Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the roles of peripherality and centrality in relation to entrepreneurial learning and development. Peripherality has previously been considered from a mainly geographical perspective as being remote, loosely connected and marginal. A broader conception of the topic is addressed, asking: in what ways is peripherality relevant to entrepreneurial learning? How can centre-peripheral connectivity enhance this? What are the implications for communities, learners and educators?

Discourses of entrepreneurship development relating to policy, economics, geography and culture favour the concept of centres, which attract attention, resources, activities and people. Whilst peripherality is an enduring topic of interest in regional studies, it is widened through using the conceptualisation of legitimate peripheral participation in social learning as a methodological lens for the study. A case study of the technology sector in Cape Breton, Canada is included to illustrate peripheral entrepreneurship.

The paper suggests ways in which peripheral-central relationships can be a positive factor in entrepreneurial learning. It suggests that rebalancing the bidirectional “flow” of knowledge, talent and resources between centres and peripheries can enhance the value of peripheral entrepreneurship, learning and innovation.

The paper connects with prior work on community economic development, offering observations for entrepreneurial learning and development of knowledge-intensive businesses in peripheral areas. Boundary-spanning leadership and skills are required to facilitate peripheral-central interaction and entrepreneurship.

Peripherality is defined more widely than in prior work, suggesting peripheral learning is part of the fundamental human experience and offers new insights, innovations and opportunities which can create shared value. A conceptual framework for peripheral-central entrepreneurial learning is proposed, which may assist in rebalancing central-peripheral value creation, innovation and regeneration.

The unequal distribution of economic activities, transposed in economic, social and territorial disparities is the general characteristic of the European economy. Gaps increased in the context of European Union (EU) enlargement towards Eastern and Central Europe and of the economic crisis, thus bringing new differentiations among member states’ economies. The main aim of the chapter is to emphasise the centre-periphery differentiations in the European economy, by using a composite index of peripherality, in order to better understand the determinants of growth and convergence in Central and Eastern European countries and to reach normative conclusions for increasing Cohesion Policy (CP) effectiveness. The first part of the chapter provides a short overview of the main theories and models of the peripherality analysis and the relationships between the centre and the periphery, in order to find out how this analysis relates to the research in the field. The second part provides a comparative analysis of the evolution of European economies during 2003–2014, in order to find out whether the EU enlargement process stabilised the EU core-periphery pattern or, on the contrary, the process of core-periphery structural convergence occurred. The third part includes the suggested model of analysis (methodology, data, and main results) from a multidisciplinary perspective, underlining the centre-periphery differentiations on the two axes, North–South and West–East. The results have been interpreted in conclusions, with a focus on their relevance for the European CP challenges.

The purpose of this paper is to study a class of issues that in spite of recognised needs and explicit managerial demands have proven hard to have “stick” in organisations (information security is used as an example). It offers a theory-driven rationale why superficially different issue areas can indeed be considered as instances of the identified class, and builds on complexity leadership theory (CLT) to explain how the related strategic challenges can be explained and possibly alleviated.

A. Kenneth Rice’s notion of organisations’ “primary task” is used to home in on its opposite that is here labelled “peripherality”. Existing strands of organisation research that can be related to this notion are then revisited to ground the fundamental concept theoretically. The CLT is finally used to provide a detailed understanding of the underlying dynamics.

The paper explains how and why certain issue areas seem resistant to common managerial intervention methods even though it would seem that organisational members are in fact favouring proposed changes (a state that would normally increase the chances of success). It also offers ideas how these challenges may fruitfully be approached.

Problems related to the suggested “peripherality” class of issues have thus far been approached as wholly unrelated (and for that reason as idiosyncratic). The proposed framework offers a hitherto never attempted way systematically to link these challenges – and so structure and concentrate discussion about possibly common remedies.

The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on peripheral ports, hub ports and concentration – deconcentration factors. This is an issue, as investments in port development in more peripheral locations are challenging due to the difficult financial situation currently faced by the maritime industry.

This paper presents a narrative literature review focusing on peripherality in the context of seaports and transport. Moreover, it gathers the reasons why ports concentrate–deconcentrate, and how these factors evolve over time.

This paper develops a future research agenda for peripheral ports.

The paper provides insights for ports in developing countries in their efforts to upgrade their port facilities and infrastructure.

This paper contributes to the research on ports in peripheral locations which have been under studied compared to larger hub ports.

With over 2,000 participating firms, CAM‐Benchmarking Ltd (http://www.cam‐benchmarking.com) is one of the world's largest strategy benchmarking databases for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). This paper draws upon CAM data to show that in a geographical region suffering from the deleterious economic effects of peripherality real progress to convergence (in terms of firm performance) can be achieved through benchmarking. More specifically the paper shows that comprehensive benchmarking data can be used to close the information gap that small firms, relative to large firms, often have, and through this process boost individual firm, and hence overall regional, performance.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the role of territory in (city‐) regionalisation and to revisit the problems of distance from the core in cluster strategies. The paper further aims to discuss the implications of how agglomeration and networking economies, strongly promoted and based on city regions, are being realised across national boundaries.

The paper argues that there are negative spatial impacts for those areas which do not and cannot establish “core cluster” status. The focus on such “cores” threatens to exacerbate the peripherality of the non‐core regions of the European Union, and especially those in the external (northern) border regions of Europe.

Against an evolving pattern of reducing effective distances across the mainland continent through EU funding, Celtic and Nordic Europe is facing a relative increase in peripherality. Ownership and control of industry and the economy are becoming ever more concentrated and centralised at the core, and monetary and fiscal policies are driven by the needs of the market and so of the demands of the metropolitan heart of the continent. While the new territorial clusters are promising growth and development for some regions allowing them to converge on the core, this should not be allowed to obscure the threats to others which are becoming ever more disadvantaged.

The paper highlights a major, albeit not much acknowledged, threat emanating from the current focus on city regions as “economic champions” in debates and policy making. Not only does this threaten to overlook, but, indeed, may create areas of “exclusion” and peripherality.

The purpose of this paper is to expand on the entrepreneurial learning literature and situated learning theory to explore how students with different educational backgrounds learn to recognise opportunities at the periphery of an entrepreneurial practice. The authors theoretically outline factors that may influence students’ entrepreneurial learning, including co-participation and roles at the periphery, power relations in communities of practice (CoP), and emotional exposure. The authors make use of the concept legitimate peripheral participation and Politis’ entrepreneurial learning framework to explore empirically students’ entrepreneurial learning transformations and entrepreneurial learning outcomes.

The authors adopted a qualitative approach in research, used the focus group methodology and the critical incident technique in interviewing. The research investigated two groups of Norwegian master students that differed in educational background aiming to explore their experience with entrepreneurial learning in a three months long internship in American start-ups representing emerging CoPs.

The research identified important factors influencing students’ entry transitions into an entrepreneurial practice, highlighting the complexity in peripheral participation. By acknowledging and exploring the social dimensions in students’ learning, the authors demonstrate and exemplify how these influence students’ entrepreneurial learning trajectories, learning outcomes and ultimately their influence in students’ contributions to the practice community.

The research integrates the existing entrepreneurial learning literature and situated learning theory to identify various factors influencing entrepreneurial learning, contributing with novel insights about the role of peripherality in students’ entrepreneurial learning in situated practice.

Are radically novel practices more likely to attract recognition when the evaluating audience is composed of external evaluators? Our baseline argument asserts that radical novelty is more likely to be positively evaluated by an external audience and that peripheral (rather than core) producers have higher incentives to adopt novel practices that depart from tradition. Yet, because peripheral producers often lack the necessary support and legitimacy to promote novelty, audiences play a critical role in recognizing their innovative efforts. How can peripheral producers mitigate the challenges associated with novelty recognition? To answer this question, we explore how peripheral producers’ collaboration with acclaimed consultants affects the process of external audience recognition in the context of the Italian wine field from 1997 to 2006. Our findings suggest that radical novelty is positively received by an external audience composed of critics, although we do not find a significant difference between core and peripheral producers. However, external audiences are more open to recognizing peripheral producers’ use of novel practices when they collaborate with well-connected consultants. We find that the use of central consultants produces a “boosting” effect that accentuates the differences between evaluations of peripheral producers who embrace novelty and evaluations of those that follow the tradition. Our study thus advances theory by providing empirical evidence of the value of considering third-party actors such as consultants, who sit at the nexus between the agency required for innovation and external audiences’ recognition of novelty, when studying novelty evaluation and recognition.