The evolution of entrepreneurial learning and networks: Thai entrepreneurs in the food and agricultural industries

Abstract

Learning is a crucial element of the entrepreneurial process. While previous studies have concentrated on how entrepreneurs learn from their own experiences, it is important to note that entrepreneurs also engage with others in a social context. They create entrepreneurial networks to carry out their activities, and within these networks, entrepreneurial learning takes place. Furthermore, entrepreneurial learning and networks are dynamic, evolving throughout the entrepreneurial development process. There is currently a lack of understanding of the entrepreneurial learning process within networks and interactions (Grippa et al., 2009; Scarmozzino et al., 2017), and relatively little literature has examined the changes in networks as entrepreneurial learning takes place (Lefebvre et al., 2015; Secundo et al., 2015). The current research adopts Politis’s (2005) framework on entrepreneurial learning, which examines entrepreneurial learning across three components: context, content and processes. This research focuses on the commercialisation process as a temporal frame to capture the dynamic nature of entrepreneurial learning. It follows a qualitative approach and uses multi-stakeholder semi-structured retrospective interviews with 26 Thai entrepreneurs in the food and agricultural industries and ten officers from three regional Science Parks in Thailand. Data from the interviews are complemented with evidence from the review of Science Park reports and online data. Data analysis is performed in two stages. First, thematic analysis reveals the main themes regarding the learning context, contents, processes and commercialisation process. Second, network diagrams capture the changes in entrepreneurial networks between two learning periods. The findings show that entrepreneurs are involved in four stages of the commercialisation process: idea emergence, product development, business development, and product launch. They passed through these stages in different orders and were involved in entrepreneurial learning differently, depending on their knowledge requirements, existing knowledge base, and products they had developed. Entrepreneurs had different expected outcomes in particular stages, which led them to acquire different knowledge types, including scientific and technological (S&T) knowledge, business knowledge, and market knowledge. The academic-driven product development process was shown to be the most popular S&T knowledge learning process, while training and coaching were used to learn business knowledge. Online discussions with customers were the most used process to acquire market knowledge, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Entrepreneurs chose different learning processes because of their own knowledge base, established relationships, and knowledge gaps. Entrepreneurs built and expanded their networks by involving potential knowledge sources in the first learning period. They made changes to their networks between the first and second learning periods, using condensing and expanding network strategies when nonessential relationships were removed and new essential relationship were created, respectively. The evolution of entrepreneurial learning and networks was fostered by changes in entrepreneurial knowledge needs and the existing knowledge base. This research makes significant contributions to entrepreneurial learning research by emphasising the diverse learning processes used by entrepreneurs within a social context. It underscores the complexity of knowledge needed and the involvement of key network partners. Additionally, it explores the evolution of entrepreneurial learning, unveiling the changes in knowledge learned, learning processes, and network partners over time during the commercialisation process. The findings have noteworthy implications for Science Parks in Thailand, emphasising the importance of understanding diverse entrepreneurs’ knowledge needs and the complexity of learning processes. This highlights the need to redesign current support systems in order to enhance the efficacy of the learning processes