Systematic Literature Review on the Relationship Between Entrepreneurship and Cultural Capital in the Role of Transnationality, Education, and Gender

Introduction

Entrepreneurship is an emerging prospect in the world today due to its wide range of opportunities associated with it. Entrepreneurship has been defined by Onuoha (2007) as the practice of initiating new organisations in response to opportunities focusing particularly on starting new businesses or revitalising organisations already in a mature state. Schumpeter (1965) also defined entrepreneurs as individuals ready to exploit the opportunities in the market with the help of technical or organisational innovations. Hisrich (1990) stated that an entrepreneur who exhibits creative thinking could take risks and organise social and economic happenings into practical accounts. In many ways, cultural norms inform the very definition of entrepreneurship. These linkages can be traced back to the individuality, power distance, and uncertainty aversion that make up Hofstede's cultural dimensions (Eroglu & Picak, 2011). Values linked with collectivism emphasise the importance of consensus and group work, while individualism emphasises the importance of the individual's achievements and initiatives. Although belonging to different regions and cultural values, the entrepreneurs are tied together with some collectivist values and individual entrepreneurial beliefs based on their culture (McGrath et al., 1992).

The concept of “cultural capital” as we know it now may be traced back to the work of Pierre Bourdieu (Sullivan, 2002). Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) defined cultural capital as attitudes in linguistics, formal knowledge, academic culture and general culture. It consists of standards and attributes regarding informal knowledge related to school or linguistic competence, traditional culture in a humanist approach or a personal or specific style. Bourdieu (1993) stated that cultural capital has theoretically and radically different aspects associated with it. While the former plays the role of an indicator, and the latter is based on the position of class. According to Bourdieu & Wacquant (1992), individuals are socially active and active in the field because they possess some properties necessary for being effective in the field. Bourdieu offered a conceptual framework to conduct research agendas in a methodological approach. The main components of Bourdieu’s framework are field, habitus and capital. Here field refers to the space covering social positions, which is related to the capital endowment; habitus states the individual’s principles for judgement and practice; and capital refers to the resources that enable that enables the individuals to advance or preserve their relative position in the field (Delmestri & Brumana, 2017). When it comes to regularities in social action and structure and the reality of the actors' purposeful reasoning, Bourdieu's work focuses on resolving the tension between these two perspectives, which he calls “the actor's subjectivism” and “objectivism.”