Sosyolojik Kuramlar Çerçevesinde Aile ve Girişimcilik İlişkisi

Yıl 2018, , 869 - 878, 02.12.2018

Serdar Yener

https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.401102

Cited By: 7

Öz

Psikolojik bir varlık olan bireyin davranışlarının
içinde bulunduğu sosyal bağlamdan soyutlanarak açıklanması imkânsız gibi
görülmektedir. Girişimcilik olgusunun sosyal bir kurum olan aile üzerinden
yorumlanması bir gereklilik olarak görülebilir. Kişilik özelliklerinin genetik
ve çevresel faktörlerin bileşimi olduğu düşünülürse çevresel faktörlerin sosyal
yapı olduğu, sosyal yapının ise aile, okul, din vb. bileşenlerden oluştuğu da
gözönüne alınırsa sosyolojinin girişimcilik üzerinde birçok bileşeni yoluyla
etkisinin olabileceği değerlendirilebilir. 
Aile kurumunun girişimcilikteki rolünü ortaya koyarken öncelikle
yaklaşımlardan yararlanılması sosyolojik çalışmalar için bir gerekliliktir.
Yaklaşımlar da kendi içinde metodolojik ve kuramsal yaklaşımlar olarak
ayrılmaktadır. Metodolojik yaklaşımlara örnek olarak eleştirel, yorumlayıcı ve
pozitivist yaklaşımlar örnek verilebilir. Kuramsal yaklaşımlara ise sembolik
etkileşimcilik, yapısal- işlevselcilik, modernizm, çatışmacılık, feminizm ve
postmodernizm kuramları örnek verilebilir. Bu çalışmada girişimsel davranış,
sosyolojinin kuramsal yaklaşımlarının aileye bakışı çerçevesinde tanımlanmaya
çalışılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sosyolojik Yaklaşımlar, Girişimcilik, Aile

Family and Entrepreneurship relationship within Context of Theories of Sociology

Öz

The
behaviors of individual who has a psychological structure, could not be
explained independent of social contexts. Explaining entrepreneurship via
family concept which is social institute 
can be seen as a requirement. Considering that traits and states
constitute  personality features and
factors as family, school,  etc. effect
state factor it can be said that sociology with its components has an effect on
entrepreneurship. While revealing the effect of family on entrepreneuership
studying within sociological approaches seems as a necessity. Sociological
approaches can be defined as methodoligical and theoretical approaches.
Methodological approaches can be defined as critical, interpretive and positivist
approaches. Symbolic interactionism, structural-functionalism modernism, and postmodernism
are the types of theoritical sociological approaches. In this study
entrepreneurial behavior is tried to be defined up to the family approaches of
theoritical sociology perpespectives. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sociological Approaches, Entrepreneurship, Family

Kaynakça

• Abaho, E., Salim, I.S., ve Akısımıre, R. (2013). Culture; is it relevant in the antecedence of entrepreneurial values? Global Advanced Research Journal of Management and Business Studies, 2 (3), 189-198.
• Aldrich, H ve Cliff, J. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: toward a family embeddedness perspective”, Journal of Business Venturing, 2003, 573 – 596.
• Apple, M. (1995). Education and power (second edition). Nueva York: Routledge.
• Bellu, R. R. (1993). Task Role Motivation and Attributional Style as Predictors of Entrepreneurial Performance: Female Sample Findings. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 5,331–344.
• Bird, M. (2014). The impact of Family on Entrepreneurial Outcomes.Stockholm School of Economics, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, 2014.
• Blumer, H. (1962). Society as symbolic interaction. In: Rose AM (ed.) Human Behavior and Social Processes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,179–92.
• Blumer, H.(1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall).
• Brittan, S. (1973). Is there an economic consensus, MacMillan, 1973.
• Burt. S. 1992. The social structure of competition. Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action, 57: 91.
• Burmeister, P. (2003). Breaking the code: What to present to venture capitalists. Strategic Finance; Montvale, 84 (9), 36-39.
• Carter, M.J. ve Fuller, C. (2015). Symbolic Interactionism, Sociopedia.isa, DOI: 10.1177/205684601561.
• Chambers, S. (2004). The Politics of Critical Theory, in Fred Rush Fred (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Critical Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.Chao, C., Greeneb, P. ve Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295-316.
• Dscua-Cruz, A. D., Howorth, C., ve Hamilton, E. (2013). Intrafamily entrepreneurship: The formation and membership of family entrepreneurial teams. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(1): 17-46.
• Doepke, M. ve Zilibotti, , F. (2013). Culture, entrepreneurship, and growth. Handbook of Ecoomic Growth.2013.
• Douglas, M. (1973). Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (2nd ed.; New York: Random House, 1973.
• Dunn, T. ve Holtz-Eakin. (2000) Financial Capital, Human Capital and the Transition to Self-Employment: Evidence from Intergenerational Links,’’ Journal of Labor Economics 18, 282–305.
• Engels, F. (1884). The origin of the family, private property and the state. (Hottingen-Zurich).
• Fagenson, E. A. ve Marcus, E. (1991). Perceptions of the Sex-Role Stereotypic Characteristics of Entrepreneurs: Women’s Evaluations, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15, 33–47.
• Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Freedman, J. ve Combs, G. (1996). Narrative therapy: The social construction of preferred realities. New York, NY; W. W. Norton & Company.
• Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who Is An Entrepreneur?' Is The Wrong Question. American Journal of Small Business, 12 (4),. 11-32.
• Gecas, V. (1982). The Self-Concept, Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 1-33
• Gorodnichenko, Y.ve Roland, G. (2011). Which Dimensions of Culture Matter for Long-Run Growth ?. American Economic Review. Papers and Proceedings 101(3), 492-498.
• Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 9(3), 481-510.
• Hammond, R. J. (2010). Sociology of the Family. Eds. Hamond, R.J. and Cheney, P.
• Henrekson, Magnus (2014). Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Human Flourishing, IFN Worin Paper, 999, 2014.
• Hofstede, G (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Horkheimer, M. (1937). Traditional and Critical Theory in Paul Connerton (ed.). Critical Sociology: Selected Readings, Harmondsworth: Penguin, [1937] 1976.
• Jary, D. ve Jary, J. (1991). The harper collins dictionary of Sociology. (New York: HarperCollins).
• Jennings, J., Breitkreutz, R. S., ve James, E. A. (2014). Theories from family science: A review and roadmap for family business resarch. In L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, & P. Sharma (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Family Business 25-46. London Sage Publications.
• Mead, G.H. (1912). The Mechanism of Social Consciousness', The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 9 (15),401-406.
• Merton, R. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure, revised and enlarged. London: The Free Press of Glencoe.
• Nordvist, M., ve Melin, L. 2010. Entrepreneurial Families and Family Firms. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 22(3-4), 211-239.
• North, D. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Noseleit, F.(2008). The Entrepreneurial Culture: Guiding Principles of the Self- Employed. Jena Economic Research Papers 2008- 034.
• Plain, G. Ve Sellers, S. (2007). A History of Feminist Literary Criticism, Cambridge University Press. New York.
• Robideau, A. L. (2008). An Integration of Adlerian Theory with Marriage and Family Therapy in a Postmoderns World. Unpublishedd Doctoral Thesis, The Faculty of the dler Graduate School of Mnnesota
• Rueff, M. (2010). The entrepreneurial group. Social identities, relations, and collective action. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development (R. Opie, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1912).
• Segalen, M. 1986. The historical anthropology of the family. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Sexton, D.L., ve Bowman, N. (1985). The entrepreneur: a capable executive and more. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 1(1):129-140.
• Slemrod, J., ve Bakija, J. (2008). Taxing Ourselves. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Sommerville, J. (2000). Feminism and the Family: Politics and Society in the U.K. and U.S.A. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
• Stacey, J. (1996), The Postmodern Family,; New York.
• Talcott, P. (1975). The Present Status of "Structural-Functional" Theory in Sociology." In Talcott Parsons, Social Systems and The Evolution of Action Theory New York: The Free Press, 1975.
• Wenneberg, K., WilklundJ., Hellerstedt, K., ve Nordqvist, M. (2011). Implications of intrafamily and external ownership transfer of family firms: short-term and long-term performance differences. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 5(4): 352-372.
• Wilson, T. P. (1970). Conceptions of Interaction and Forms of Sociological Explanatin, American Sociological Review, 35(4), 697-710.
• Wiggerhaus, R. The Frankfurt School, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.
• Yener, S., Arslan, A. ve Demirtaş,Ö. (2015). Bilişsel Farkındalık ve Girişimci Kişilik Arasındaki İlişkide Mizaç Karakter Özelliklerinin Aracı Rolü Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi 3. Örgütsel Davranış Kongresi ,6-7 Kasım 2015 (1033 Nolu Bildiri).
• Zhao X, Rauch, A, ve Frese, M (2011). Cross-country Differences in Entrepreneurial Activity: The Role of National Cultural Practice and Economic Wealth .Unpublished Doctoral Thesis.