Introducing his seminal work on entrepreneurship and innovation, Drucker (1985) states that entrepreneurship is neither art nor science, but practice.

Entrepreneurship as in(ter)vention: Reconsidering the conceptual politics of method in entrepreneurship studies

This reader really inspired me and allowed me to clearly perceive how certain perceptions of polarities are connected.

Bengt showed us, by example, that it need not be that way, and that every presentation, every question, every comment, every handshake at a conference can have the feel of a memorable intervention, of a detailed and precise confrontation, of speaking out boldly and freely.

I recently attended a Vipassana 10 day silent meditation retreat. Here we were not allowed any reading or writing material. This was so that you can experience information on the experiential level, or on the actual level. When this happens one understands and perceives information beyond constructs and languages. For me, this made the information feel honest and truthful – it was raw information.  The way I looked at it, meditation was a way of embodying information. This made sense to me, for your mind is your whole body, not just your head.

Not only is there enactive research (as Johannisson practised it in a singular way), more importantly there is enacting research: research that enacts worlds.

This reader made me think of learning through actualising information, by embodying information on an experiential level. At this level, you can view information at multiple perspectives in order to innovate on it and connect it to other entities.

I want to emphasize two interwoven elements of such conceptual politics of method in the practice of in(ter)vention: a performative dimension and a participative dimension of in(ter)vention. I draw these aspects from Bengt’s experimentation as it anticipated the idea that (entrepreneurship) research is an aesthetic performance with a public orientation and broad relevance.

When Steyaert speaks of the aesthetic performance of research, it made me think of the delivery of information or the dialogue of information. It made me thing of speakers and teachers who I have really loved listening to, or people who can turn complex ideas into deliverable easily digestible ideas.  They have made that information a practise in their lives and can in turn look at different ways of living that information in their presence. It’s beautiful.

his presence affirmed that it was really an option to think and act differently

For me I have faced 4 parts of learning, which feel like they’re on similar lines.

1) Being exposed to information

2) Actualising / experiencing information

3) Practising information, digesting information

4) Sharing in depth understanding of information

I have recently observed this within myself, to be a successful way of digesting information, understanding where my personal view stands on the subject matter and using that to share the information.

Innovation’s Holy grail

This article brought up my original excitement for doing this masters course. I definitely believe there is great need to think differently, so many large corporations are even using this as their main goal, for example we are seeing it in brand campaigns more and more. Apple, would be the most obvious example to use here. This article did remind me of the desperate need for a new ways of thinking.

Affordability and sustain ability are replacing premium pricing and abundance as innovation’s drivers, but few executives know how to cope with the shift. Companies must make their offerings accessible to a greater number of people by selling them cheaply and must develop more products and services with fewer resources.

Westerners are struggling to tackle this challenge, but some enterprises in developing countries, particularly in

India, are showing the way by practicing three types of “Gandhian innovation”:

• disrupting business models

• modifying organizational capabilities

• creating or sourcing new capabilities

Companies anywhere in the world can follow suit by striving for inclusive growth, establishing a clear vision, setting stretch targets, exercising entrepreneurial creativity within constraints, and focusing on people, not just profits or shareholder wealth.

From my point of view, I have recently been noticing a great need for new thinking. Internally and externally, I feel that the only way to solve such complex issues is with a new way of life, thinking or differently ordered way of our current thought.

I think the best part about this reading was actually making the connection between business and creativity and seeing what a huge difference it makes. I had always seen creativity and lateral thinking only suited towards art and design, this article shows that they are connected, which is very inspiring to see.

We must learn to innovate even when faced with constraints. Gandhian innovators start by accepting that there are constraints that won’t go away.

This has been coming up more and more, especially in solving user interface problems in software development, it is all about innovating within a very narrow space.

I have understood that innovation is a practise and that you have to constantly work at it to evolve entities further and further. Innovation and creativity are two forces which one has to learn how to work with and apply to everyday tasks and thoughts.

We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.

Anaïs Nin 

Learning to design is learning to see…

Learning to See | Information Architects