
































Microsoft Word - 126 for pdf final.docx


Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts    Volume 6, Issue 1 
http://artivate.org           pp. 8-32 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Copyright © 2017, the author   
 

ANALYZING ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE U.S. ARTS SECTOR: IDENTIFYING 
ARTS ENTREPRENEURS’ DEMOGRAPHICS AND SHARED CHARACTERISTICS 
Jason C. White 
College of Charleston 
 

Abstract 
 The purpose of this study is to lay a foundation for comparative analysis of arts 
entrepreneurs’ demographics and shared characteristics in a given U.S. arts sector. Guided by a 
conceptual framework for the U.S. arts sector, I utilized a cross sectional survey design to 
generate data for analysis. In this article, I reflect on the research process, interpret findings, and 
utilize new understandings as a catalyst for guiding and informing directions for the emerging 
arts entrepreneurship research field.  
 Keywords: arts entrepreneur; arts entrepreneurship research; arts sector 
  
 
 Researchers from around the globe have long examined entrepreneurship; traditionally 
defined as both a process of innovation and new venture creation (Gartner, 1985; Kuratko, 2014, 
pp. 4-5, p. 23), situated in a for-profit context (Schumpeter & Opie, 1934), analyzed through an 
economic lens (Hayek, 1945; Steyaert & Katz, 2004, p. 187) and evidenced by way of business 
ownership (Hawley, 1907; Shane & Gartner, 1995, p. 293). However, perhaps due to the 
prevailing view of entrepreneurship as a for-profit seeking activity (Benz, 2006, pp. 23-24), and 
in the absence of a nationally adopted sectoral frame for the arts (Cherbo, Vogel & Wyszomirski, 
2008), there is little to no research within top tier entrepreneurship journals for guiding and 
informing individual (Gilmore, Johnson, Levi, Markusen, & Martinez, 2006; Preece, 2014, 
2015), organizational (Grandori & Gaillard, 2011, pp. 103-108; Kolb, 2015, p. 12;) and/or 
(infra)structural (Cherbo, Vogel & Wyszomirski, 2008, p. 15; McCarthy, Ondaatke & Novak, 
2007, p.15; Wyszomirski & Cherbo, 2001) entrepreneurship practice in the U.S. arts sector 
(Cherbo, 1998a). For example, despite the framing of the arts as economic industries, and the 
merging of the arts into creative industry classifications (Towse, 2010a, p. 462; Prince, 2010, p. 
122), a search within top tier entrepreneurship research journals suggests to me that the arts are 
largely absent from empirical entrepreneurship research. For example, a Boolean search using 
the respective terms “arts industry”, “arts industries” and “arts sector” returned no hits within the 
Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, and only two hits in 
Research Policy. Additionally, while the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity does 
provide an annual measure of firm-level entrepreneurship activity by both industry and specific 
population groups, the index has historically focused on the following sectors of the U.S. 
economy: construction; manufacturing; trade; services; and other (Fairlie, 2014; 
http://www.kauffman.org/microsites/kauffman-index). Moreover, while research on the birth and 
mortality rates of non-profit arts organizations has been conducted (National Endowment for the 
Arts [NEA], 2008; Smith, Nichols, Ott, Ball, & NEA, 2003), there are many different types of 
arts organizations (Varbanova, 2013, pp. 1-4), and it is difficult to make meaning from rates and 
stocks of birth and mortality of firms outside of the unique sectoral context in which such 
activity occurs (Cherbo, Vogel & Wyszomirski, 2008, pp. 16-17). Furthermore, concerning the 
founding, establishment and organizing of new arts organizations, there is to date no national 
survey, database or public index from which to compare founders’, establishers’ and/or 
organizers’ (hereafter referred to as arts entrepreneurs’) demographics and shared characteristics. 
Although a model survey comes to mind (i.e. Characteristics of Business Owners Survey), the 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

9 

U.S. census bureau discontinued that survey after 1992; adapting it into what is now known as 
the Survey of Business Owners (SBO). Notably, the SBO currently provides the only 
comprehensive regularly collected source of information on selected economic and demographic 
characteristics for U.S. business owners by gender, ethnicity, race and veteran status. However, 
while all businesses are organizations, not all organizations are businesses (Kolb, 2015, p. 12), 
and so entrepreneurs of both nonprofit and state-subsidized arts organizations may often be 
excluded from such national survey initiatives. Perhaps due to such exclusion, there is no easy 
way to identify those individuals who organize both non-profit and state-subsidized arts 
organizations across the U.S. Nor is there a way to easily identify common challenges amongst 
distinct groups of arts entrepreneurs, how much financial capital one might want to acquire 
before undertaking specific arts-based ventures, or where distinct arts organizations (e.g., 
producing, presenting, education, policy, service, etc.) tend to, respectively, start-up, endure 
and/or dissolve.  
 Notably, in discussing entrepreneurs in the arts, Varbanova (2013) situates her frame of 
entrepreneurship within a distinct sectoral context, and refers to arts entrepreneurship as, “…a 
socio-cultural activity based on innovations, exploitation of opportunities and risk taking 
behavior” (2013, p. 17). Additionally, Varbonova references a wide variety of entrepreneurs 
operating across the broader arts and cultural sector (e.g., producers, impresarios, art dealers, arts 
agents, artists’ agents, independent project managers and others) (pp. 16-17). While Varbanova’s 
frame is supported by a literature review, it is important to note that without a clearer and more 
specific understanding of who arts entrepreneurs are, there is little to no way to identify the 
majority of arts entrepreneurs, those arts entrepreneurs outside of the dominant socio-cultural 
majority (i.e. minority arts entrepreneurs), or to determine both rates and stocks of both business 
ownership and organizational control in the arts by specific population groups. Importantly, 
while both nonprofit and state subsidized arts organizations cannot legally be owned, arts 
entrepreneurs likely possess at least an initial capability to exercise control of such organizations 
via the establishment of rules of order (Fama & Jensen, 1983; Grossman & Hart, 1986; Janney & 
Dess, 2006). Furthermore, arts organizations are social constructions with the power to both 
affect society and change the structure of the society in which they are embedded (Staber, 2013; 
Sarason, Dean & Dilliard, 2006). Thus, where new arts organizations emerge, arts entrepreneurs 
will likely possess at least an initial capability to both affect society, and change the structure of 
the sector in which their organizational venture is embedded (Dimaggio, 1998; Sarason, Dean & 
Dilliard, 2006; Battilana, Leca & Boxenbaum, 2009; Valdez & Richardson, 2013). 
 While the arts management literature is a resource for guiding and informing 
organizational entrepreneurship practice in the nonprofit arts sector, it is important to note that 
the core arts management literature focuses on the internal management of non-profit arts 
organizations and their environments (Towse, 2010b). Notably, such a focus centers on the 
management of existing arts-based ventures, rather than the organizing of new arts-based 
ventures. Moreover, while the social entrepreneurship literature has emerged as a resource for 
guiding and informing entrepreneurship practice for non profit-seeking purposes (Benz, 2009), it 
is important to recognize that the venture aspirations of aspiring arts entrepreneurs may differ 
from those of aspiring social entrepreneurs. For example, scholars suggest that social 
entrepreneurs are primarily concerned with the resolution of social market failures, and the 
creation of social value for given members of society (Nicholls, 2006). However, in discussing 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

10 

arts entrepreneurship in the nonprofit performing arts, Preece (2011) suggests that in the absence 
of a profit motive, arts entrepreneurs may be motivated by a sense of self-fulfillment brought on 
by the execution of an artistic organizational mission (p. 108). Alternatively, for-profit arts-based 
ventures may differ from social entrepreneurship ventures, as research in cultural economics 
suggests that new ventures in artist-labor markets are often short-term, project-based and never 
intended to be long lasting (Towse, 2010b, p. 384).  
 
Research Question 
 Given the desire to extend arts entrepreneurship research, and the need to identify arts 
entrepreneurs within the unique sectoral context in which they venture, this study centers on the 
question, “What are the demographics and shared characteristics of entrepreneurs in a given U.S. 
arts sector?” To situate the study in the appropriate sectoral context, I first identify and disclose 
my sectoral frame via a conceptual framework. I then identify and discuss both the scope and 
methodology of my study. Afterwards, I report findings, interpret the data, and utilize key 
findings as a catalyst for guiding and informing directions for the emerging arts entrepreneurship 
research field. Please note that the research question is intentionally broad, both in an effort to 
make room for emergent discoveries, and to capture a wide range of data for comparative 
analysis. 
  

Conceptual Framework 
 For the purposes of addressing the research question, entrepreneurship is narrowly 
defined in this study as the organizing of new organizations (Gartner, 1985), situated in an arts-
based sectoral context, analyzed through a structuration lens (Sarason, Dean & Dillard, 2006), 
and evidenced by way of legal incorporation (Grandori & Gaillard, 2011; Kolb, 2015). However 
defined, scholars suggest that entrepreneurship practice remains across all dimensions, sub-
categories and typologies, both subject to and influenced by the context(s) in which it is situated 
(Gelderen & Masurel, 2012; Welter, 2011). For example, in discussing the nature of 
entrepreneurial action, entrepreneurship scholar David Deeds (2014) compares the study of 
entrepreneurship to a study of context-dependent idiosyncratic ventures. Continuing, Deeds 
suggests that in an effort to produce high quality defensible and replicable research in 
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship researchers should clarify the context of their studies by 
identifying both the level of analysis, and the specific environment wherein their frame(s) of 
entrepreneurship takes place (p. 16). Moreover, in framing new venture creation as an 
experience, authors Morris et al. (2012) identify the venture experience as “idiosyncratic”, and 
suggest the nature of one’s experience depends upon interactions (or interplay) among 
individuals, streams of events, and the context in which the venture occurs (p. 160). Forson et al. 
provide support by pointing out that mainstream entrepreneurship research still frames the 
entrepreneur as “…homoeconomicus stripped largely of affect, intersubjectivity, personal 
narratives, discursive groundings or intersectional complexities” (p. 54). Continuing, Forson et 
al. (2014) contend that widespread adoption of this view has led to, “…a monolithic framing of 
entrepreneurial activity as decontextualized, purely economic and universally convergent” (p. 
56), and therefore propose a re-attention to the contextual micro, meso and macro-level interplay 
that both shapes and influences entrepreneurship practice in society. In taking this perspective, 
framing both arts entrepreneurship and the unique sectoral context in which it occurs seems a 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

11 

necessary exercise; as the way in which researchers frame entrepreneurship guides the kinds of 
questions they ask about entrepreneurship (Gartner, 1990). Furthermore, the identification and 
disclosure of context in entrepreneurship research may point the reader to an appropriate level of 
analysis (or levels of analyses) from which to make greater meaning of research results.  
 
Framing Arts Entrepreneurship 
 Scholars frequently position artists, arts administrators and technical creative workers 
(hereafter referred to as core workers) as the primary facilitators of art and works of art in the 
center of proposed art worlds, art(s) fields, creative and cultural industries and sectors; (Cherbo, 
Vogel & Wyszomirski, 2008; Hesmondhalgh, 2012; Peltoniemi, 2015; Maanen, 2009). In cases 
where core workers’ shared concern and primary activity is the facilitation of art (both for 
pecuniary and non-pecuniary purposes), they will naturally seek out both new and existing 
opportunities to do so (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Mckenzie, Ugbah & Smothers, 2007). 
While common challenges and opportunity barriers await core workers in commercial arts and 
related entertainment industries (Alexander, 2003; Eikhof & Warhurst, 2013; Griswold, 1992; 
Peltoniemi, 2015; Sinckler, 2014), core workers in nonprofit arts fields may also face distinct 
challenges, including extensive social responsibility, public accountability, and policy 
restrictions on strategic and financial actions (Hull & Lio, 2006). Moreover, emerging challenges 
to free expression in the arts have been noted (Hawthorne, Szántó, & National Arts Journalism 
Program [NAJP], 2003), and economic challenges in the performing arts are often rationalized 
by Baumol and Bowen’s (1966) cost disease thesis.  
 In an effort to overcome common challenges and opportunity barriers, there is evidence 
that core workers have engaged in various forms of entrepreneurship, both across art(s) fields 
and related U.S. industries. For example, after spending seven years trying to get his film 
financed and produced by major Hollywood studios, actor Nate Parker engaged in 
entrepreneurship via self-employment (Alvarez & Barney, 2010; Venkataraman, 2003), self-
producing, directing, and starring in his film The Birth of a Nation. Parker presented his film at 
the 2016 Sundance Film Festival, sold his film to Fox Searchlight for a record 17.5 million, and 
earned the Sundance Institute’s Vanguard award. After recognizing the lack of national funding 
opportunities for individual artists, Ruby Lerner engaged in entrepreneurship via organizational 
development (Gartner, 1985; Stevens, 1999; Grandori & Gaillard, 2011) by founding and 
establishing Creative Capital, a nonprofit arts organization that provides both direct funding 
opportunities and technical assistance to individual artists pursuing adventurous projects across 
arts disciplines (see www.creative-capital.org). Moreover, in 1965, when U.S. Congress 
mandated that the NEA restrict financial appropriations to those U.S. states with official state-
subsidized arts agencies, many U.S. states recognized an infrastructural opportunity, and 
subsequently exploited that opportunity by structuring their own state arts agencies in what is 
arguably a case study in what might be called “infrastructural entrepreneurship” (Wooley, 2013; 
Wyszomirski & Cherbo, 2001).  
 In considering the above examples collectively, arts entrepreneurship seems to be less a 
predetermined process of new business creation, and more broadly the discovery, creation, and 
exploitation of new venture opportunities across the broader arts sector (Alvarez, Barney & 
Anderson, 2013; Alvarez & Barney, 2010; Short, Ketchen, Shook & Ireland, 2010; Mckenzie, 
Ugbah & Smothers, 2007). Additionally, from the perspective of core workers, arts 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

12 

entrepreneurship seems a normative rational response to unfavorable economic, political and 
juridical conditions, both in art(s) fields and across related arts and entertainment industries 
(Maanen, 2009, p 209). Where such unfavorable conditions are evidenced within a given U.S. 
arts sector, core workers may not be exempt from contextual challenges and barriers to arts 
entrepreneurship. As research suggests: (1) entrepreneurship education has not traditionally been 
recognized as essential to arts education (Beckman, 2007; Brown, 2007; Pollard & Wilson, 2014; 
White, 2013); (2) venture opportunity in related arts and entertainment industries is stratified by 
field gatekeepers (Alexander, 2003; Peltoniemi, 2015), and cultural stereotypes can influence the 
gatekeeping process (Griswold, 1992; Sinckler, 2014); (3) prominent U.S. public and private 
foundations have historically prioritized financial subsidy for mid to large-sized nonprofit arts 
institutions, rather than for individual artists and small community and cultural nonprofit arts 
organizations (Chang, 2010; Graves, 2005; Mañjon & Vega, 2012; Miller & Yudice, 2002). 
Importantly, where venture opportunity exists within a given non-profit arts sector, core workers’ 
access may either be enabled or constrained by local, state and/or national arts and cultural 
policy (Miller & Yudice, 2002). Furthermore, research illuminates cases of nepotism, racial 
discrimination, and gender inequities in international creative, cultural, arts, and related 
entertainment industries (Banks & Milestone, 2011; Conor, Gill, & Taylor, 2015; Dunlop, 2007; 
Eikhof & Warhurst, 2013; French, 2014; Hesmondhalgh & Baker, 2015; Jones & Pringle, 2015; 
Shade & Jacobson, 2015). Such inequities in a given U.S. arts sector may motivate core workers 
to engage in arts entrepreneurship out of necessity, rather than as a result of the discovery of an 
opportunity (Verheul, Thurik, Hessels & Zwan, 2010; Valdez & Richardson, 2013).  
 
Framing the U.S. Arts Sector 
 To think about how to define and illustrate the U.S. arts sector from the top-down, I was 
guided by Wyszomirksi’s proposed model of a U.S. creative sector (Cherbo, Vogel & 
Wyszomirski, 2008, p. 14), a notable published model that aided in visualizing the arts as a 
distinct socio-economic sector embedded within the broader U.S. economy. For example, in 
framing the arts and creative sector, Cherbo, Vogel & Wyszomirski define the sector as, “…a 
cluster of related arts and arts-related industries that require for production a pool of talented and 
skilled individuals, who along with ancillary organizations, provide products and services 
integral to the workings of the creative industries” (2008, pp. 9-10). Cherbo et al. later posit that 
a sectoral frame can help us to “…visualize the arts through a broader lens, widen and deepen 
our knowledge of how cultural affairs works, and aid us in devising better cultural policies and 
advocacy coalitions” (p. 10).  
 While the cultural policy benefits of adopting a U.S. sectoral frame for the arts are 
promising, primary points of departure between Wyszomirski’s model and my sectoral frame 
include the way in which I define and organize general field/industrial activities and ancillary 
(infra)structural components. Additionally, it is worth noting that my justification for framing the 
sector in this study as “arts-based” rather than “creative-based” is largely due to definitional 
challenges, as what is/is not creative is notoriously difficult to distinguish and determine, and 
such an exercise seemed beyond the scope of this study (Towse, 2010a). Moreover, the term 
“creative” is highly subjective, and ironically, those businesses and organizational entities 
deemed “creative” are usually included within creative economy/industries reports, while those 
deemed “un-creative” are omitted. As such, subjectivity no doubt contributes to discourse both 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

13 

towards and within the paradigm of creative industries research and policy (Trembley, 2011). 
Arguably it is such discourse that has stalled national adoption of the “creativity-based” sectoral 
frame across the decentralized U.S. arts and cultural policy infrastructure (Cherbo, Vogel & 
Wyszomirski, 2008, p. 12).   
 While employing an “arts-based” sectoral frame avoids the definitional discourse within 
the paradigm of creative industries, it is important to note that arts-based classifications and 
distinctions are not excluded from their own set of definitional challenges. As many scholars 
have come to recognize, “the arts” are socially-driven (Alexander, 2003, p. 2) and therefore are 
often what we (distinct members of a society) say they are (Davies, 1991). For the purposes of 
this study, the U.S. arts sector is framed broadly as a segment or division (i.e. a slice of the pie) 
of the broader U.S. economy in which related arts fields and entertainment industries are 
situated. 
 While a field is hereafter defined as an area or division of an activity, subject or 
profession (Martin, 2003; Lipstadt, 2003; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992), within the realm of 
national statistics, an industry refers to an aggregation of groups of firms and individual 
producers classified as producing similar (but not the same) goods and services (Towse, 2010b). 
For the purposes of this study, both field and industrial producers are framed as core workers 
(Cherbo, Vogel & Wyszomirski, 2008; Hesmondhalgh, 2012; Peltoniemi, 2015; Maanen, 2009), 
firms are framed as arts organizations (i.e. nonprofit, for-profit, state-subsidized) (Essig, 2015; 
Varbanova, 2013), and similar goods and services are framed as arts and related entertainment 
products, services and performing arts experiences (Peltoniemi, 2015; Sayre & King, 2010). 
Moreover, while a reference to the “nonprofit arts sector” is a reference to a sub-sector (i.e. half 
of a pie slice) of the broader U.S. arts sector (i.e. a slice of the pie), a reference to the “for-profit 
arts sector” is a reference to a parallel sub-sector (i.e. the other half of the pie slice) within the 
broader U.S. arts sector. Collectively, a reference to the U.S. arts sector is a reference to the two 
sub-sectors, which plausibly co-enable “sectoral benefit”, or the collective socio-economic 
benefit that the U.S. arts sector affords to the broader U.S. economy.  
 Although the lines often blur (Pankratz, 2013), and core workers often crossover between 
sectors (Gilmore, Johnson, Levi, Markusen & Martinez, 2006), traditional distinctions between 
both the non- and for-profit arts sectors have often been based on the general perception of non-
profit activities as mission-driven and commercial arts and related entertainment activities as 
being driven by market considerations (Pankratz, 2013). In an effort to draw attention to the 
distinct yet interrelated fields and industrial activities within the two sub-sectors of study, sub-
sectors are considered both one at a time (Fig.1, Fig.2), and then synergistically (Fig. 3).  
Notably each sub-sector possesses (1) a core labor force with assumed general motivations 
(Cherbo, Vogel & Wyszomirski, 2008; Hesmondhalgh, 2012), (2) interrelated field (Maanen, 
2009) and/or industrial activities (Cherbo, Vogel & Wyszomirski, 2008; Sayre & King, 2010), 
and (3) an (infra)structure comprised of ancillary organizations that both aid in field/industrial 
activities and service core workers in areas of need (Cherbo, Vogel & Wyszomirski, 2008; 
Burgess & Pankratz, 2008).  
  



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

14 

 
Figure 1. 
The Nonprofit Arts Sector 
  
 For example, as can be seen in Figure 1, core workers are centrally situated in the core of 
the nonprofit arts sector. They plausibly and collectively work both within and across interrelated 
art(s) fields towards mission-driven purposes (Rosewall, 2014; Badelt, 1997; Hull & Lio, 2006; 
Salamon & Anheier, 1992). Concentric circles intersect core workers, representative of general 
field activities (i.e. creation, presentation, reception) (Becker, 1982; Maannen, 2009) that core 
workers must facilitate within the non-profit arts sector in order to enable sectoral benefit. 
Importantly, while “creation” refers to the internal coordination and management of talent, 
equipment, materials and resources towards the production of works of art, “presentation” refers 
to the external coordination and management of public and private encounters between artists, 
audiences and existing works of art. Moreover, “reception” refers to internal coordination and 
management of a dedicated physical or virtual space for the exhibition, display or performance 
of art. Note that the prefix (re) is hereafter utilized as a reminder that such field activities are 
iterative, and through repetition, may successively enable sectoral benefit over time. 
Additionally, in adopting the perspective that a constellation of support systems is an integral 
part of the infrastructure of the arts and creative sector (Cherbo, Vogel & Wyszomirski, 2008), 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

15 

note that the outermost circle of Figure 1 both includes and represents distinct infrastructural 
components that both aid core workers in facilitating field activities and service core workers in 
areas of need (Burgess & Pankratz, 2008, pp. 32-34; Maanen, 2009, pp. 217-219). 
 Alternatively, in Figure 2, core workers are centrally situated within the core of the for-
profit arts sector. They plausibly and collectively work both within and across interrelated arts 
and entertainment industries for market-driven purposes (Rosewall, 2014 Hull & Lio, 2006; 
Sayre & King, 2010). Concentric circles intersect core workers in Figure 2, representative of the 
general industrial activities of acquisition, commodification and distribution that core workers 
must facilitate in order to enable sectoral benefit (Sayre & King, 2010; Edwards, 2010; 
Bernstein, 2015; Trumble & Riemsdijk, 2016). Importantly, while “acquisition” refers to the 
procurement of legal rights and permissions to distinct works of art for the purpose of 
commodification, “commodification” in the for-profit arts sector refers to the shaping and 
transformation of an existing work of art into a product or content for sale. Moreover, 
“distribution” refers to the publication and dissemination of art and entertainment products and 
 

 
Figure 2. 
The For-profit Arts Sector 
 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

16 

content for mass consumption. Note that the prefix (re) is hereafter utilized as a reminder that 
such industrial activities are iterative, and through repetition, may successively enable sectoral 
benefit over time. Additionally, in taking the perspectives of Cherbo, Vogel and Wyszomirski 
(2008, p. 15), note that the outermost circle of Figure 2 both includes and represents distinct 
infrastructural components which both aid core workers in facilitating industrial activities, and 
service core workers in areas of need. 
 Conceptually, while Figure 1 enables an opportunity to theorize those distinct arts 
organizations that facilitate (re)creation, (re)presentation, and (re)reception in U.S. non-profit 
arts fields, Figure 2 offers us an opportunity to theorize those distinct arts organizations that 
facilitate (re)acquisition, (re)commodification, and (re)distribution in U.S. arts and related 
entertainment industries. Additionally, viewing both sub-sectors as distinct yet interdependent 
socio-economic systems (i.e. Figure 3) offers us an opportunity to theorize cross-sector 
collaborations that may uncover new and existing opportunities for synergy. For example, prior 
to working in the arts and related entertainment industries, core workers often first develop their 
skills, abilities and talents in the nonprofit arts sector, often by attending arts education programs 
(e.g. K-12, collegiate, community) embedded in the nonprofit arts infrastructure and/or by 
working directly in nonprofit arts fields to facilitate mission-driven field activities. Moreover, 
likely due to the benefit of public and private subsidy via 501c3 tax exemption, core workers in 
the for-profit arts sector may recognize the non-profit arts sector as a more cost-effective sector 
for arts education, workforce training, talent and skill development (Burgess & Pankratz, 2008, 
pp. 32-34). Additionally, research indicates that the non-profit arts sector may be a more 
favorable sector for research and development, largely because both market pressures and project 
development costs can be diminished by tax incentives and public subsidy (Cherbo, 1998b, p. 
134). As Pankratz states, “Nonprofit leaders have tended to view commercial entertainment 
organizations primarily as funding sources that have not repaid, in philanthropic support, the 
essential research and development (R&D) that the nonprofit arts are said to provide the 
commercial sector” (2013, para. 3).  For example, research indicates that Broadway theatre 
producers in U.S. arts and entertainment industries often remain connected to nonprofit 
performing arts organizations because of their cost effective ability to workshop, revise, and 
revitalize classical works of art (Cherbo, 1998b). Such cross-sector arrangements may help to 
alleviate research and development costs in the U.S. arts and entertainment industries, thus 
enabling the nonprofit arts sector as a less risky and perhaps more favorable environment for 
arts-based venturing in the broader U.S. arts sector.  
 Essentially, if we frame both sub-sectors one at a time (e.g., Fig 1, Fig 2), and then 
synergistically (e.g., Fig 3), we notice the cross-sector arrangements that have long enabled new 
venture opportunities across the broader U.S. arts sector (Cherbo, 1998b). Support for this 
position can be found in the results of the Crossover study (Gilmore, Johnson, Levi, Markusen & 
Martinez, 2006), in which the researchers found that artists in the sample frame (nearly 1800 
responses) moved among arts sectors (i.e. commercial sector, nonprofit sector, community 
sector) far more fluidly then previously believed, and in addition, that each sector of study 
provided distinctive channels and support for artistic development (p. 5). Additional support can 
be found in Burgess and Pankratz’s (2008) relevant discussion on interrelations in the arts and 
creative sector, and also, in Pankratz’s (2013) research on interrelations within the nonprofit and 
commercial arts, in which he reports trends and identifies joint ventures made possible via cross- 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

17 
 

Fi
gu

re
 3

. 
Th

e 
U

.S
. A

rts
 S

ec
to

r 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

18 

sector collaborations. Moreover, if we frame that which is widely thought to be (re)created, 
(re)presented, and (re)received in the non-profit arts sector (i.e. art and works of art) from the 
perspective of core workers in the for-profit arts sector, we might view “art” as 
“product/content” yet to be acquired, commoditized, distributed and consumed en mass 
(Bernstein, 2015; Sayre & King, 2003; Vogel, 2011). In taking this systemic perspective, we can 
now recognize the U.S. nonprofit arts sector as the research and development wheel of the U.S. 
arts and entertainment industries, and the U.S. for-profit arts sector as the distribution and 
consumption wheel of the broader U.S arts sector. Importantly, while Figures 1, 2 and 3 
represent conceptual models only, the models have nevertheless aided me in illustrating my 
sectoral frame, and additionally, in pointing the reader to a multi-level framework [i.e. core 
(micro) level, field/industrial (meso) level, infrastructural (macro) level] for analysis of arts 
entrepreneurship activity in a given U.S. arts sector.  
 

Scope of the Study 
 In alignment with the sectoral frame and conceptual framework, and in an effort to 
identify a level of analysis, this study centers on an analysis of arts entrepreneurship in the core 
(i.e. micro) level of the U.S. arts sector. Generally within entrepreneurship research, to adopt a 
micro-view is to recognize the individual entrepreneurs’ ability to direct, control, or adjust the 
outcome of their respective venture by way of their own intrinsic traits (i.e. trait school of 
thought), recognition and awareness of opportunities (i.e. venture opportunity school of thought), 
or strategic planning process (i.e., strategic formulation school of thought) (Kuratko, 2014). 
Additionally, micro-level entrepreneurship research generally centers on the discovery of 
significant factors of influence that are part of an internal locus of control (Kurtako, 2014). 
Concerning the scope of the study, recall that there may be many arts sectors respective of the 
socio-cultural, ethnic, and regional diversity of the society in which the arts are situated. Bearing 
this in mind, I opted to narrow my sectoral frame to a state level, aligning socio-cultural and 
geographic boundaries with those of a selected U.S. state, the Ohio arts sector. To that end, a 
congressional district map of the State of Ohio was utilized to better visualize the geographic 
context in which arts entrepreneurs of study were situated (see www.sos.state.oh.us). 
 Although legal state lines collectively bind the study’s sample population, the sample 
frame equated to a random sample of legally registered founders that incorporated Ohio arts 
organizations both in and over the course of the years 2000-2015. Note that in an effort to 
encourage homogeneity in the sample frame (i.e. a focus on small arts organizations per Chang, 
2010), I excluded arts organizations that reported annual revenue of $100,000 or more in their 
first year of incorporation. Moreover, in an effort to control for self-employment, I excluded arts 
organizations that had less than two employees. 
 Before moving forward, it is important to note that due to the lack of a central office of 
cultural policy in the U.S., there is to date no official U.S. government sanctioned classification 
to indicate what does/does not constitute an “arts organization,” nor a national creative, cultural 
or artistic/arts field, industry or sector. Nor is there to date any official U.S. government 
sanctioned list of target businesses and/or organizational entities that are proposed to constitute 
or derive such concepts or constructs. However, in recent years the national arts advocacy 
organization Americans for the Arts (AFTA) both proposed and developed a list of both U.S. 
creative industries and organizational classifications, reportedly tracking over 700,000 arts-



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

19 

centric businesses and organizations that are involved in the creation and distribution of the arts 
in the United States. Although AFTA creative industries classification was utilized to identify 
arts organizations of study, note that for the purposes of this study, the following AFTA 
classifications were excluded from the query: Botanical and Zoological Gardens; Aquariums and 
Zoological Gardens; Animal and Reptile Gardens; Aquarium; Zoological Garden, 
Noncommercial; Arboreta and Botanical Gardens; Arboretum; Botanical Garden. 
 

Methodology 
 In an effort to generate data for addressing the research question (i.e. What are the 
demographics and shared characteristics of entrepreneurs in the Ohio arts sector?), I designed, 
pre-tested and administered an online survey to participants within the sample frame (Fowler, 
2013). Feedback from pre-testing was used to inform the final survey draft, and pre-test 
participants received a small honorarium for their time. In addition, prior to survey 
administration, a final draft of the survey was presented to both an assessment expert (i.e., Dr. 
Kristin Koskey Associate Professor of Assessment and Evaluation, University of Akron) and a 
content expert (Dr. Wendy Torrance, Director of Research, Kauffman Foundation) in an effort to 
inform the final survey version.  
 To account for potential differences in intentionality between founders of for-profit arts-
based ventures and founders of non-profit arts-based ventures, two survey versions were 
developed. Essentially, although survey questions and items were similar on both surveys, 
certain words and question prompts were changed in an effort to keep both questions and item 
selections as contextual and relatable as possible. For example, whereas one of the for-profit 
survey questions asked, “Prior to incorporation, did you have any experience starting a new 
business”, the non-profit survey asked the same question, but swapped the word “business” with 
“non-profit organization”. Likewise, whereas one for-profit survey question prompt used the 
terms “business venture” and “owner”, the non-profit survey swapped “business venture” with 
“non-profit venture” and “owner” with “founder.”  In both cases, the purpose of both surveys 
remained the same: to generate relevant and meaningful data evidencing demographics and 
shared characteristics of entrepreneurs within the Ohio arts sector.  
 Although the AFTA 2015 Creative Industries reports estimated a population of 19,941 or 
more Ohio-based arts-centric business owners, a list procured from the NAICS utilizing both 
AFTA classification and the sample criteria returned 6,675 records to which to administer a 
survey (N = 6,675). Based on this estimated population, I used a sample size calculator (95% 
confidence level/ 5% confidence interval) to set the goal of achieving a representative sample 
(363) for the for-profit dataset. To encourage a greater return, I oversampled at 566, and included 
a raffled prize drawing incentive.  
 Guidestar served as the primary source for procuring the nonprofit dataset 
(Guidestar.org). A purchased query from the Guidestar association utilizing both selected NTEE 
classification (Category A) codes and the sample frame criteria returned 230 records to which to 
administer the survey (N = 230). Based on this estimate, I used a sample size calculator (95% 
confidence level/ 5% confidence interval) to set the goal of achieving a representative sample 
(166) for the non-profit founder dataset. To encourage a greater return, I oversampled at 230 and 
included a raffled donation incentive.  



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

20 

 The Ohio Secretary of State business database was used extensively to crosscheck the 
validity of both datasets. For example, upon comparison of several of the procured records to the 
records in the Ohio secretary of state database, I found that several of the procured NAICS 
records possessed incorrect dates of incorporation and dissolution; an important finding that 
motivated me to begin inputting each procured record (both from NAICS and Guidestar) into the 
Ohio Secretary of State database for validity checking. With additional assistance, I was able to 
check the validity of 786 out of the 6,905 records. Whether or not a validated arts organization 
had since dissolved, invitational letters were addressed directly to all legally registered founders, 
and mailed to all target arts organizations within the sample frame. 
 

Results and Discussion 
 The online survey remained open and accessible for 30 days. In full disclosure, new 
understandings arose both during and after survey administration, and thus future surveys will no 
doubt require revision. For example, not all survey questions were found to be relevant to the 
goals of the conceptual framework, and thus not all survey responses are reported in this article. 
Additionally, whereas Hawley’s (1907) theory of the entrepreneur might aid one in identifying 
entrepreneurs as business owners, both non-profit and state-subsidized arts organizations cannot 
legally be owned, and thus going forward, a pragmatic definition of the arts entrepreneur is 
necessary. Supported by a theory of the entrepreneur as “Founder” (Hoang & Gimeno, 2010, pp. 
41-53; Stevens, 1999, pp. 1-8), hereafter the arts entrepreneur(s) is/are identified as: the 
registered founder(s) who self-identified as being primarily responsible for organizing and 
establishing the target arts organization.  
 It is important to note that I was unsuccessful in achieving generalizable response rates 
for both the non- and for-profit datasets. Whereas the for-profit sample target was 363, total 
respondents to the for-profit (FP) survey were only 62. Whereas the non-profit sample target was 
166, total respondents to the non-profit (NP) survey amounted to 53. These return rates mean 
that research findings are not necessarily generalizable beyond the scope of those who 
participated in the study. It also means that per the low survey response rate, I am unable to make 
statistical inferences from the data. Nevertheless, both surveys are useful for providing 
descriptive statistics for comparative analysis. For example, despite being legally registered 
founders with the Ohio secretary of state, the majority of NP arts entrepreneurs self-identified as 
a staff or board member (53%), rather than the founder (32%). Clearly this finding evidences a 
differentiation between the way in which I (the researcher) viewed the non-profit entrepreneurs 
of study (i.e., as “the” founders of nonprofit arts organizations), and the way in which the 
majority of nonprofit arts entrepreneur respondents actually viewed themselves, arguably as one 
part of a broader team of individuals; an important finding to remember for future arts 
entrepreneurship research studies in the nonprofit arts sector.  
 Results indicate that at the time the study took place, most of the participants were 
engaging in day-to-day activities within their respective arts organizations. This finding serves as 
an indicator of the most common stage and/or process of entrepreneurship (Deeds, 2014) and 
furthermore, situates participants’ arts-based ventures in the maintenance and expansion phase of 
what might be called “arts entrepreneurship policy” (Lundström & Stevenson, 2005, p. 59). 
Additionally, the majority of participants identified as nascent arts entrepreneurs (i.e. first-



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

21 

timers) (FP = 66%; NP = 86%), rather than veteran arts entrepreneurs (i.e. who had prior 
experience founding/establishing/organizing arts organizations). 
 To further summarize demographics and shared characteristics, the majority of Ohio arts 
entrepreneurs in the study were between the ages of 45-68, with the youngest being 24, and the 
oldest being 86. Additionally, while the majority (58%) of participants reported acquiring 
between $1-$999 in start-up financial capital (pre-incorporation), when given the opportunity to 
select from among a wide array of annual salary income ranges, the plurality of participants 
reported making between $80-$89,999 (FP = 15%) and $100,000 or more (NP = 34%) in annual 
income (pre-incorporation). While it is unclear how participants’ annual salary incomes were 
generated, this finding nevertheless evidences the presence of a substantial financial safety net 
among the majority of arts entrepreneurs of study, despite the seemingly low start-up financial 
capital requirements of arts entrepreneurship (as previously defined). Furthermore, when given 
the opportunity to select from among a variety of common venture financing options, the 
majority of FP respondents selected earned income or personal savings (47%), followed by used 
no financing/started from scratch (26%). Alternatively, the majority of NP respondents selected 
public or private grant funding (27%), followed by used no financing/started from scratch 
(23%). Notably, the option “bank loans” was not selected by any of the NP respondents.    
 Concerning shared characteristics in education, it is important to note that while a great 
majority of participants did receive a formal (sequential) arts education within the pre-K-12, 
community, and/or higher education settings prior to incorporation (FP = 68%; NP = 69%), 
ironically, the majority did not receive any formal entrepreneurship education (FP = 64%; NP = 
58%). Interestingly, the majority of participants indicated that they did receive formal 
management education prior to incorporation (FP = 54%; NP = 57%). While a greater sample 
size is needed for correlational studies, future studies can assess the impact that such forms of 
education have on both arts entrepreneurs and arts entrepreneurship activity in a given U.S. arts 
sector. Additionally, analysis indicates that 70% of participants had a post-secondary degree at 
the Bachelors (38%) or Master’s level (32%). This finding, when compared with the most 
prominent annual salary income ranges (pre-incorporation) selected by all participants (FP = 
$80-$89,999; NP = $100,000 or more), the foremost gender of participants being male (FP = 
60%; NP = 57%), and the most prominent race of the sample (i.e. 92% identifying as white), 
evidences the dominant socio-economic status (SES) among arts entrepreneurs of study (i.e. 
upper middle class college-educated white males).  
 Guided by the push/pull strand of entrepreneurship scholarship (Block & Wagner, 2007; 
Schjoedt & Shaver, 2007; Verheul, Thurik, Hessels & Zwan, 2010), survey response items 
served as push/pull proxies for participants’ arts-based venture motivations. In addition to the 
option other, FP participants were given the opportunity to select from among the following 
proxies: (1) driven to do it myself; (2) did not make enough money at my previous job; (3) 
dissatisfaction in my previous career or place of employment; (4) pressured to go into the family 
business; (5) desired to support a non-profit mission; (6) desired greater autonomy in my career 
or work; (7) desired employment for either myself or others; (8) saw a profit-making 
opportunity. The plurality of FP respondents selected driven to do it myself (32%), closely 
followed by desired employment for either myself or others (19%). Notably, while 19% of the FP 
respondents indicated other reasons, only one of the FP respondents selected the option desired 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

22 

to support a non-profit mission (i.e. organizing a for-profit arts-based venture to support a non-
profit mission or purpose).  
 Alternatively, NP participants were given the opportunity to select from among the 
following push/pull proxies: (1) Desired greater autonomy in my work/career; (2) Desired to do 
it myself; (3) Needed access to public funding; (4) Pressured to go into the family business; (5) 
Did not make enough money at my previous place of employment; (6) Dissatisfaction with 
previous state of career; (7) Needed to employ myself and/or others; (8) Recognized an 
opportunity to address a social need; (9) Other. The plurality of NP respondents selected other 
(46%), closely followed by recognized an opportunity to address a social need (44%). While this 
rationale (i.e. addressing a social need) is typical of those who engage in non-profit 
entrepreneurship, it is important to note that most of the reasons given were outside of item 
choices (i.e. other). For example, whereas one participant who selected “other” expounded, 
“Desire to create something to benefit the community”, another expounded, “Loved playing 
music.” As additional “other” reasons are both unique and specific, I concluded that my NP item 
selections for this question were too narrow, and that more research was needed to uncover the 
diversity of arts entrepreneurs’ venture motivations and inspirations in the Ohio non-profit arts 
sector.  
 It is important to note minority arts entrepreneurship demographics and characteristics in 
the sample frame, as such disclosure can aid us in recognizing arts entrepreneurs outside of the 
dominant SES and, additionally, help researchers make meaningful group comparisons amongst 
minority arts entrepreneurs. While research on minority entrepreneurship need not be limited to 
race and ethnicity, it is important to note that the overwhelming majority of participants 
identified as White (FP = 77%; NP = 92%), rather than American Indian or Alaska Native, Arab, 
Asian, Black or African American, Bi-racial, Hispanic or Latino, Multi-racial, Native Hawaiian 
or other Pacific Islander, Other, or “Prefer not to answer.” While this finding is not 
generalizable, it is worth noting that the racial makeup of the majority of Ohio arts entrepreneurs 
of study mirrors the racial majority of Ohio residents, in which 82.7% identified as White in the 
2010 (latest available) U.S. census (see factfinder.census.gov). Given research on minority 
entrepreneurship (Butler & Kozmetsky, 2004), such findings arguably imply ownership and 
control of arts organizations by race and ethnicity (Fama & Jensen, 1983,; Grossman & Hart, 
1986). Furthermore, concerning the gender of all participants, while there was a moderate 
concentration of female arts entrepreneurs in the sample frame (FP = 40%; NP = 43%), none of 
the participants identified as transgender. Such findings both encourage and challenge me to 
think about how I can work to make future arts entrepreneurship sample sizes more 
representative of the racial, ethnic and gender diversity of the United States. 
 

Conclusion 
 Research from the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project evidences visual, literary and 
performing arts students’ desires for contextual entrepreneurship education (Lindemann, Tepper, 
Gaskill, Jones, Kuh, Lambert, Lena, Miller, Park, Rudolph  & Vanderwerp, 2012). Alternatively, 
entrepreneurship scholars have recognized the ability of the arts to help facilitate learning 
associated with the study of creation opportunities (Alvarez & Barney, 2010, p. 574). While 
there is no consensus within the specialized literature on a definition of arts entrepreneurship 
(Chang & Wyszomirski, 2015), there is evidence that the arts entrepreneurship education field is 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

23 

growing at an alarming rate. For example, according to a downloadable program inventory (file 
6-20-2014-1.pdf) available on the Society for Arts Entrepreneurship Education (SAEE) website1, 
there are at least 112 dedicated arts entrepreneurship courses within 96 institutions of higher 
education in the United States. New research published by the Pave Program in Arts 
Entrepreneurship indicates 372 documented arts entrepreneurship offerings within 168 
institutions of higher education (Alliance for the Arts in Research Universities, 2017).  
 Common educational goals involve but are not limited to: the development of related 
skills and competencies for transitioning into professional artistic careers, the study and practice 
of new venture creation in art(s) fields and related entertainment industries, and the development 
of an entrepreneurial mindset (Essig, 2016, 2012; Beckman, 2007). In the book Entrepreneurship 
in the Creative Industries, Brown (2007) identifies similar pioneering efforts in arts 
entrepreneurship education that have taken place in the U.K. For example, Brown talks at length 
about the Performing Arts Creative Enterprise (PACE) project that originated out of the 
Performing Arts Learning and Teaching Innovation Network (PALATINE) from 2000-2011. 
Alternatively, Beckman (2007) both identifies and discusses similar pioneering efforts in arts 
entrepreneurship education throughout the U.S. 
 Despite these significant educational developments in the academic field of arts 
entrepreneurship, it is important to recognize the lack of published peer reviewed research for 
guiding and informing arts entrepreneurship education and practice. While specialized research 
journals have emerged (i.e. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, Journal of Arts 
Entrepreneurship Research, and Journal of Arts Entrepreneurship Education) a body of 
empirical research is needed in order to both legitimize and advance the arts entrepreneurship 
research field. As evidenced in this study, research that identifies demographics and shared 
characteristics of arts entrepreneurs can aid students, practitioners and educators in identifying 
and making meaningful group comparisons amongst arts entrepreneurs of interest.  
 Interestingly, Social Identity Theory (SIT) provides support for this position. To 
summarize, social identity theorists generally perceive social identities as both groups to which 
one belongs and meaningful aspects of one’s self-concept (Deaux, 1993). As such, while 
individuals seek to maximize their self-esteem by striving to achieve a positive social identity (a 
successful artist) (Hechter, 2004), a disadvantaged position or capability may lead to a negative 
social identity (oft noted as the starving artist perception) (Mullen, Brown & Smith 1992; Tajfel 
1982; Turner, 1987; Van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 1993). Recognition may trigger one’s 
attempts to improve that position or status (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Contextually, where such 
negative social identities and/or disadvantaged positions are experienced in the arts, or evidenced 
in the core, field/industry, and/or infrastructural levels of the U.S. arts sector, coping strategies 
such as arts entrepreneurship may be desired. To that end, scholars suggest that strategies for 
coping with a negative social identity will likely be dependent upon how individuals perceive 
themselves in relation to their group affiliation (Mummendey et al., 1999). Notably, scholars 
who endorse a structuration frame posit that an entrepreneur’s awareness of their own capability 
and position within a given social system (e.g., U.S. arts sector) will influence their sense of 
agency (Sarason, Dean & Dilliard, 2006). In cases where this is true, the identification of 

                                                
1 See http://www.societyaee.org/resources.html 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

24 

demographics and shared characteristics among arts entrepreneurs may aid the field in making 
meaningful group comparisons in what might be called “arts entrepreneurship research.”  
 Beyond demographics and characteristics, arts entrepreneurship research may be very 
useful for identifying new venture opportunities across the broader U.S. arts sector; better 
situating arts incubators in communities where there are low rates of arts entrepreneurship 
activity; identifying correlations between arts entrepreneurship activity and arts entrepreneurship 
education initiatives; analyzing sectoral ownership and control amongst specific population 
groups; and perhaps most importantly, increasing the contextual entrepreneurship knowledge and 
opportunity awareness of both arts students and aspiring arts entrepreneurs.  
 In conclusion, while a greater sample size is needed in order to generalize results, I am 
confident this study can serve as both a proof of concept and a replicable model for future micro-
level quantitative research studies in the academic field of arts entrepreneurship. While the 
question “Who is the entrepreneur?” has admittedly long been addressed in the business 
entrepreneurship literature (e.g., Gartner, 1988; McKenzie, Ugbah & Smothers, 2007), the 
question has yet to be addressed comparatively in our specialized literature and arguably, the 
field should not forsake this important question simply because entrepreneurship researchers 
within the business school have since moved on to other questions of interest. Furthermore, if 
there is truly a fundamental difference between business entrepreneurship (Kuratko, 2014, pp. 4 -
5, p. 23), and arts entrepreneurship, then the identification of arts entrepreneurs is of paramount 
importance, as it addresses the question, “Who are we researching?”  
 

References  
Aghajanyan, K. (2015). Challenges for Art in Armenia: View from Three Contemporary Artists 

and an Art Curator. HETQ. Retrieved from http://hetq.am/eng/news/58285/challenges-
for-art-in-armenia-view-from-three-contemporary-artists-and-an-art-curator 

Alexander, V. D. (2003). Sociology of the arts: Exploring fine and popular forms. Oxford: 
Blackwell Pub. 

Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2010). Entrepreneurship and epistemology: The philosophical 
underpinnings of the study of entrepreneurial opportunities. The Academy Of 
Management Annals, 4(1), 557-583. 

Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., & Anderson, P. (2013). Forming and exploiting opportunities: the 
implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational 
research. Organization Science, 24(1), 301-317. 

Alliance for the Arts in Research Universities (2017). A landscape of arts entrepreneurship in 
US higher education. Tempe AZ: Linda Essig and Joanna Guevara.  

Audretsch, D., Heger, D., & Veith, T. (2015). Infrastructure and entrepreneurship. Small 
Business Economics, 44(2), 219-230. 

Badelt, C. (1997). Entrepreneurship theories of the non-profit sector. Voluntas: International 
Journal Of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations, 8(2), 162-178. 

Banks, M., & Milestone, K. (2011). Individualization, Gender and Cultural Work.  Gender, Work  
& Organization, 18(1), 73-89. 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

25 

Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). 2 How Actors Change Institutions: Towards a 
Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship. Academy Of Management Annals, 3(1), 65-107. 

Baumol, W. J. (1966). Performing arts, the economic dilemma; a study of problems common to 
theater, opera, music, and dance. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.  

Becker, H. S. (1982). Art worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press. 
 
Beckman, G. D. (2007). Adventuring Arts Entrepreneurship Curricula in Higher  

Education: An Examination of Present Efforts, Obstacles, and Best Practices. The  
Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 37(2), 87-112. 

Benz, M. (2009). Entrepreneurship as a non-profit-seeking activity. International 
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5(1), 23-44. 

Bernstein, G. (2015). Understanding the business of entertainment: The legal and business 
essentials all filmmakers should know. NY, London: Focal Press. 

Block J. H., & Wagner, M.  (2007). Necessity and Opportunity Entrepreneurs in Germany 
Characteristics and Earnings Differentials. Schmalenbach Business Review, 62(4), 154-
174. 

Bodilly, S. J., Augustine, C. H., & Zakaras, L. (2008). Revitalizing arts education  
through community-wide coordination. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. 

Brown, R. (2007). Promoting Entrepreneurship in Arts Education. In H.C., Entrepreneurship in 
the creative industries: An international perspective (pp.126-142). Cheltenham, UK: 
Edward Elgar. 

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. 
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Burgess, C. N., & Pankratz, D. B. (2008). Interrelations in the Arts and Creative Sector. In 
Cherbo, J. M., Stewart, R. A., & Wyszomirski, M. J., Understanding the arts and 
creative sector in the United States [Kindle for Mac] (pp. 28-38). Retrieved from 
http://www.amazon.com. 

Butler, J. S., & Kozmetsky, G. (2004). Immigrant and minority entrepreneurship: The  
continuous rebirth of American communities. Westport, CT: Praeger. 

Caplin, L. (1983). The Business of Art. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 
Chang, W. J. (2010). How Small Are Small Arts Organizations?. The Journal of Arts  

Management, Law, and Society, 40(3), 217-234. 
Chang, W. J., & Wyszomirski, M. J. (2015). What is Arts Entrepreneurship? Tracking the 

development of its definition in scholarly journals. Artivate: A Journal of 
Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 4(2), 11-31. 

Cherbo, J, M. (1998a). Introduction. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 28(2), 
99-101. 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

26 

Cherbo, J, M. (1998b). Creative synergy: commercial and not-for-profit live theater in America. 
Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, 28(2), 129-143. 

Cherbo, J. M., Vogel, F., & Wyszomirski, M. J. (2008). Toward an Arts and Creative  
Sector. In Cherbo, J. M., Stewart, R. A., & Wyszomirski, M. J., Understanding the arts 
and creative sector in the United States [Kindle for Mac] (pp.1-28). Retrieved from 
http://www.amazon.com. 

Conor, B., Gill, R., & Taylor, S. (2015). Gender and creative labour. The Sociological  Review, 
63(2), 1-22. 

Davies, S. (1991). Definitions of art. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press. 
Deaux, K. (1993). Reconstructing social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 

19(1), 4–12. 
Deeds, D. (2014). Thoughts on the challenge of empirical research in entrepreneurship. In  

Carsrud, A., Brännback, M. Handbook of research methods and applications in  
entrepreneurship and small business (pp. 10-19). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub. Ltd 

DiMaggio, P.J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. Zucker 
(Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations (pp. 3–22). Cambridge, MA: 
Ballinger. 

Dunlop, J. C. (2007). The U.S. Video Game Industry: Analyzing Representation of  Gender and 
Race. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 3(2), 96-109. 

Edwards, M. (2010). The "Culture Industry" and Commodification of Art. Art Criticism, 25(1/2), 
7-18. 

Eikhof, D. R., & Warhurst, C. (2013). The promised land? Why social inequalities are  systemic 
in the creative industries. Employee Relations, 35(5), 495-508. 

Essig, L. (2016). Editors Introduction to the Winter 2016 Issue. Artivate: A Journal of 
Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 5(1), 1-2. 

Essig, L. (2015). Means and Ends: A Theory Framework for Understanding Entrepreneurship in 
the US Arts and Culture Sector. Journal Of Arts Management, Law & Society, 45(4), 
227. 

Essig, L.  (2012). Frameworks for educating the artist of the future: Teaching habits of  
mind for arts entrepreneurship. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 1(2), 65-77. 
Fairlie, R. W. (2014). Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity (1996 -2013).   

Retrieved from Ewing Marion Kaufman Foundation website: 
http://www.kauffman.org/what-we-do/research/kauffman-index-of-entrepreneurial-
activity 

Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of Ownership and Control. Journal of Law and 
Economics, 26(2), 301-325. 

Fowler, F, J. (2013). Survey Research Methods (Applied Social Research Methods) [Kindle 
Edition]. Retrieved from amazon.com. 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

27 

French, L. (2014). Gender then, gender now: surveying women's participation in  Australian film 
and television industries. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 28(2), 188-
200. 

Forson, C., Özbilgin M., Ozturk, M. B., & Tatli, A. (2014). Multi-level approaches to 
entrepreneurship and small business research - transcending dichotomies with Bourdieu. 
In Chell, E., & Karataş-Özkan, M., Handbook of research on small business and 
entrepreneurship (pp. 54-69). Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA : Edward Elgar. 

Gartner, W. B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship?. Journal 
of Business Venturing, 5(1), 15-28. 

Gartner, W.B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur?" is the wrong question. American Journal of 
Small Business, 12(4), 11-32. 

Gartner, W.B. (1985). A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of 
New Venture Creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696-706. 

Gartner, W. B., & Shane, S. A. (1995). Measuring entrepreneurship over time. Journal of 
Business Venturing, 10(4), 283-301. 

Gelderen, M., & Masurel, E. (2012). Entrepreneurship in context. New York, NY:  
Routledge. 

Gilmore, S., Johnson, A., Levi, T., Markusen, A., & Martinez, A. (2006). Crossover:  
How Artists Build Careers Across Commercial, Nonprofit and Community Work. 
Retrieved at http://www.issuelab.org/permalink/resource/8903 

Grandori, A., & Gaillard G., L. (2011). Organizing Entrepreneurship. Florence, US: Routledge 
Graves, J. B. (2005). Cultural democracy: the arts, community, and the public purpose.  Urbana: 

University of Illinois Press. 
Griswold, W. (1992). The writing on the mud wall: Nigerian novels and the imaginary  

village. American Sociological Review, 57(6). 
Grossman, S, J., & Hart, O. D. (1986). The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of vertical 

and lateral integration. Journal of Political Economy, 94(4): 691-719. 
Halprin, L. (1970). The RSVP Cycles. New York: George Braziller. 
Hawley, F. (1907). Enterprise and the Production Process. New York: G.P. Putnam. 
Hawthorne, C., Szántó, A., & National Arts Journalism Program. (2003). The new gate keepers: 

Emerging challenges to free expression in the arts. New York: National Arts Journalism 
Program, Columbia University. 

Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519-
530. 

Hechter, M. (2004). From Class to Culture. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 400-445. 
Henry, C. (2007). Entrepreneurship in the creative industries: An international  

perspective. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2012). The cultural industries. London: SAGE. 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

28 

Hesmondhalgh, D., & Baker, S. (2015). Sex, gender and work segregation in the cultural  
industries. Sociological Review, 63(S1), 23-36. 

Hetland, L., Palmer, P., Seidel, S., Tishman, S., Winner, E. (2009). The Qualities of  
Quality: Understanding Excellence in Arts Education. Project Zero. Cambridge, MA. 

Hoang, H., & Gimeno, J. (2010). Becoming a founder: How founder role identity affects 
entrepreneurial transitions and persistence in founding. Journal of Business Venturing, 
25(1), 41-53. 

Hosford, C. (2012). Segmentation sets GuideStar apart. Advertising Age: B to B, 97(8). 
Hull, C., & L. B. (2006). Innovation in non-profit and for-profit organizations: Visionary, 

strategic, and financial considerations. Journal of Change Management. 6(1), 53-65. 
Janney, J. J., & Dess, G. G. (2006). The risk concept for entrepreneurs reconsidered: new 

challenges to the conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(3), 385-400. 
Jones, D., & Pringle, J. K. (2015). Unmanageable inequalities: sexism in the film industry. The 

Sociological Review, 63(S1), 37-49. 
Kolb, B. M. (2015). Entrepreneurship for the creative and cultural industries. New York,  

N.Y.: Routledge. 
Kuratko, D. F. (2014). Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process, and Practice [Kindle for  

Mac]. Retrieved from http://amazon.com 
Lindemann, D.J., Tepper, S.J., Gaskill, S., Jones, S.J., Kuh, G.D., Lambert, A.D., Lena, J., 

Miller, A. L., Park, K., Rudolph, E. B., & Vanderwerp, L (2012). Painting with broader 
strokes: Reassessing the value of an arts education (SNAAP Special Report No. 1). 
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University and Vanderbilt University, Strategic National Arts 
Alumni Project. 

Lipstadt, H. (2003). Can ‘art Professions’ Be Bourdieuean Fields Of Cultural Production? The 
Case Of The Architecture Competition. Cultural Studies, 17 (3-4), 390-419. 

Lundström, A., & Stevenson, L. (2005). Entrepreneurship policy: Theory and practice.  
New York: Springer. 

Maanen, H. V. (2009). How to study art worlds: On the societal functioning of aesthetic values. 
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 

 
Mañjon, S. B., & Vega. M. M. (2012). A Snapshot: Landmarking Community Cultural  Arts 

Organizations Nationally. New York, NY: Caribbean Cultural Center African Diaspora 
Institute. 

Martin, J. L. (2003). What Is Field Theory?. American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 1–49. 
McCarthy, K.F., Ondaatje, E.H., & Novak, J.L. (2007). Arts and culture in the metropolis: 

Strategies for sustainability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.  
McKenzie, B., Ugbah, S. D., & Smothers, N. (2007). "Who is an entrepreneur?" Is it still the 

wrong question?. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(1), 23-43.  



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

29 

Miller, T., & Yudice, G. (2002). Cultural Policy (Core Cultural Theorists Series) [Kindle 
Edition]. Retrieved from Amazon.com. 

Morris, M. H., Pryor, C. G., & Schindehutte, M. (2012). Entrepreneurship as experience: How 
events create ventures and ventures create entrepreneurs. Cheltenham:  
Edward Elgar. 

Mulcahy, K. V. (2006). Cultural policy: definitions and theoretical approaches. Journal of Arts 
Management, Law and Society, 35(4), 319-330. 

Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup Bias as a Function of Salience, Relevance, 
and Status: An Integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(2), 103–22. 

Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative  
social identity: predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 229-45. 

Neck, H. M., Greene, P. G., & Brush, C. G. (2014). Teaching entrepreneurship: a practice-based 
approach. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 

Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press. 

Pankratz, D. (2013). The Nonprofit and Commercial Arts in America: Research on New 
Interrelationships. In Morris, V., The arts in a new millennium (Chapter 13). [Kindle for 
Mac]. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com. 

Peltoniemi, M. (2015). Cultural Industries: Product-Market Characteristics, Management  
Challenges and Industry Dynamics. International Journal of Management Reviews, 
17(1), 41-68. 

Pollard, V., & Wilson, E. (2014). The Entrepreneurial Mindset in Creative and  
Performing Arts Higher Education in Australia. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship 
in the Arts 3(1), 3-22. 

Preece, S. B. (2015). Acquiring Start-Up Funding for New Arts Organizations. Nonprofit 
Management and Leadership, 25(4), 463-474. 

Preece, S.B.  (2014). Social Bricolage in Arts Entrepreneurship: Building a Jazz Society from 
Scratch. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 3(1), 23-34. 

Preece, S.B. (2011). Performing arts entrepreneurship: Toward a research agenda. Journal of 
Arts Management, Law, and Society, 41(2), 103-120. 

Prince, R. (2010). Globalizing the Creative Industries Concept: Travelling Policy and 
Transnational Policy Communities. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 
40(2), 119-139. 

Rosewall, E. (2014). Arts Management: Uniting arts and audiences in the 21st century. NY, NY: 
Oxford University Press. 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

30 

Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1992). In search of the non-profit sector. I: The question of 
definitions. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 
3(2), 125-151. 

Sarason, Y., Dean, T., & Dillard, J. F. (2006). Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and 
opportunity: A structuration view. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(3), 286-305. 

Sassmannshausen, S. P. (2012). 99 entrepreneurship journals: A comparative empirical  
investigation of rankings, impact, and H/HC-index. Schumpeter School of Business and 
Economics, Univ. Wuppertal: Wuppertal. 

Sayre, S., & King, C. (2010). Entertainment and Society: Influences, Impacts, and Inovations 
[Kindle for Mac]. Retrieved from Amazon.com. 

Schjoedt, L., & Shaver, K. G. (2007). Deciding on an Entrepreneurial Career: A Test of the Pull 
and Push Hypotheses Using the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics Data. 
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(5), 733-752. 

Schumpeter, J. A., & Opie, R. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry 
into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard 
University Press. 

Shade, L. R., & Jacobson, J. (2015). Hungry for the job: gender, unpaid internships, and the 
creative industries. The Sociological Review, 63(S1), 188-205. 

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of  
Research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226. 

Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Shook, C. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2010). The 
Concept of "Opportunity" in Entrepreneurship Research: Past Accomplishments 
and Future Challenges. Journal of Management, 42(1), 40. 

Sinckler, L. (2014). And the Oscar Goes to . . . Well, It Can't Be You, Can It?: A Look at  
Race-Based Casting and How It Legalizes Racism, Despite Title VII Laws. American 
University Journal of Gender Social Policy and the Law, 22(4), 857-892. 

Smith, T. M., Nichols, B., Ott, J., Ball, D., & National Endowment for the Arts. (2003).  
Raising the barre: The geographic, financial, and economic trends of nonprofit dance 
companies: a study. Washington, D.C: National Endowment for the Arts. 

Staber, U. H. (2013). Understanding organizations: Theories & images. London: SAGE. 
Stevens, K.S. (2009). Helping Founders Succeed (Centerpiece Report). Retrieved from Theatre 

Communications Group, TCG website: 
http://www.tcg.org/publications/centerpiece/index.cfm. 

Steyaert, C., & Katz, J. (2004). Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: 
geographical, discursive and social dimensions. Entrepreneurship & Regional 
Development, 16(3), 179-196. 

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University  
Press. 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

31 

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.  
Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24).  
Chicago: Nelson-Hall. 

Towse, R. (2010a). Creativity, Copyright and the Creative Industries Paradigm. Kyklos. 63(3): 
461-478. 

 
Towse, R (2010b). A Textbook of Cultural Economics [Kindle for Mac]. Retrieved from 

http://amazon.com 
Trumble, R., & van Riemsdijk, M. (2016). Commodification of art versus creativity: The 

Antagonist Art Movement in the expanding arts scene of New York City. City, Culture 
And Society, 7(3), 155-160. 

Valdez, M. E., & Richardson, J. (2013). Institutional Determinants of Macro-Level  
Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1149-1175. 

Van Knippenberg, Ad., & Ellemers, N. (1993). Strategies in Intergroup Relations. In Hogg, M.  
A., & Abrams, D. Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 17–32). New 
York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 

Varbanova, L. (2013). Strategic management in the arts. New York: Routledge. 
Venkataraman, S. (2003). Foreword. In S. Shane, A general theory of entrepreneurship. 

The individual–opportunity nexus (pp. xi–xii). Northampton, MA: Edward 
Elgar. 

Verheul, I., Thurik, R., Hessels, J., & Zwan van der, P. (2010). Factors Influencing the 
Entreprenurial Engagment of Opportunity and Necessity Entrepreneurs. Retrieved from 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46455747_Factors_Influencing_the_Entreprene
urial_Engagement_of_Opportunity_and_Necessity_Entrepreneurs 

Vogel, F. (2011). Entertainment Industry Economics (8th ed.) [Kindle for Mac]. Retrieved from 
amazon.com. 

Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship--conceptual challenges and ways forward. 
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165-184.  

White, J. C. (2013). Barriers To Recognizing Arts Entrepreneurship Education As  
Essential To Professional Arts Training. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the 
Arts, 2(3), 28-39. 

Wilkerson, M. (2012). Using the arts to pay for the arts: A proposed new public funding model. 
Journal of Arts Management Law and Society, 42(3), 103-115. 

Woolley, J. L. (2014). The Creation and Configuration of Infrastructure for Entrepreneurship in 
Emerging Domains of Activity. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 38(4), 721-747. 

Wyszomirski, M. J. (1982). Controversies in arts policymaking. In Mulcahy, K. V., & Swaim, C. 
R (Eds.), Public policy and the arts (pp. 13-14). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. 



White   Analyzing Entrepreneurship in the U.S. Arts Sector 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 6 (1)   
 
 
 

32 

Wyszomirski, M. J., & Cherbo, J. M. (2001). The Associational Infrastructure of the Arts and 
Culture. Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society, 31(2), 99-102.  

 


