Entrepreneurship and History

^{Lu et al. (2020)} in their recent study on the evolution process of entrepreneurship, shows how history studies on entrepreneurship have been an understudied research stream. Not only that, but their study was also done only considering top journals from North America and Europe, therefore, neglecting any research the Latin America region produced and inferring that there is not any valuable research in our area. Mainly, this has been addressed by the individual entrepreneur, the firm, the region where the entrepreneurial experience took place, and the context under these processes was carried out but forgetting the outcomes that were produced because of this. ^{Wadhwani and Lubinski (2017)} propose to reinvent entrepreneurial history as a research field, approaching its study on the creative processes that propel economic change.

^{Wadhwani and Jones (2014)} make a call to build on several lines of historical theory about time, context, and change, and apply them to entrepreneurship theory so they can illuminate aspects of the entrepreneurial process. Different historical approaches towards entrepreneurship research have been used (see Table 1), where the archeological or anthropological one is missing. Therefore, as Table 1 shows, the link between IA, Entrepreneurship, and artifacts have not been explored deeply, since it is still considered micro-history, and the sources are letters, nor to say that in any of the other approaches, it is not even considered as a source.

The first blur proposal of a potential link between entrepreneurship and archeology was done by ^{MacMillan and Katz (1992)}. Many of the things society use and consume daily has been modified, e.g., mass production, even food preparation, leaving traces valuable for the archaeological record. The structural and related artefactual, and textual remains associated with production can give valuable information: workflow, spatial settings, socio-economic aspects, manufacturing activities, control of resources and finished goods (^{Hodgkinson and Tvetmarken, 2020}).

Artifacts are already a well-known document in the history of technology (^{Jenkins, 1987}; ^{Clarkson and O’Connor, 2006}; ^{Petrullo and Barich, 2020}), recommended to be also as a potentially viable approach for business historians (^{Hansen, 2012}). They are beginning to win attention in the entrepreneurship literature seeing opportunities as artifacts (^{Berglund, Bousfiha, and Mansoori, 2020}), since exploring the mechanisms between entrepreneurial processes and historical change are central (^{Wadhwani and Lubinski, 2017}).

In the latter, examining the social and cultural factors involved in the entrepreneurial activity are key in the decision to create new businesses, arguing that entrepreneurship is embedded in a social context (^{Aldrich and Zimmer, 1986}).

^{Thornton, Ribeiro-Soriano, and Urbano (2011)} pointed out that social and cultural factors are embedded in the entrepreneurial process, i.e., Idea Generation, Opportunity Evaluation, Planning, Company formation/launch, and Growth. In the social factors, social capital, are the tangible resources (including also those digital) that facilitate actors’ achievement of goals and that accumulate to actors through a social structure (^{Portes, 1999}), Social Networks, a set of actors (individuals and/or organizations) and linkages between them (^{Brass, 1992}), suggesting both promote that economic exchange is socially embedded (^{Granovetter, 1985}).

Culture has relevance for entrepreneurship (^{Shane, 1993}). The individual develops different Cultural Values influencing, e.g., the decision or not to create startups. ^{Hofstede (1980)} sees Cultural Values as the collective programming of the mind, that distinguishes someone, and the way approaches the environment. Therefore, when creates a business in a cultural environment, this person will reflect these values (^{Hayton, George, and Zahra, 2002}).

Thus ^{Thornton, Ribeiro-Soriano, and Urbano (2011)} acknowledge that the problem of integrating social and cultural factors that affect entrepreneurship is challenging. That allows exploring a rich path that potentially can shed light on the history of entrepreneurship through analyzing artifacts.

Industrial Archaeology and Entrepreneurship

Anthropology, closely related to IA, sees entrepreneurship and other social processes under a cultural lens (e.g., ^{Greenfield and Strickon, 1986}; ^{Stewart, 1991}). Norms and traditions can foster or inhibit entrepreneurship. Attention has been given to social and cultural factors related to the creation of new business because of social constraints (^{Kennedy, 1988}; ^{Wiewel and Hunter, 1985}) and collective approaches (e.g., family business, community-centered business-like cooperatives) to business formation and growth (^{Davis and Ward, 1990}; ^{Parker, 1988}).

^{Palmer and Nevearson (1998)} defined IA as “the systematic study of structures and artifacts as a means of enlarging our understanding of the industrial past” (p. 1), the study of the tangible evidence of social, economic, and technological development since industrialization. In the case of structures, they state that “the industrial monument is but one part of a network of linkages relating to the methods and means of past production, and that its location, form, and development are the result of individual human decisions” (p. 14) (e.g., entrepreneurship), its significance in technological and economic terms, and cultural meaning, a symbol of changing human relationships.

For example, ^{Menuge (1993)} tells about Arkwright's first cotton mill, erected in 1771, where the site had a high perimeter wall, and no ground-floor windows overlook the mill road, indicating he was so concerned over the secrecy in which his newly patented machines operated. The mill yard’s layout also enabled close supervision of the workforce. A strategy that might resemble how today’s companies protect their patents (a key element on any technological entrepreneurial project) build into their products or confidentiality agreements on the business’s system on the services offered.

As ^{Hodder (1982)} has argued, material culture is but an active constituent of society, not a passive reflection of it, deliberately used by individuals to negotiate social position or social change. ^{Palmer and Nevearson (1998)} consider industrial buildings are the visible symbol of the processes of production in both space and time. So the same can be said about the artifacts these premises were designed to build or produce, where its analysis requires the use of the archaeological concepts, like their function and context (the study of the artifacts in its cultural context, to understand its symbolism, e.g., entrepreneurial processes).

In the case of products, let's consider them as artifacts, “the result of a more or less explicit design and a more or less controlled manufacturing process: a standard to be identified by archaeologists and variability to be explained (hazards of manufacturing, quality, reproducibility, personal style, etc.)” (^{Djindjian, 2001}, p. 41). He also states that this definition may also be applied to “logical” facts, like a set of “physical” things, i.e., services. Artifacts are seeing as the historic remains of the behavior once presented by a firm (^{Reischauer, 2015}) or an individual.

^{Djindjian (2001)} mention different roles artifacts play in archeology studies that also can be applied to entrepreneurship:

Too much emphasis is placed on the entrepreneur, the entrepreneurial project (firm), and the context. But what about the products and services developed because of this entrepreneurial dynamic? Artifact analysis considers artifacts as products of human actions (^{Reischauer, 2015}). Human activity is carried out through actions (^{Bødker and Klokmose, 2011}). Just like entrepreneurship, is the scale, the consequence of the entrepreneurial experience (^{Pauls, 2006}), the agency, the interpretation of the “absent presence” behind the artifacts, the force driving the process of history, the assemblage of a palimpsest of individual activities (^{Hall and Silliman, 2006}).

So, the artifact is an extension of those elements that influence the entrepreneurial project, the latter affected by social, cultural, and institutional processes. Formal and informal institutions can legitimize and delegitimize business activity (^{Aidis, Estrin, and Mickiewicz, 2008}; ^{Veciana and Urbano, 2008}; ^{Welter, 2005}).

Artifacts have a permanent dialectical relationship with previous artifacts and practices, therefore, using historical analysis will support a deeper understanding of their practice and use in a given historical and market context (^{Bødker and Klokmose, 2011}). As in entrepreneurship, ^{Labadi (2001)} make a call for IA to have a multidisciplinary approach to its study using a variety of subjects, approaches and methods have been stressed, and even suggest that the main aspect of IA should be the study and explanation of people at work in different settings, i.e., entrepreneurship.

“An artifact has a story to tell about the person who made it, how it was used, who used it, and the beliefs and values associated with it” (^{Norum, 2008}, p. 23). The artifact is a mediator of human activity (^{Bødker and Klokmose, 2011}), thus the history of the artifact is the history of the entrepreneur / entrepreneurial project/business.

Results and Discussion: An explorative view on ia Methods apply to Entrepreneurship

According to ^{Major (1975)}, ia has nine categories: coal and metals, power, textiles (including pottery and glass), food preparation, brewing and distilling, transport, building materials, agricultural industry, housing for industrial workers, public services, and industry of recreation. Today, it might include the digital industry (like a Facebook page or blogs, digital documents today part of many people’s everyday life), among others (like intangibles services, that are suggested to fit into what the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (^{UNESCO, 2003}) defines as “cultural heritage”, where this definition is further broken down into “intangible” and “tangible” cultural heritage, where both are intrinsic to one another and are juxtaposed, i.e., an insurance policy, traditions that are manifest, i.e., folklore dances where the participants wear specific clothes). He recommends, to begin analyzing, three different surveys: a survey of the industry in each area, of a single industrial unit, and an area or unit in an emergency.

^{Alfrey and Putnam (1992)} suggest an alliance of histories based on artifacts, so they see industrial archaeology as a key science for understanding contemporary society. Just like entrepreneurship is. Link them together seems a natural fit for both. But surprisingly, it is well understudied.

It is proposed that linking IA and entrepreneurship can allow researchers the opportunity to examine the relationship between institutions, opportunities, and entrepreneurial behaviors (^{Wadhwani and Jones, 2014}). Artifact has been of interest in entrepreneurship, from the perspective of artifact-creating processes (^{Selden and Fletcher, 2015}) and in entrepreneurial design (^{Selden and Fletcher, 2019}). Entrepreneurship is built upon social networks, relationships brought together (e.g., financial and human capital), held and share by its members and not by an individual (^{Burt, 1992}), the artifact can be the right tool to analyze how this dynamic took place.

Furthermore, the social embeddedness (social capital and social network) perspective emphasizes that entrepreneurial agency, the capacity to amass entrepreneurial ideas and the resources needed is shaped by the social context (norms and manners) (^{Thornton, Ribeiro-Soriano, and Urbano, 2011}). These authors stated entrepreneurs usually have the necessary resources (e.g., ideas, knowledge), as well as others they might need and get from its social networks (e.g., information, capital, labor) to produce and deliver their goods or services (^{Greve and Salaff, 2003}; ^{Ribeiro-Soriano and Urbano, 2009}).

There have been several studies approaching the history of technology or entrepreneurship, from the industry, companies involve, entrepreneurs, or on the cultural meaning of the objects or artifacts. For example, ^{Batiz-Lazo and Reid (2008)}, on the birth of currency dispensing equipment, the immediate predecessor to the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), directing it on the understanding of the process of innovation itself. ^{Coopersmith (2015)}, approaching the rise and fall of the fax machine, from a deep industry and companies involve analysis of that era, similar of what ^{Field, Senechal, and Shaw (2007)} did, outlining the companies’ often-complicated histories (case studies), focusing on entrepreneurs, innovation in technology and marketing and products, or the classical tale of the Synthesizer replacing piano and organ (^{Pinch, 2001}). ^{Berger (2014)}) has been approaching objects (like blue jeans, smartphones, books, Facebook) as an introduction to material culture, studying its meaning in society.

But in them, an analysis like the present paper propose has been missing. Today, products and services out of those nine categories can also be analyzed (“how entrepreneurial places emerge, persist, and vanish”, Welter and ^{Baker, 2020}, p. 5), and with it build the history of the entrepreneurship responsible for their existence:

^{Reischauer (2015)} proposes two stages. First, the artifact is deconstructed in its material context and its usage context in workday life. In the second, the artifact is related to the organizational context, and applied to entrepreneurship, in its process, on a multilevel analysis (founder, family, if the case, firm, community, region).

Also, as in IA (^{Major, 1975}), background research must be done. Museums, maps, guidebooks, directories, local histories, deposited plans, catalogs, auction documents and deeds, postcards, photographs, and engravings, can be used. In entrepreneurship, that implies making a thorough analysis of every entrepreneurial stage the founder or firm went through (entrepreneurial exploration, discovery and opportunity, exploitation, and effectuation approaches, the cognitive issues on the individual, process, as well as practices, and the ecosystem dynamic).

Regarding Genesis, it is a must to obtain the initial drawings, and a full description of its main and relevant materials or devices that compound it, so a mix of stories can be blended since each of them has its own story to tell, so a multidimensional (^{Montiel and Rodríguez, 2017}; ^{Turcan and Fraser, 2018}), and interdisciplinary (^{Welter, 2011}) array of approaches can be told on the history of entrepreneurship. Interviews with the I & D team, or the founder and the initial startup’s team.

In Transformation, how the minimum viable product was launch and how was change due to market feedback and response. Interviews with the I & D team or the founder and the initial startup’s team also should be done, along with documents, materials, supplier selection, drawings, digital, and newspaper archives.

In Consolidation and upgrades, in addition to all the above, what kind of technological changes within its industry or in other areas did affect the artifact or service the firm offered. In Decline, what kind of changes in the industry, market, on the founder itself, organizational culture, the firm went, and that ultimately were reflected in poor product performance or bad design so that it affected the firm viability.

Annex A shows a proposal on what a potential analysis can be made applying ia into entrepreneurship, stating first that there is no one right way to analyze artifacts (^{Norum, 2008}). In sections 1 through 4, the artifact is under a deep review (type, qualities, uses, and the “narrative” it can have on its embodied entrepreneurial processes). In section 5, there is a reflexive area for the researcher, in section 6 an exploration of what interpretation from the entrepreneurship standpoint it can be made as a first step towards the artifact, “creative ways they use the past to imagine the future” (^{Wadhwani and Lubinski, 2017}, p. 11). It is included creativity, innovation since both are intertwined with entrepreneurship. Finally, section 7 is open for all the graphical or digital, or physical information to be collected.

For example, a quilt made around the time of the U.S. Civil War can tell us ideas about abolition, how they raise funds or bury a soldier, and the materials about what resources were available to the quilt maker (^{Norum, 2008}). In Annex B, a brief and exploratory example is done to show how the proposal can be applied, in this case, to analyze the fax machine.

^{Wadhwani (2016)} suggests 3 other historical techniques that can be used and applied in conjunction with source, triangulation, and hermeneutic interpretation with potential relevance to contextualization in entrepreneurship research, structural history, microhistory, and conceptual history. The present proposal can be used in all those techniques.

Structural history, which looks for multiple temporal perspectives to support the interpretation or analysis of events, incorporating longer temporal spans, processes of change in social and economic conditions, and geographic and biological developments, for example, starting by the genesis of the concept from a product or service, its design, materials selection, prototype building, its production and marketing process, the industry conditions of the time, persistent structural factors shaping entrepreneurial behaviors and processes, and the decisions behind them.

Microhistory, looking in fine-grained detail at instances, like start-ups or the entrepreneur itself both embodied into a specific time and context, where the product/service and its genesis and development according to the market or customer needs shape both. And conceptual history, tracing the shifting ways in which key terms are developed and used as an essential and independent factor in historical processes and in how contextualization occurs (^{Koselleck 2002}), shaping the entrepreneur, its entrepreneurial project, the whole industry, and society (cultural shifts), as the artifact is being used by the customer. The historical approaches in table 1 also can be enriched by using it.

Linking IA and entrepreneurship not only is a novel view for both research streams, can enrich the historical view on entrepreneurship (like in the structuralism and sequencing approaches), but also a matter of social justice in terms of the memory of work (^{Castillo, 2011}), key element of the industrial culture today.

The present article demonstrates, as suggested by ^{Wadhwani et al. (2020)}, that historical reasoning, data sources, and methods of interpretation (i.e., IA apply to entrepreneurship) represent a significant opportunity to advance the research agenda of history and entrepreneurship.