networks: towards a multi-
level/multi dimensional approach. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13(1), 69-88.  

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of 
qualitative research, 2, 163-194.  

Gubrium, JA and Holstein, JF (1998) Narrative practice and the coherence of personal stories. 
Sociological Quarterly, 39(1), 163-187. 

Gulledge, E and Townley, B (2010), What is a creative field, in B. Townley and N.  Beech (eds), 
Managing Creativity: Exploring the paradox (321-325). Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press. 

Görling, S., & Rehn, A. (2008). Accidental ventures: A materialist reading of opportunity and 
entrepreneurial potential. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24(2), 94-102.  

Hackley, C., & Kover, A. J. (2007). The trouble with creatives: Negotiating creative identity in 
advertising agencies. International Journal of Advertising, 26(1), 63.  

Hansen, D. J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Hills, G. E. (2011). A multidimensional examination of a 
creativity-based opportunity recognition model. International Journal of Entrepreneurial 
Behaviour & Research, 17(5), 515-533.  

Harling Stalker, L. L. (2009). A tale of two narratives: Ontological and epistemological 
narratives. Narrative Inquiry, 19(2), 219-232.  

Hartley, J. (2005). Creative industries. London: Blackwell Publishing. 
Hearn, G. N., Bridgstock, R. S., Goldsmith, B., & Rodgers, J. (2014). Creative work beyond the 

creative industries: An introduction, in Hearn, Bridgstock, Goldsmith, & Rodgers (eds) 
Creative Work Beyond the Creative Industries: Innovation, Employment and Education 
(pp. 1-24). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 

Heinonen, J., Hytti, U., & Stenholm, P. (2011). The role of creativity in opportunity search and 
business idea creation. Education + Training, 53(8/9), 659-672.  

Henry, C. (2007). Entrepreneurship in the creative industries: An international perspective. 
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. 

Henry, C., & De Bruin, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship and the Creative Economy: Process, 
Practice and Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.  

Hjorth, D. (2004). Creating space for play/invention: Concepts of space and organizational 
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(5), 413-432.  

Hjorth, D., & Johannisson, B. (2007). Learning as an entrepreneurial process. In A. Fayolle (ed) 
Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education: A general perspective, 1, (pp 57-
78). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.  

Hlady-­‐Rispal, M., & Jouison-­‐Laffitte, E. (2014). Qualitative research methods and 
epistemological frameworks: A review of publication trends in entrepreneurship. Journal 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

39 

of Small Business Management, 52(4), 594-614.  
Jack, S. L., & Anderson, A. R. (2002). The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial 

process. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5), 467-487.  
Jeffcutt, P., & Pratt, A. C. (2002). Managing creativity in the cultural industries. Creativity and 

Innovation Management, 11(4), 225-233.  
Julier, G. (2007). The culture of design. London: Sage. 
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. 

Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1.  
Kenny,K and Scriver, S (2012) Dangerously empty? Hegemony and the construction of the Irish 

entrepreneur. Organization, 19(5), 615-633. 
Kirzner, I. M. (1978). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago IL: University of Chicago 

Press. 
Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An 

Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1) 60-85.  
Kirzner, I. M. (1999). Creativity and/or alertness: A reconsideration of the Schumpeterian 

entrepreneur. The Review of Austrian Economics, 11(1), 5-17.  
Ko, S., & Butler, J. E. (2007). Creativity: A key link to entrepreneurial behavior. Business 

Horizons, 50(5), 365-372.  
OECD/EC (2013). The Missing Entrepreneurs: Policies for inclusive entrepreneurship in 

Europe. Brussels: OECD Publishing. 
McClelland, D (1961) The Achievement Society. New York NY: Van Nostran Rheinhold. 
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward 

a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 20-30.  
Mishler, E. G. (2003). Representing discourse: The rhetoric of transcription, in Y. Lincoln and 

N. Denzin (eds) Turning points in qualitative research: Tying knots in a handkerchief, 
(pp.297-326). Lanham MD: AltaMira Press. 

Mishler, E. G. (2009). Storylines: Craftartists’ narratives of identity. MA: Harvard University 
Press. 

Mould, O., Vorley, T., & Roodhouse, S. (2009). Realizing capabilities: Academic creativity and 
the creative industries. Creative Industries Journal, 1(2), 137-150.  

Mullen, M. R., Budeva, D. G., & Doney, P. M. (2009). Research methods in the leading small 
business entrepreneurship journals: A critical review with recommendations for future 
research. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3), 287-307.  

Nicholson, L., & Anderson, A. R. (2005). News and nuances of the entrepreneurial myth and 
metaphor: Linguistic games in entrepreneurial sense-­‐making and sense-­‐giving. 
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2), 153-172.  

Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. 
International Journal of Psychology, 36(4), 225-241.  

O’Connor, J. (2010). The cultural and creative industries: A literature review. Newcastle: 
Creativity, Culture and Education. 

Penaluna, A., & Penaluna, K. (2011). The evidence so far: Calling for creative industries 
engagement with entrepreneurship education policy and development, in C. Henry and A. 
de Bruin (eds.), Entrepreneurship and the creative economy (50-78). Cheltenham: 
Edward Elgar 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

40 

Rabideau, M. (2015) Perspectives on arts entrepreneurship, Part 2, Artivate: A Journal of 
Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 4 (2), 3-9 

Rae, D. (1999). The entrepreneurial spirit: Learning to unlock value. Dublin: Blackhall 
Publishing. 

Rae, D. (2000). Understanding entrepreneurial learning: A question of how? International 
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 6(3), 145-159.  

Rae, D. (2004). Entrepreneurial learning: A practical model from the creative industries. 
Education + Training, 46(8/9), 492-500.  

Rae, D. (2007). Entrepreneurship: From opportunity to action. Basingstoke: Palgrave 
Macmillan. 

Rae, D., & Carswell, M. (2000). Using a life-story approach in researching entrepreneurial 
learning: The development of a conceptual model and its implications in the design of 
learning experiences. Education + Training, 42(4/5), 220-228.  

Read, S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2005). Knowing what to do and doing what you know: 
Effectuation as a form of entrepreneurial expertise. The Journal of Private Equity, 9(1), 
45-62.  

Renko, M., Shrader, R. C., & Simon, M. (2012). Perception of entrepreneurial opportunity: A 
general framework. Management Decision, 50(7), 1233-1251.  

Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. 
Rindova, V., Barry, D., & Ketchen, D. J. (2009). Entrepreneuring as emancipation. Academy of 

Management Review, 34(3), 477-491.  
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Chichester: Capstone. 
Roodhouse, S. (2008). Creative industries: The business of definition and cultural management 

practice. International Journal of Arts Management, 16-27. 
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008). Effectuation: Elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Cheltenham: 

Edward Elgar 
Sawyer, R. K. (2011). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford:  Oxford 

University Press. 
Sawyer, R. K. (2011b). Structure and improvisation in creative teaching. Cambridge:  Camridge 

University Press. 
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, 

credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press 
Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. 

Organization Science, 11(4), 448-469.  
Shane, S. (2005). Finding fertile ground: Identifying extraordinary opportunities for new 

ventures. Upper Saddle River NJ: Wharton School Pub. 
Shane, S. (2012) Reflections on the 2010 AMR Decade Award: Delivering on the promise of 

entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 10-20. 
doi: 10.5465/amr.2011.0078 

Shane, S., & Eckhardt, J. (2003). The individual-opportunity nexus. In Z. Achs and J. Audretsch 
(eds) Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 161-191) Manchester: Kluwer 
Academic 

Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource 
Management Review, 13(2), 257-279.  



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

41 

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. 
Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.  

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2001). Entrepreneurship as a field of research: A response to 
Zahra and Dess, Singh, and Erikson. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 13-16.  

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue on 
technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2), 181-184.  

Silvia, P. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2009). Is creativity domain-specific? Latent class 
models of creative accomplishments and creative self-descriptions. Psychology of 
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(3), 139.  

Simonton, D. K. (1991). Emergence and realization of genius: The lives and works of 120 
classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(5), 829.  

Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Creativity or creativities? International Journal of Human-Computer 
Studies, 63(4), 370-382.  

Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum: A propulsion 
model of kinds of creative contributions. New York NY: Psychology Press. 

Steyaert, C. (1997). A qualitative methodology for process studies of entrepreneurship: Creating 
local knowledge through stories. International Studies of Management & Organization, 
27(3), 13-33.  

Steyaert, C. (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.  

Steyaert, C., & Bouwen, R. (1997). Telling stories of entrepreneurship: Towards a narrative-
contextual epistemology for entrepreneurial studies. In Donckels, R & Miettinen, A, 
(eds), Entrepreneurship and SME research: On its way to the next millennium. Aldershot: 
Routledge 

Sveningsson, S., & Alvesson, M. (2003). Managing managerial identities: Organizational 
fragmentation, discourse and identity struggle. Human Relations, 56(10), 1163-1193.  

Taylor, C. W. (1988). Various approaches to and definitions of creativity, in Sternberg (ed) The 
nature of creativity, (pp.99-121). Cambridge: Cambidge U Press.  

Taylor, C. (2011). Socializing creativity: Entrepreneurship and innovation in the creative 
industries, in C. Henry, and A. de Bruin, (eds.), Entrepreneurship and the Creative 
Economy (30-49). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 

Thomas, J., McDonagh, D., & Canning, L. (2014). Developing the arts entrepreneur: The 
“Learning Cloud”. Design Journal, 17(3), 425-443. doi: 
10.2752/175630614x13982745783046 

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and 
relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137-
1148.  

Tjemkes (2011) Reconciling economic and creative performance: Insights from a creative 
business start-up. In C. Henry, and A. de Bruin (eds.) Entrepreneurship and the Creative 
Economy (120-147). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 

Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Huntington NY: R. E. Krieger Pub. Co. 
Townley, B. & Beech, N. (2010). Managing creativity: Exploring the paradox. New York NY: 

Cambridge University Press. 



Patten            “Creative?”…”Entrepreneur?” 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

42 

Townley, B., Beech, N., & McKinlay, A. (2009). Managing in the creative industries: Managing 
the motley crew. Human Relations, 62(7), 939-962.  

Vaghely, I. P., & Julien, P.-A. (2010). Are opportunities recognized or constructed? An 
information perspective on entrepreneurial opportunity identification. Journal of Business 
Venturing, 25(1), 73-86.  

Van Egeraat, C., & Curran, D. (2010). Defining and valuing the creative industries. Dublin: 
Dublin City Council.  

Ward, T. B. (2004). Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 
19(2), 173-188.  

Warhurst, C. (2010). The missing middle: Management in the creative industries. Managing 
Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. London: Sage. 
Whiting, B. G. (1987). Entrepreneurial creativity: Needed more than ever. The Journal of 

Creative Behavior, 21(2), 109-119.  
Whiting, B. G. (1988). Creativity and entrepreneurship: How do they relate? The Journal of 

Creative Behavior, 22(3), 178-183. 
 


