Thursday
11.00-12.30:
‘Introduction’ André Spicer, Christian De Cock, Daniel
Hjorth and Deborah Jones
‘Identity, Creativity and the Cultural Entrepreneur’ Chris
Bilton.
‘Being at it – Towards a borderline theory of
entrepreneurship’ Alf Rehn
‘Metamorphoses in entrepreneurship (studies): Towards a
(truly) affirmative thinking of entrepreneurial creativity’ Chris Steyaert and
Richard Weiskopf
14.00-15.30
‘An aesthetics of displacement: Exploring other spaces (of
enterprise) with Thomas Pynchon’ Timothy Beyes;
‘The used book store: A haven for prosaic creativity’
Fredric Bill and Lena Olaison. Rapporteurs: Richard Weiskopf
Friday
9.00-10.30:
‘Entrepreneurship interrupted: On constructing not a
shopping centre but a city’ Anna-Maria Murtola
‘Can unions be entrepreneurial?’ Elisabeth Sundin
‘Creative industries, governmentalities, and heterotopias:
the case of the local government in
11.00-12.30:
‘Research Leadership as an Entrepreneurial Process’ Finn
Hansson and Mette Mønsted.
‘The Pride/Shame Bridge – A theoretic synthesis to explain
the resolution of antagonistic relationships through Entrepreneurial processes’
James Latham, Robert Jones, David Goss
‘
13.45-15.15:
‘Everyday Imagination and Organizational Creativity’
Zhongyuan Zhang
Michela Betta, Robert Jones and James Latham: Are you an object or a subject? Well... I dno' t know... what do you think? The laboratory as a super-organization. Rapporteurs: Andrea Whittle
Saturday
11.00-12.30:
‘Cash as ‘cool’ not cold? A study of New Age entrepreneurs
in
‘Creative Capabilities and Nation Branding: Evidence from
the
Presentation
Each paper should be presented as follows:
5 minutes from the author briefly explaining the key arguments
2 x 5 minutes from each of the discussants
15 minutes group discussion about all the papers.
Preparation
In order to ensure people get as much out the sessions as
possible we have decided to assign two discussants to each paper. This means
that each discussant should carefully read the paper and come back with
constructive and detailed comments about how they think the paper could be
further developed. You should be aiming for the kind of comments which would be
a typical for a paper in the publications process at Organization Studies.