Unpacking collective judging practices in entrepreneurial pitching competitions: a social practice perspective

Hamacher, L; Ormiston, J; Iren, D

Unpacking collective judging practices in entrepreneurial pitching competitions: a social practice perspective

Hamacher, L Ormiston, J

Iren, D

Permalink

Publisher:: Edward Elgar Publishing
Publication Type:: Chapter
Citation:: Research Handbook on Entrepreneurship As Practice, 2022, pp. 281-297
Issue Date:: 2022-04-08

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	20502591_10264517730005671.pdf	Published version	299.21 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Hamacher, L
dc.contributor.author	Ormiston, J https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5295-0126
dc.contributor.author	Iren, D
dc.contributor.editor	Thompson, NA
dc.contributor.editor	Byrne, O
dc.contributor.editor	Jenkins, A
dc.contributor.editor	Teague, BT
dc.date.accessioned	2023-03-25T06:58:19Z
dc.date.available	2023-03-25T06:58:19Z
dc.date.issued	2022-04-08
dc.identifier.citation	Research Handbook on Entrepreneurship As Practice, 2022, pp. 281-297
dc.identifier.isbn	1788976827
dc.identifier.isbn	9781788976824
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/168391
dc.description.abstract	Previous research on entrepreneurial pitching has tended to explain pitching outcomes based on judges' perceptions of both entrepreneurs and their business plans. This focus on judges' perceptions of entrepreneurs fails to appreciate the social practices that play out between judges as they attempt to reach a consensus in their decisions. This research thereby contributes to the fields of entrepreneurial pitching and practice studies of entrepreneurship by unpacking the social practices involved as groups of judges actually make their decisions. The study draws on audio recordings of judging discussions at a three-day hackathon event involving 250 contestants across 30 entrepreneurial teams. Through conversational analysis, we zoom in on the relational and temporal conversational practices that play out in judging discussions to understand how judges move from individual perceptions of pitches towards consensus decisions. Our findings reveal the conversational turns that play out in judging discussions and highlight three dominant practices that shape collective decisions: Alliance Building, Politicking, and Undermining.
dc.format.extent	19
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Edward Elgar Publishing
dc.relation.ispartof	Research Handbook on Entrepreneurship As Practice
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.4337/9781788976831.00026
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.title	Unpacking collective judging practices in entrepreneurial pitching competitions: a social practice perspective
dc.type	Chapter
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Provost
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Provost/TD School
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
dc.date.updated	2023-03-25T06:58:18Z
pubs.publication-status	Published

Abstract:

Previous research on entrepreneurial pitching has tended to explain pitching outcomes based on judges' perceptions of both entrepreneurs and their business plans. This focus on judges' perceptions of entrepreneurs fails to appreciate the social practices that play out between judges as they attempt to reach a consensus in their decisions. This research thereby contributes to the fields of entrepreneurial pitching and practice studies of entrepreneurship by unpacking the social practices involved as groups of judges actually make their decisions. The study draws on audio recordings of judging discussions at a three-day hackathon event involving 250 contestants across 30 entrepreneurial teams. Through conversational analysis, we zoom in on the relational and temporal conversational practices that play out in judging discussions to understand how judges move from individual perceptions of pitches towards consensus decisions. Our findings reveal the conversational turns that play out in judging discussions and highlight three dominant practices that shape collective decisions: Alliance Building, Politicking, and Undermining.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/168391