How Does the Man-Know-Man Network Culture Influence Transnational Entrepreneurship?

Abstract

Scholars broadly agree that ethnic network and culture facilitates opportunity formation amongst transnational entrepreneurs (TEs). This article explores shared practices such as cultural values and traditional beliefs in entrepreneurial behaviour to expound how it influences decision-making process amongst TEs. The man-know-man guiding framework is introduced, and scenarios are presented that will allow in-depth understanding regarding how TEs engage in such practices. The article contributes to existing knowledge through the exposition of the new framework for analysing man-know-man network practices and how they influence transnational entrepreneurship. It also presents a novel strategy for building business relationship on quid pro quo conditions.

Keywords

Entrepreneurial culture ethnic network immigrant entrepreneurs opportunity formation man-know-man network

Introduction

The unique network practice of ‘man-know-man’ can be observed amongst ethnic group members with mutual business interests. As a cultural tradition (particularly found in Nigeria), the practice of man-know-man simply describes business-related shared ideology with the primary intention of endowing favours on group member(s) or business associates based on prior relationships, in anticipation that they will reciprocate such practice (i.e., a culture of granting favours based on past knowledge of a person rather than on merit or the person’s skills and capabilities). While the language of the term may be masculine, the practice is gender-neutral and is equally open to exercise amongst all group members (male or female) within a network environment.

Research shows that network differences as practised amongst immigrant business owners have an influence on transnational entrepreneurship activity (Levitt, 2009). Although, scholars have primarily approached transnational entrepreneurship from a group context to show the specific characteristics and nature of this business activity (Drori, Honig, & Wright, 2009), the focus of this article is on investigating how transnational entrepreneurship endeavours have been influenced by the man-know-man network practice. As an emergent network practice popular amongst immigrants, man-know-man has yet to gain recognition in the academic community, given that it is still a relatively unknown term. While networking as a cultural practice amongst immigrants has been frequently discussed, there is limited empirical research to support its importance, role and contribution to the knowledge of immigrant entrepreneurship (IE). Consequently, the inadequate knowledge available on the subject matter presents a gap in the literature and challenges contemporary researchers to create information to appraise the importance and usefulness of such cultural practices within emerging networks in transnational entrepreneurship.

Contrary to the argument that a network of likeminded people can hinder access to community groups, entrepreneurs and business professionals (Misner & Hilliard, 2017), this article finds that ‘like attracts like’ in the sense that a network of likeminded individuals can produce additional groups for positive purposes. This creates yet another gap in the literature, and so it is paramount that a full reflection of the literature on both ethnic networks and transnational entrepreneurship be conducted. By asking the question ‘how does the man-know-man network culture influence transnational entrepreneurship?’, the authors argue that cultural perceptions are subjective to a reasonable degree since they facilitate the formation of networking subject to patterns or behaviours that have been commonly identified as acceptable norms amongst members of the same social group. In support of this, ‘evolutionary theories concerning the origin of human intelligence suggest that cultural transmission might be biased toward social over non-social information’ (Mesoudi, Whiten, & Dunbar, 2006, p. 405). By this standard, it is arguable that man-know-man is inherently biased over non-members. Nevertheless, the practice of man-know-man is described as an aid to social bonding in large groups by facilitating interactions, cooperation and networking (R. Dunbar & R. I. M. Dunbar, 1998).

Given the arguments presented, man-know-man represents a social network approach that utilises unique behavioural patterns identified within a specific group or community of businessmen and women who are like-minded and collectively pursue common goals through mutual assistance. Therefore, the man-know-man system as employed in this context defines a cultural practice with inclusive characteristics. The ambition of this article is to reveal the latent role played by the man-know-man system amongst TEs, thus highlighting causal efficacy of deep-level relationships between an immigrant’s home and the host countries subject to everyday and common sense understandings of actors’ social ties and connections (Fuchs, 2009). It is neither intended nor used to bias against any gender, since it is a gender-neutral business practice common in trade environments.

Transnational Entrepreneurship

As a growing aspect of international business expansion, it is important to mention that the concept of transnational entrepreneurship was relatively uncharted until recently (Drori et al., 2009). Some of the general issues concerning transnational entrepreneurship are now focussed on addressing how, when and why do individuals and organisations rely on opportunities stemming from exploitation of resources (both social and economic) from their home and host environments when pursuing transnational entrepreneurial business opportunities (Drori et al., 2009). The reviewed literature has highlighted that transnational entrepreneurship positively affects the home countries of immigrant entrepreneurs through economic growth that is generated through their international trade activities (Sahoo & Pattanaik, 2014). Transnational entrepreneurship is recognised as entrepreneurial activity conducted across national contexts by individuals living in two economic environments simultaneously (Drori et al., 2009, p. 1) As a new research stream in entrepreneurship, the concept of transnational entrepreneurship can further be understood as the point of intersection between IE and international business research fields (Moghaddam, Rustambekov, Weber, & Azarpanah, 2018). Therefore, ‘transnational living’ as a concept facilitates transnational entrepreneurship because it affirms that immigrant TEs influence the economic and cultural conditions of the host country (HC) through their entrepreneurial activities (Guarnizo, Portes, & Haller, 2003). Furthermore, Osaghae and Cooney (2019) found that interactions, in transnational diaspora, entrepreneurship happen subject to ethnic network and cultural resources across the host and the home countries.

Immigrants who move between home and host countries have earned the sobriquet ‘transnational’, and this term has also been used to describe them in the entrepreneurship research field (Carmichael, Drori, & Honig, 2010). Before transnational entrepreneurship occurs, immigrant transnationals must engage in entrepreneurial activities in their HC that will also encompass trade with their home country (Brouthers, Nakos, & Dimitratos, 2015). Transnational entrepreneurial activities include ‘remittances, cross-border trade, tourism and cross-border travelling, technology and knowledge transfer’ (Santamaria-Alvarez & Sliwa, 2016, p. 206). However, Drori et al. (2009, p. 1) defined TEs as:

social actors who enact networks, ideas, information and practices for the purposes of seeking business opportunities or maintaining businesses within dual social fields, which in turn forces them to engage in varied strategies of action to promote their entrepreneurial activities.

Other definitions for Transnational Entrepreneurs (TEs) include one from Razaei et al. (2017, p. 187) who said that TEs are immigrants ‘who establish a business utilising both their home and the host country’. Levitt (2009, p. 1225) noted that ‘migration scholars now recognise that many people maintain ties to their countries of origin at the same as they become integrated into the countries that receive them’. Thus, TEs connect their business establishments and firms with their homelands as a way of showing strong ties with their ethnic origins. Arguably, such strong ties can be described as having sentiment to their countries of origin while recognising that the base for their economic future lies in their HC.

The ‘Man-Know-Man’ Network Culture

A review of the literature shows that entrepreneurs can enlarge their knowledge of opportunity by utilising prospects presented to them through networking. Both indigenous and immigrant entrepreneurs ‘draw upon internal and external network ties that are related to historical and cultural influences on social capital’ (Foley & O’Connor, 2013), and so, the ability to utilise entrepreneurial networks becomes an essential entrepreneurial skill. Given that immigrant transnational entrepreneurial actions and strategies are influenced by multiple institutional, economic and cultural features found within complex, cross-national domains (Drori et al., 2010), the man-know-man practice as a network culture will be analysed under the same rubric as informal networking since it is a common practice amongst immigrant TEs. A comparative literature review on transnational diaspora entrepreneurship and international business shows that diaspora communities in many countries have positively influenced transnational entrepreneurship through their abilities to act as conduits that connect business markets and their cultural competencies through networking (Riddle, Hrivnak, & Nielsen, 2010; Brinkerhoff, 2009). Consequently, the man-know-man network culture as practised amongst diaspora immigrants and transnationals alike describes a distinctive attitude by this group of individuals when dealing with their circle of like-minded people.

Having been described as an aid to social bonding, transnational entrepreneurship as practised amongst TEs adopts an interactive and cooperative approach based on mutual assistance (R. Dunbar & R. I. M. Dunbar, 1998). The argument is that by not participating in social networking (communication between the home and host environments), the entire process will be adversely affected and subject to a lack of ethnic support. This is because transnational entrepreneurship is facilitated by constant interactions through communication, movement and utilisation of economic resources. For transnational entrepreneurship to be sustained, networking is crucially important. As a network practice based on the foundations of pidgin English, it can be established that the term ‘man-know-man’ originated from Nigeria as a geographical context based on facts that can be traced back to its native users in Nigerian ethnic communities (Osaghae & Njoku, 2017). The modus operandi of the man-know-man shares similar characteristics as the concept of ‘family-effect’ from the resource-based view (Gibb Dyer Jr, 2006) since it can be argued that they both utilise prior knowledge as a basis for their operational application. The term is a Nigerian pidgin English spoken by the majority as a lingua franca (Smart, 1980; Odimegwu, 2012). Pidgin ‘is of Chinese origin, it is a corruption of the English word “business”; it was first used as a trade language between Chinese and the Europeans at seaports’ (Odimegwu, 2012, p. 2). Similarly, scholars like Hall (1966) stated that as a mixed language, pidgin arises during contact situations where people meet with others for mostly business purposes (e.g., trade and barter). Furthermore, UNESCO (1963) confirmed that pidgin is a mixed language that has emerged as a result of meeting between people of different languages. Consequently, ‘pidgin is therefore a simplified auxiliary language which is used for communication in multi-lingual areas’ (Odimegwu, 2012, p. 1). Given this knowledge, the practice of man-know-man is a coded language used to describe a specific situation or occurrence (e.g., the case of unmerited favours or awards, from one person to another). It is identifiable in most unlikely situations between two or more people, or even within a group or community of people. These cultural practices help to improve understanding of how TEs operate across international economies (U.S. Patent No. 8,928,275, 2015; Carmichael et al., 2010; Drori, Honig, & Ginsberg, 2006; Ojo, 2012) because continuing social relationships create embedded entrepreneurial networking relationships amongst immigrant groups, and it allows members to deal with business obstacles and gain access to critical resources (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Low & MacMillan, 2007, 1988; McMillan & Woodruff, 2002). Therefore, the man-know-man practice is usually a network with the sole aim of enhancing social relationships in order to create embedded entrepreneurial networking business relationships amongst members.

In agreement with previous research on entrepreneurial networks, a network is described as the product of goodwill engendered by the fabric of social relations, which can be organised to enable entrepreneurial activities through action. Naudé and Havenga (2005) identified two important network practices (innovation and solidarity) that fulfil different functions. Although, innovation networks encourage the flow of useful information amongst members by improving the performance of firms, solidarity networks will be discussed in comparison with the man-know-man network cultural ideology based on shared common features. Given the nature of solidarity networks, it is arguable that advocates of the man-know-man network culture engage in it to achieve similar objectives. For instance, in a man-know-man network culture, the notion of prior knowledge of the parties plays an important role. It is treated as the first threshold that new members must cross before they can fully be initiated into the man-know-man network circle of trust, which will qualify them to engage in business-oriented relationships with others. Consequently, the admission process determines whether parties can build a strong relationship of trust for the pursuit of common business objectives. Satisfying the prior knowledge prerequisite eliminates trust issues and facilitates a faster initiation process for a new membership. This idea of networking relationships is particularly common amongst immigrants in their host countries. Therefore, in building the man-know-man network relationship, TEs initially seek out people who generally share similar business objectives, common ethnic backgrounds, similar cultures/traditions/religions/beliefs and patterns of association as necessary conditions. Therefore, the following could be argued:

a network’s level of diversity depends, in part, upon the mix of strong and weak ties. Ties may be either direct or indirect, their intensity may vary and the outcomes (in terms of bonding or bridging social capital) contingent on the type of network being analysed. (Urban, 2011, p. 7)

Thus, members must possess certain prior knowledge features (e.g., ex-classmates, relatives, friends and family members or long-known acquaintances) to boost trust and justify reasons for entering a business relationship.

Due to a lack of consensus for a universal definition of ‘network’, different definitions exist in the literature. Although it has been defined as the overall relationship that shows all the connections an entrepreneur has with other people (Gartner & Bellamy, 2008), other definitional perspectives have approached the term differently. Stokes, Wilson, & Mador (2010, p. 204) defined ‘network’ as ‘a collection of connected points known as nodes, while the connections are known as ties’, and they further suggested that a network can have different sizes. Misner and Billiard (2017) stated that a network is simply an act of interaction with other people, while Gartner & Bellamy (2008) highlighted that it shows all the connections an entrepreneur has with other people and so a network is considered a form of relationship. A network can be summarised as the hub that makes the social capital base for TEs a reality (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Audretsch & Keilbach, 2004; Granovetter, 1977; Liu & Duff, 1972). While highlighting networking as a primary intention of parties in negotiation processes, Dollinger (2008) explained the term as an approach used by entrepreneurs to expand their circle of trust.

Stokes et al. (2010, p. 20) argued ‘that networks can be found in all human activity’ since a ‘network’ can comprise either a group of individuals (e.g., known as personal or social networks) or organisations (e.g., known as inter-organisational networks). Building on this premise, a network can take different shapes and forms because the ambition is to establish viable business enterprises through collaboration with each other. For instance, as a cultural practice, a man-know-man network will focus on helping its members to achieve their business objectives by limiting the possible occurrence of uncertainties that discourages new business entrepreneurial aspirants from venturing into entrepreneurship. The belief that all human activities have traits and characteristics of networking (Stokes et al., 2010) provides a solid foundation for building a rationale for investigating the subject matter and comparing alternative terminologies from different fields of knowledge, focussing on expounding their networking traits and characteristics in contrast to the man-know-man concept.

The Man-Know-Man Versus Other Networking Approaches

The man-know-man practice can be explored from two different perspectives. It is arguable that its modus operandi can be likened to that of a double-edged sword since favours are mostly granted based on the receiving party’s ability to reciprocate. Members benefit from this form of network relationship based on personal gains, interests and generosity. In the second perspective, it describes a scenario whereby one party may contract another to provide a business service for money. In such cases, these services are based on strict ‘prior knowledge’ of parties (e.g., between a person and his/her long-known relative, friends and acquaintances). For instance, in Nigeria, the man-know-man network relationship can be used to secure job opportunities in companies without going through due process for securing such job. A party can also receive a service from another through a go-between who plays the third party’s role of negotiation for the other two parties. As a network practice that originated amongst those who share common ethnic origins, it goes by different names based on geographical context or ethnic location where it is observed (e.g., the Chinese call it ‘Guanxi’) (Davies, Leung, Luk, & Wong, 1995; X. P Chen & C. C. Chen, 2004; Gold, Gold, Guthrie, & Wank, 2002; Park & Luo, 2001).

Within political contexts, the term nepotism is a popular political term with mostly negative connotation. It describes how the elite in government rotate important positions (e.g., job appointments, opportunities, government contracts and even business contracts) amongst their own families, relatives and their inner circle of friends at the expense of those outside the given description. Nepotism has also been explored from the context of entrepreneurship given the common features and characteristics it shares with some entrepreneurial practices (Kuratko, 2016; Lieberson, 1980; Ong, 1981; Yeasmin, 2016). Although, nepotism can be seen from a different perspective given its relationship with both political and social culture, it can equally be reviewed side by side with the man-know-man since they share core features. Generally, nepotism is a resultant protection of personal interests (e.g., due to tribalism or racism). In practice, nepotism places value on one option over another based upon affiliation to a tribe or ethnicity. The practice of nepotism tolerates making inept family members managers in family businesses and therefore advocates for inequitable reward system (De Vries, 1993). As a feature of the man-know-man network based on shared characteristics and bias practices, nepotism is analysed under the same rubric as the man-know-man since they both use the concept of ‘familiarity’ as an instrument in achieving their objectives. On this note, both ‘nepotism’ and the ‘man-know-man’ recognise the ‘charity begins at home’ notion at the expense of those outside this circle of trust. As Table 1 shows, nepotism protects personal interest by placing value on one thing over another with the expectation of gaining something in return.

In comparison, the concept of ‘quid pro quo’ is a Latin term (Jones, 2016) which means ‘something for something’ (Corporate Finance Institute, 2018) or ‘this for that’ (Burgess, 2001). Given that these meanings can be well associated with the workings of man-know-man network culture, it is arguable that the origin of the man-know-man ideology can be traced back to the Roman era. Just like quid pro quo, the man-know-man cultural practice expects something in return for another. A side-by-side analysis of the man-know-man network with the quid pro quo principles shows that they are highly similar in meaning. Other interchangeable phrases for ‘quid pro quo’ are ‘you help me, I help you; a favour for a favour; tit for tat; give and take; you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch your back; I give so that you will give’ (Corporate Finance Institute, 2018, p. 1). Although originated from Latin, ‘quid pro quo’ is equally a popular terminology in law and in the business world with implied meanings (e.g., bartering), whereby it describes a situation where something is given in exchange for something. However, in networking, ‘quid pro quo’ and the ‘man-know-man’ create a business group where like-minded members can reach out to others who need assistance in growing their businesses.

In examining the ‘man-know-man’ practice alongside the ‘COSBO model’ (Van Gelderen, 2007), the literature suggests that many similarities exist. For instance, the COSBO model (country of origin as a source of business opportunities) agrees that immigrant transnational countries of origin serve as sources of supports (e.g., providing social capital, free advice and suggestions on business networking relationships) during the entrepreneurial opportunity formation process. Similarly, in Suzanne’s (1999) study, a description of a network as a system of interconnected components was first provided before describing an entrepreneurial network as an association with either a formal or informal structure, set up to effectively increase members’ entrepreneurial activities. Like the COSBO model (Van Gelderen, 2007), the essence of the man-know-man network ideology is to serve as a channel to encourage networking amongst members through the endowment of favours, thereby providing them with the shortest and less painful approaches to business start-ups through networking.

Table 1.

Network Culture Summary Table

Network	Meaning	Context	Difference	End Result
Man-Know-Man	Granting favours based on prior knowledge of a person rather than on merit or skills and capabilities	Informal networking practice that utilises product of goodwill to enable entrepreneurial activities through action	Coded language used to describe cases of unmerited favours, awards, etc. from one person to another based on familiarity	Bypassing of due process to satisfy personal (mutual) interest
Nepotism (De Vries, 1993)	The practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs	A network culture focussed on the protection of personal interest (e.g., favouring family members, acquaintances or friends over outsiders)	Places value on one thing over another by elimination	Favours rendered in expectation to gain something of value
Quid-Pro-Quo (Burgess, 2001; Corporate Finance Institute, 2018; Jones, 2016)	An act of exchange with strong emphasis on something for something (or this for that)	A network culture that recognises the reward of an act of kindness in likewise manner	The law of reciprocity subject to the principles of trust	From the legal point of view, it means ‘exchange’. From the business point of view, it represents ‘battering’.
COSBO Model (Van Gelderen, 2007)	A toolkit approach to ethnic resources: tools representing endowed predisposing factors (Gold & Light, 2000)	Informal networking subject to utilising ethnic resources to facilitate entrepreneurship	Interactive approach technique which depends on ethnic cooperation to enable immigrant entrepreneurial activities	The essential idea is that norms of trust, obligation and reciprocity are established through memberships in social networks (Coleman, 1988)

Source: The authors.

Table 1 summarises the networks discussed in the study by comparison, identifying their differences and what each of the networks is set to achieve. The table contextualises the various networking practices based on their differences. It also draws upon their meanings to identify what each of the networks tend to realise in practice. Based on their similarities, it can be summarised that each network culture is focussed on achieving similar goals using different approaches. In comparison to other networking practices, the man-know-man network culture uses prior knowledge of the person as a rudimentary requirement to speed up the process of entrepreneurial activities between members based on trust. In this context, a re-evaluation of EOs as a situation that allows new goods, services and raw materials to be provided in the markets through networking and relationships (Eckhardt & Shane, 2003) helps to draw attention to shared traits and how the workings of the man-know-man network leads to opportunity formation (OF). For instance, in the man-know-man business network approach, it creates mutual intention amongst members to pursue common interests with the objective of positively influencing members’ business activities (Suzanne, 1999). Therefore, the coming together of two parties to discuss entrepreneurial opportunities through building business-oriented network relationships based on prior knowledge eliminates formal process requirements and boost confidence and trust amongst members. Hence, the man-know-man network culture is described as a shortcut to due process (Osaghae & Njoku, 2017).

Unlike the traditional approach to business relationship formation for new start-ups (e.g., basic requirements), the procedure in a ‘man-know-man’ network culture circumvents all special conditions in a business relationship. Based on its modus operandi, it can be stated that there is no risk involved since assistance to members are not contingent on any prior financial commitments or other forms of pledges. Similarly, from the time of new business ideological inception to creating environments conducive enough for their formation, maturity and sustenance, the man-know-man cultural network requires that an existing prior knowledge of the parties be established before it can be invoked into play. Consequently, with the exclusion of the ‘outsidership concept’, the criteria for admission into the man-know-man circle of network requires parties to be in a business-oriented relationship of trust and mutual benefits. By alluding to the role of prior knowledge during opportunity recognition and formation processes (Shane, 2000), it can be concluded that the man-know-man network culture works in a relatively similar fashion to cut through due process formal requirements.

‘In agreement that networks have complex structures with different origins … different strengths and intensity of ties between member’ (Stokes et al., 2010, p. 210), it can be summarised that transnational EO development can be achieved through the workings of the man-know-man network subject to the logic in Stokes et al. (2010). With the principle of ‘trust’ as a prerequisite, members in a man-know-man network together facilitate the business success of each other based on shared common business aim and objectives. As a condition, members must share mutual interest and the willingness to enter into a business-oriented relationship with each other to invoke the man-know-man orthodoxy into play. It therefore facilitates networking since there are no entry barrier to new members.

The Missing Link (Gap) in the Epistemology of Immigrant Transnational Entrepreneurship Network Practice

The man-know-man network practice could be considered as a new cultural lens through which transnational entrepreneurial practice amongst immigrant transnationals can be examined. Consequently, the orthodoxy underpinning its origin and formulation recognises the concept as a gender-neutral network practice common within ethnic minority business environments where it was first observed and employed as an aid to social business bonding (Dunbar, 2004; R. Dunbar & Dunbar R. I. M., 1998). Akin to other network practices, the man-know-man has mixed characteristics and features. The literature shows that ‘networks have complex structures with different origins, flexible boundaries and different strengths and intensity of ties between members’ (Stokes et al., 2010, p. 210). However, given the complex structures and nature of networks, how do members of the man-know-man network manage to cope in their networking relationships? In addressing that question, this study utilised the principle of ‘trust’ that is common amongst informal networking practices. Trust is considered a prerequisite since it is embedded in the entire man-know-man networking paradigm. In practice, the man-know-man network culture is governed by the law of ‘reciprocity’. Although ‘reciprocity’ as a stand-alone term is often misunderstood, it is at the centre of ‘networking relationship’ (Misner & Hilliard, 2017). However, the man-know-man network allows members to collaborate with people beyond their ethnic context to build trust and form business-orientated relationships with each other. This makes it easier to gain access to resources from within and outside to develop relationships with successful business partners across borders.

Figure 1.

Source: The authors (adapted from Adler & Kwon, 2002; Newth & Woods, 2014).

Unlike ‘personal networks’, there are four crucial forces that trigger the formation of business-oriented relationships in a man-know-man network approach. The first is personal gains which implies that members synergise entrepreneurial forces to achieve their objectives. Second, members tend to gravitate towards emotional and personal balance across their social relations. Third, members prefer to associate with others who share similar values and interest and have a common background. Fourth, members want to build trust for the purpose of engaging in a business-oriented network relationship with outsiders (Adler & Kwon, 2002).

Figure 1 highlights that there are four driving forces in a man-know-man network culture. Consequently, the rhetorical question ‘what is in it for me’ becomes important since it plays a useful role in determining the criteria for new membership admission. Therefore, the usefulness of the man-know-man network cultural relationship is dependent on the end-results (i.e., what parties stand to gain) as Figure 1 highlights. Building on Suzanne’s (1999) definition of ‘entrepreneurial network’, members in a man-know-man business network consider such relationship useful because they want to establish and increase the effectiveness of their business activities through networking.

Osaghae and Njoku (2017) examined the inability of transnational immigrants in Ireland to participate in networking activities and wondered if their reluctance to engage could be construed as a failure in the Irish system in comparison to other developed countries where there are high levels of engagement in man-know-man networking practices. It is a common belief that people who share similar attributes, attitudes and beliefs are strong in communication, but immigrant transnational communities (ITCs) in Ireland are not active in networking. For instance, Desmond (2010) argued that the representation of the Nigerian diaspora in Ireland as a close-knit community was contrary to his findings. Similarly, Osaghae and Njoku (2017) found that a recent attempt to bring together African transnational communities in Ireland to discuss how their entrepreneurial activity could be increased through networking received low levels of support. These findings highlighted that ITCs in Ireland show less interest in networking activity compared to immigrant transnationals in the USA, UK, Germany and other countries. Such a high rate of apathy requires urgent research to analyse the cause, since such a discouraging aptitude for networking frustrates every attempt to communicate new information to those interested in networking. As a result, TEs in Ireland need fresh knowledge on the importance of effective network practice to reduce redundancy amongst members through teaching them the importance of group solidarity and collaboration for a common good (Liu & Duff, 1972).

In comparison to the general approach to entrepreneurial networking paradigm, the man-know-man concept operates in a slightly differently manner. The authors argue that unlike the general approach to networking, the man-know-man network practice is embedded in the Nigerian understanding of ethnic networking concept as a sort of membership ‘identity’ and, thus, a reason to look after the interested of each other. This perception distinguishes members from those who share different values. The common ideology is centred around business-oriented networking approach and heavily influenced by the African networking mentality, which allows the bypassing of due process to satisfy both personal and mutual interest of members. In practice, the man-know-man networking practice is the reverse of the formal networking paradigm. From the man-know-man perspective, the notion that entrepreneurs are individuals with diversified characteristics is a common natural phenomenon. Hence, membership is generally limited to ‘prior knowledge’, and enrolment of members is subject to trust and mutual interest to enter in a business-orientated relationship.

The study by Leitch, Hill, & Harrison (2010) gives further credence to the man-know-man network perspective that transnational entrepreneurship increases the prospects of diversity because immigrants bring their cultural heritages with them to the host environment and present their unique aptitude for networking. This is identifiable in their strong sense of ties as their ethnic cultural backgrounds are emphasised through cultural and religious celebrations with their ethnic minority groups in the host countries. In this type of network practice, there are no limits to what can be exchanged in return for a favour received. On some level, it could be described as the modern approach to ‘trade by barter’ in the African context. For instance, exchange effects may range from the provision of concrete resources (e.g., business start-up capital, loans and giving out products/goods on hire purchase to cancelling bad debt) in exchange for provision of services or reciprocity of an act of kindness received.

A range of favours can be granted and provided by a father to either his son, daughter, relatives, friends, etc. Similar acts of kindness can equally be extended to outsiders based on prior knowledge or previous acquaintances of the parties. In some cases, it can also be identified amongst members based on shared ethnic backgrounds. As a network culture based mostly on reciprocity, members can return favours through gift giving (e.g., cars, houses, loaning business premises, lands, business capital and intermarriages). The range of favours that can be granted or endowed on members can also take intangible forms (Aldrich & Carter, 2004), such as passing/sharing vital business information to connecting members through networking. Members also receive favours in the form of business contract awards. According to Osaghae and Njoku (2017), it can be suggested that many Nigerian businessmen and women run their companies based on the man-know-man network orthodoxy because it encourages fast-track to business dealings rather than following due process. Given that following due process in some African countries can be frustrating owing to weak government systems, corruption and a lack of government institutional accountability, many Africans patronise the idea of a painless networking approach that guarantees assistance to members through achieving positive results. For many Nigerians, the ‘man-know-man network’ is simply a network of kind gestures since it makes business life easier for members.

Contrary to other related terms with similar characteristics, the man-know-man as a network ideology originated as an inter-tribal cultural practice amongst Nigerians. Osaghae and Njoku (2017) argued that the main driver behind the formulation of the man-know-man concept was language barriers. Given that the Nigerian ethnic groups speak different languages, it was difficult to network with each other and even harder to achieve inter-ethnic tribal trades, barter and other business activities. While some of the barriers that impede TE include language, culture and political climate (Ojo, 2016), the man-know-man network practice is able to translate across borders because it has overcome language barrier through the recognition of coded language (e.g., pidgin English) and the use of social capital developed to enhance its operation amongst members nationally and internationally. These are described in the study of Manimala, Wasdani, and Vijaygopal (2018) as minor barriers in the internalisation of businesses. Since one of the benefits of being a member is communal assistance (e.g., loans and information), it is believed that the man-know-man network practice further translates across borders through mutual assistance, and thus reduces networking barrier challenges to transnational entrepreneurship amongst members.

The man-know-man concept gradually became a cultural practice that allowed easy communication amongst groups. This culture has gradually been observed to penetrate the Nigerian business network practices locally and internationally. As an emerging concept, it has been influenced by the development that allows members to establish business-orientated relationships outside the Nigerian context. Ideas behind the creation of the framework below was adapted from the logic of mixed embeddedness theory in Kloosterman, Van Der Leun, & Rath, (1999). The framework brings the process of immigrant transnational entrepreneurial idiosyncratic activities between the home and the host environments to life through a visual aid.

In comparison to other informal network practices, the man-know-man network possesses certain unique characteristics and features that distinguishes it from others. Thus, it is compatible with the outsiders’ concept (i.e., establishing network relationship with people who observe different cultures) mentioned earlier. The establishment of common interest amongst members can override the requirement for sharing the same ethnic affinities in order to pursue common business objectives. As Chan, Bhargava, & Street (2006) affirmed, entrepreneurial activity is rooted in cultural and social contexts, specifically within webs of personal and institutional networks, which means that it does not occur in a vacuum. Although the man-know-man network circle of trust relationship has transnational features which allows its application amongst members outside the Nigerian context, certain conditions must be fulfilled to enable the process of business-oriented network amongst interested members to take place. For instance, TEs can create a successful man-know-man networking model subject to the following conditions: (a) members must be passionate about running their own businesses. Their intentions to reciprocate favours by helping others grow their own businesses must be clearly stated. (b) They must not share common ethnic affinities and origins, including common business interests. (c) They must be willing to develop relationships based on trust in the absence of prior knowledge. (d) Members must have prior knowledge of each other for a reasonable period of time to eliminate trust issues through friendship. (e) New members must put their business plans and ideas together before grants and social capital can be offered.

The absence of these environmental enabling conditions can have an adverse impact on a member’s networking interests and intentions. Similarly, Figure 3 reflects the cyclical nature of transnational entrepreneurial activities amongst immigrant entrepreneurs by showing how the home and host environments facilitate ITE through networking activities. This encourages bilateral trade and enhances political relationship and, thus, allows money remittances and social capital for the support of immigrant entrepreneurial actions in the host environment. Hence, a member’s primary interest to network is based on forming a business-oriented relationship for the common good of the parties. When these criteria are not met (e.g., the absence of prior knowledge of members), the entire endeavour can result in a futile activity. If members must be convinced to go into a business relationship with one another, prior knowledge is a prerequisite for trust to grow. In the absence of prior knowledge, members will require enough time to build trust. Consequently, transnational entrepreneurial practices amongst members is based on a common network within which members continue to grow and develop their entrepreneurial presence abroad. Business-oriented network relationship is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Source: The authors.

Light and Rosenstein (2008) described a sociocultural perception of ‘ethnic resources’ as a feature that immigrant transnational groups utilise actively to manage their businesses and tolerate each other. The man-know-man type of relationship can be identified in the pattern of interaction between members and with social networks acting as intermediaries in the labour market. TEs can create networks that lead to job opportunities and access to employment (Cutler, Glaeser, & Vigdor, 2008; Patel & Vella, 2013), thereby directly reaching people willing to support their new venture formation through business networks (Inge & Greve, 2002). This benefits entrepreneurship more broadly because it fosters a diverse culture of the business community of individuals, thus enabling its members to have access to information and other vital resources.

Extending Existing Knowledge by Filling the Gaps

With reference to emerging interest in the transnational entrepreneurship field of study, there is very little understanding of the values and benefits offered by the man-know-man network culture, especially regarding how it guides TEs and its approaches to transnational entrepreneurship (Ojo, 2016). An understanding of the man-know-man network can be achieved subject to studying the group/population that applies its rules and principles in their entrepreneurial undertaken and networking activities. While there are numerous prior publications on transnational entrepreneurship (Drori et al., 2006; Moghaddan et al., 2018), IE (Portes, Guarnizo, & Haller, 2002) and international business (Buckley, Clegg, & Wang, 2002), there is limited knowledge on how a review of the literature might incorporate research practices based on the man-know-man network concept (Onwuegbuzie and Frels, 2016) and social network process analysis (Claire, 2015). What is even less understood in the literature is how this emerging network practice influences entrepreneurial OF among TEs. This presents yet another issue that could be explored and expanded further from the context of the man-know-man network ideology. According to Hayton (2017, p. 1):

it is not enough to just do something nobody’s done before; it needs to be of potential interest to the field. Therefore, research ideas are developed and not ‘found’, since it is illogical to find something that isn’t there.

Similarly, the ambition to explore the influence of the man-know-man network by analysing transnational entrepreneurial activities and networking practices constitutes new knowledge since there is no such empirical work regarding how the man-know-man helps TEs navigate effectively between the host and home countries in the course of business transactions. As a novel ideology, analysing the context from which the man-know-man concept originates seeks to explore immigrant transnational behaviours based on their attitudes towards networking, focussing on their effective navigation between the host and their home counties.

Since entrepreneurial activity is rooted in cultural and social contexts within webs of personal and institutional networks alike (Chan et al., 2006), it is logical to argue that cultural traits are naturally embedded into the concept of networking. In view of this, the contributions of this article are threefold. First, there is a lack of empirical framework explaining how the man-know-man network culture influences transnational entrepreneurship in practice. This article offers a new theoretical framework that expounds how transnational entrepreneurship can be influenced by the man-know-man network culture. Second, this study will add to existing knowledge based on its novel ideological and theoretical approach to address the subject matter. Third, the common ground between the man-know-man network cultural practices and TEs were examined, focussing on identifying common features, characteristics and possible relationships. In order to develop a framework for understanding the subject matter of this paper, the need to build on the works of Carmichael et al. (2010) is paramount. In their article, they state:

to develop a more robust analytical framework for the study of transnational entrepreneurship, we need to look more closely at the role of the cumulative history of action and interaction, as well as multiple cultural affiliations, in generating the strategies and decisions of transnational entrepreneurs. (Carmichael et al., 2010, p. 5)

Based on this, a framework for understanding the man-know-man networking phenomenon, with a focus on how TEs simultaneously operate in both the host and their countries of origin, requires the construction of a habitus that reflects the different fields of activities (Carmichael et al., 2010). Therefore, the four distinctive fields used by TEs as arenas for constructed rules and interaction patterns, as reflected in their activities under institutional contexts are (a) cultural repertoires, (b) legal and regulatory regimes, (c) social and professional networks and (d) power relations (Carmichael et al., 2010). Thus, Figure 3 below reflects how the relevant distinctive fields in addition to other factors contribute to understanding how the man-know-man network culture influences transnational entrepreneurship in practice.

As Figure 3 shows, some of the features of transnational entrepreneurship include cross-border trade and remittances (Rezaei, Dana, & Ramadani, 2017). ITEs utilise ‘cross-border trade’ in a positive manner to fulfil needs in the global market. This strengthens bilateral trade agreement between countries through strong relationship. The constant movement across boarders means that ITEs are dynamic with access to their resource base. In this way, ITEs’ cultural attachment to both countries enables them to exploit opportunities in multiple markets (Ireland & Webb, 2007). Through immigrant transnational activities, the cyclical nature of the study model further recaptures the underpinning principles of transnational entrepreneurship through remittances. As Figure 3 further shows, while transnational entrepreneurship is enabled by more than one environment, immigrants send some of the profits made using the host environment as the base to their home countries to support families and other business-related projects and, thus, influences the growth of transnational businesses (Rezaei et al., 2017).

By building on the works of Drori et al. (2009) on transnational entrepreneurship, the framework addresses the ‘how’ inquiry of the subject matter, thus highlighting the determinants of immigrant transnational entrepreneurship (ITE) through the cycle of the man-know-man networking cultural activity. Therefore, by possessing important characteristics of a great networking culture, the man-know-man network motto (i.e., ‘help others grow their businesses while remaining collaborative with members’) is well reflected in the framework. The framework shows the powerful effects of the man-know-man cultural networking practice by utilising immigrants’ idiosyncratic belief-competences. This is reflected in their abilities to effectively act simultaneously in more than one context, thereby connecting members and the business markets alike through informative communication means (Ojo, 2016). As a result, an effective application of the man-know-man network orthodoxy helps ITEs become more productive in their entrepreneurial careers, while maintaining strong relationships with their countries of origin through remittances as the framework depicts. The framework further shows that ITEs in developed countries lead dual lives and find new paths of economic mobility based on cross-border social networks (Levitt, 2001; Poros, 2001).

As a cultural network practice, the man-know-man influences transnational entrepreneurship by utilising an enhanced approach that allows the understanding of knowledge between these cultural events and activities. Thus, the man-know-man network facilitates strategic actions, enabling TEs to use their cultural toolkits, embedded in a multiple contextual setting (home and the host environments), to create profitable business opportunities using the host environment as a base. For instance, the man-know-man network allows immigrant transnationals (ITs) to recreate their home country culture in the host country (HC). Through the lens of the man-know-man network practice, ITs influence transnational entrepreneurship by replicating their cultural and economic conditions in the HC using an integrative networking pattern. By constant interactions and movements between countries (i.e., home and host countries), their perceptions and entrepreneurial experiences are altered and reflected in their OF activities. Through remittances, they encourage cross-border relationship between countries. This further encourages tourism and trade relationships while eliminating barriers, thereby facilitating the process of transnational entrepreneurship. As investors and institutional agents of change, TEs influence transnational entrepreneurship through remittances and elimination of cultural barriers, facilitated by the man-know-man network, thereby encouraging immigrant transnational business formations in the host countries.

Figure 3.

Source: The authors.

From the man-know-man perspective, entrepreneurial activity amongst ITs is approached based on the understanding that it has a cyclical effect (i.e., entrepreneurial activity is simultaneously conducted in two different environments with the HC as the base and thus, both the home and host environments benefit from ITE). Consequently, remittances as one of the components of this effect is embedded in the process and, thus, a feature and a characteristic of transnational entrepreneurship. Similarly, since transnational activities include ‘remittances, migrant entrepreneurship, cross-border trade, telecommunications, political participation in the country of origin, tourism and cross-border travelling and technology and knowledge transfer’ (Santamaria-Alvarez & Sliwa, 2016, p. 206), the argument that ‘remittances’ constitute transnational activity is a valid hypothesis. These are strong signs of power relations and connection with their home countries which serve as sources of support. Therefore, the framework supports the argument that the man-know-man as a network practice possesses the characteristics of a shared culture, which evolves within and across transnational entrepreneurship practices amongst TEs (Carmichael et al., 2010; Ojo, 2016; Santamaria-Alvarez & Śliwa, 2016; Terjesen & Elam, 2009).

Conclusion

Based on a review of the literature, the authors have shown how the man-know-man network culture allows an understanding of how TEs effectively operate from two different geographical contexts simultaneously. Using literature on networking, the authors reviewed prior studies with much focus on their social-economic characteristics and attributes to identify immigrants’ general attitude and behaviours towards the man-know-man network ideology. In doing this, the authors also considered the role of different agencies and network practices in line with the subject matter. It suffices to state that the man-know-man network ideology is important because the findings highlighted that members’ entrepreneurial activities and cultural idiosyncratic behaviours influence their abilities to maintain strong connections within and outside their ethnic context (Abraham, 2011). In this respect, TEs are simply described as immigrants who utilise the advantages and benefits of their home and host countries to establish businesses.

The article further demonstrated that although networks can possess mixed characteristics in practice (e.g., structures with different origins, flexible boundaries, different strengths and intensity of ties between members), members of the man-know-man are able to cope with such complexity and change with the help of trust as a prerequisite to new members joining the circle. By utilising the benefits of the man-know-man network culture, TEs can connect their home countries with their HC. This influences transnational entrepreneurship business creation positively by enhancing the economic growth of the home countries and allowing payment of taxes to the HC governments. Therefore, the man-know-man network allows TEs to incorporate diverse schemas embedded in cultural networking ideologies which influences their entrepreneurial actions. Within a structural context that reflects on the choices and decisions of TEs, the man-know-man network culture thus represents a unique approach to networking amongst ITEs and equally shows how various social arenas intersect with entrepreneurial activities in practice. In line with Desmond (2010), TEs in Ireland are missing-out on the benefits of networking because they are reluctant to engage in informal networking practices. In Table 1, the authors compared the different network practices featured in this study, capitalising on their meanings to highlight how they differ from each other. Similarly, the authors showed in a comparative analysis between the concept of networking assistance and the man-know-man ideology that the latter is based on trust relationship because its primary objective is to provide assistance to members, and this allows them to effectively pursue shared business objectives by acting together (Putnam, 1995). As a network cultural practice formed for the purpose granting favours and helping every member to succeed, members have the interests of other at heart. Hence, the man-know-man network concept is a gender-neutral practice that brings both men and women with common business ideas together in a relationship of trust with the intention of helping others while growing their businesses.

In terms of business activity, the article showed that the Nigerian community in Ireland is different compared with those outside the Irish context (e.g., UK and USA). For instance, the literature shows that the Nigerian immigrant entrepreneurs in the UK have strong commitments to entrepreneurial business networking (Birdthirstle, 2012) unlike those in Ireland. Research supports the claim that the Irish Nigerian community tend to eschew important calls for networking and other African-related events (Desmond, 2010). Consequently, Osaghe and Njoku (2017) wondered if their reluctance to engage in networking in large numbers could be as a result of failure in the Irish system since their entrepreneurial presence in the USA and the UK are well documented in the literature (Birdthistle, 2012; Clark, 2015). However, based on the reviewed literature, it can be concluded that the man-know-man network is different from other entrepreneurial networking activities because it represents an attempt to identify a networking practice amongst Nigerian ITEs that is strongly cultural-centric.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kingsley C. Njoku

References

Abraham

(2011). Entrepreneurial DNA: The breakthrough discovery that aligns your business to your unique strengths . UK: McGraw-Hill.

Adler

P. S.

Kwon

S. W.

(2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review , 27(1), 17–40.

Aldrich

H. E.

Carter

N. M.

(2004). Social networks. In Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of business creation (pp. 324–335). California, USA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Audretsch

Keilbach

(2004). Entrepreneurship capital and economic performance. Regional Studies , 38(8), 949–959.

Birdthistle

(2012). An examination of ethnic entrepreneurship in the Mid-West of Ireland . Limerick, Ireland: Doras Luimni.

Brinkerhoff

J. M.

(2009). Digital diasporas: Identity and transnational engagement . UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brouthers

K. D.

Nakos

Dimitratos

(2015). SME entrepreneurial orientation, international performance, and the moderating role of strategic alliances. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 39(5), 1161–1187.

Buckley

P. J.

Clegg

Wang

(2002). The impact of inward FDI on the performance of Chinese manufacturing firms. Journal of International Business Studies , 33(4), 637–655.

Burgess

J. S.

(2001). Quid pro quo: This for that . In Ambry

A. E.

(Eds.). US: iUniverse.com, Inc.

10.

Carmichael

B. A.

Drori

Honig

(Eds.). (2010). Transnational and immigrant entrepreneurship in a globalized world . Canada: University of Toronto Press.

11.

Chan

Y. E.

Bhargava

Street

C. T.

(2006). Having arrived: The homogeneity of high-growth small firms. Journal of Small Business Management , 44(3), 426–440.

12.

Chen

X. P.

Chen

C. C.

(2004). On the intricacies of the Chinese guanxi: A process model of guanxi development. Asia Pacific Journal of Management , 21(3), 305–324.

13.

Cheng

C. C.

(1992). Chinese varieties of English. The other tongue: English across cultures , 2, 162–177.

14.

Clair

R. N.

(2015). The stratification of cultural networks. Intercultural Communication Studies , 24(1), 4–22.

15.

Clark

Drinkwater

Robinson

(2015). Self-employment amongst migrant groups in England and Wales: New evidence from census microdata (IZA Discussion Paper No. 9539). Institute of Labor Economics, Germany.

16.

Coleman

J. S.

(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology [Supplement], 94, S95–S120.

17.

Corporate Finance Institute. (2018, July 7). Quid Pro Quo: Something for something. Retrieved from https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/quid-pro-quo/

18.

Cutler

D. M.

Glaeser

E. L.

Vigdor

J. L.

(2008). When are ghettos bad? Lessons from immigrant segregation in the United States. Journal of Urban Economics , 63(3), 759–774.

19.

Davies

Leung

T. K.

Luk

S. T.

Wong

Y. H.

(1995). The benefits of ‘Guanxi’: The value of relationships in developing the Chinese market. Industrial Marketing Management , 24(3), 207–214.

20.

Desmond

(2010). Networking in Ireland’s ethnic enterprises: Entrepreneurship and opportunity . UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

21.

De Vries

M. F. K.

(1993). The dynamics of family-controlled firms: The good and the bad news. Organizational Dynamics , 21(3), 59–71.

22.

Dollinger

M. J.

(2008). Entrepreneurship: Strategies and resources . Illinois, USA: Marsh Publications.

23.

Drori

Honig

Ginsberg

(2006, August). Transnational entrepreneurship: Toward a unifying theoretical framework. Academy of Management Proceedings , Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510, 2006(1), Q1–Q6.

24.

Drori

Honig

Wright

(2009). Transnational entrepreneurship: An emergent field of study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 33(5), 1001–1022.

25.

Drori

Honig

Wright

(2010). Transnational entrepreneurship: An emergent field of study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 33(5), 1001–1022.

26.

Dunbar

R. I.

(2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology , 8(2), 100–110.

27.

Dunbar

R. I. M.

(1998). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language . USA: Harvard University Press.

28.

Eckhardt

J. T.

Shane

S. A.

(2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management , 29(3), 333ߝ349.

29.

Elo

H. H.

(2015). U.S. Patent No. 8,928,275. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

30.

Eze

S. N.

(1980). Nigerian Pidgin English sentence complexity, Smart N. Eze (Vol. 8). Michigan, USA: Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der universität Wien.

31.

Foley

O’Connor

A. J.

(2013). Social capital and the networking practices of indigenous entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management , 51(2), 276–296.

32.

Fuchs

(2009). The behavior of cultural networks. Soziale Systeme , 15(2), 345–366.

33.

Gartner

W. B.

Bellamy

M. G.

(2008). Creating the enterprise . Cengage Learning. Canada: Thomson South-Western Press.

34.

Gibb Dyer

Jr (2006). Examining the ‘family effect’ on firm performance. Family Business Review , 19(4), 253–273.

35.

Gold

S. J.

Light

(2000). Ethnic economies and social policy. In Research in social movements, conflicts and change (pp. 165–191). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

36.

Gold

T. B.

Guthrie

Wank

(Eds.). (2002). Social connections in China: Institutions, culture, and the changing nature of guanxi (Vol. 21). UK: Cambridge University Press.

37.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1977). The strength of weak ties. In Social networks (pp. 347–367). American Journal of Sociology, 78(6).

38.

Guarnizo

L. E.

Portes

Haller

(2003). Assimilation and transnationalism: Determinants of transnational political action among contemporary migrants. American Journal of Sociology , 108(6), 1211–1248.

39.

Hall

R. A.

(1966). Pidgin and creole languages (Vol. 7). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

40.

Hayton

, (2017). How to find a gap in the literature? Retrieved from http://jameshatton.com/

41.

Inge Jenssen

Greve

(2002). Does the degree of redundancy in social networks influence the success of business start-ups? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research , 8(5), 254–267.

42.

Ireland

R. D.

Webb

J. W.

(2007). A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic supply chains. Journal of Operations Management , 25(2), 482–497.

43.

Jones

(2016). Quid pro quo: What the Romans really gave the English language . Great Britain: Atlantic Books Publications.

44.

Kuratko

D. F.

(2016). Entrepreneurship: Theory, process, and practice . USA: Cengage Learning.

45.

Kloosterman

Van Der Leun

Rath

(1999). Mixed embeddedness: (in) formal economic activities and immigrant businesses in the Netherlands. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 23(2), 252–266.

46.

Leitch

C. M.

Hill

F. M.

Harrison

R. T.

(2010). The philosophy and practice of interpretivist research in entrepreneurship: Quality, validation, and trust. Organizational Research Methods , 13(1), 67–84.

47.

Levitt

(2001). Transnational migration: Taking stock and future directions. Global Networks , 1(3), 195–216.

48.

Levitt

(2009). Roots and routes: Understanding the lives of the second generation transnationally. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 35(7), 1225–1242.

49.

Lieberson

(1980). A piece of the pie: Blacks and White immigrants since 1880 . California, USA: University of California Press.

50.

Light

I. H.

Rosenstein

C. N.

(2008). Race, ethnicity, and entrepreneurship in urban America . New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

51.

Liu

W. T.

Duff

R. W.

(1972). The strength in weak ties. Public Opinion Quarterly , 36(3), 361–366.

52.

Low

M. B.

MacMillan

I. C.

(1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management , 14(2), 139–161.

53.

Low

M. B.

MacMillan

I. C.

(2007). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. In Entrepreneurship (pp. 131–154). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

54.

Manimala

M. J.

Wasdani

K. P.

Vijaygopal

(Eds.). (2018). Transnational entrepreneurship: Issues of SME internationalization in the Indian context . Singapore: Springer.

55.

McMillan

Woodruff

(2002). The central role of entrepreneurs in transition economies. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 16(3), 153–170.

56.

Mesoudi

Whiten

Dunbar

(2006). A bias for social information in human cultural transmission. British Journal of Psychology , 97(3), 405–423.

57.

Misner

Hilliard

(2017). Networking like a pro: Turning contacts into connections . New York, USA: Entrepreneur Press.

58.

Moghaddam

Rustambekov

Weber

Azarpanah

(2018). Transnational entrepreneurship, social networks, and institutional distance: Toward a theoretical framework. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship , 21(1), 45–64.

59.

Naudé

W. A.

Havenga

J. J. D.

(2005). An overview of African entrepreneurship and small business research. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship , 18(1), 101–120.

60.

Newth

Woods

(2014). Resistance to social entrepreneurship: How context shapes innovation. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship , 5(2), 192–213.

61.

Odimegwu

(2012). A comparative analysis of Jamaican Creole and Nigerian Pidgin English . London: Cambridge University Press.

62.

Ojo

(2012). Amnesty programme, Niger Delta militancy and the place of trust. International Journal of Science and Knowledge , 1(1), 38–46.

63.

Ojo

(Ed.). (2016). Diasporas and transnational entrepreneurship in global contexts . USA: IGI Global.

64.

Ong

(1981). An ethnic trade: The Chinese laundries in early California. The Journal of Ethnic Studies , 8(4), 95.

65.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Frels

(2016). Seven steps to a comprehensive literature review: A multimodal and cultural approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

66.

Osaghae

O. G.

Cooney

T. M.

(2019) Exploring the relationship between immigrant enclave theory and transnational diaspora entrepreneurial opportunity formation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 45. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2018.1560001.

67.

Osaghae

O. G.

Njoku

(2017). How does the ‘man-know-man’ network culture influence opportunity formation amongst Nigerian diaspora entrepreneurs in Ireland . Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Migration and Diaspora Entrepreneurship, Bremen, Germany.

68.

Patel

Vella

(2013). Immigrant networks and their implications for occupational choice and wages. Review of Economics and Statistics , 95(4), 1249–1277.

69.

Park

S. H.

Luo

(2001). Guanxi and organizational dynamics: Organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal , 22(5), 455–477.

70.

Poros

M. V.

(2001). The role of migrant networks in linking local labour markets: the case of Asian Indian migration to New York and London. Global Networks , 1(3), 243–260.

71.

Portes

Guarnizo

L. E.

Haller

W. J.

(2002). Transnational entrepreneurs: An alternative form of immigrant economic adaptation. American Sociological Review , 278–298.

72.

Putnam

R. D.

(1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politics , 28(4), 664–683.

73.

Rezaei

Dana

L. P.

Ramadani

(Eds.). (2017). Iranian entrepreneurship: Deciphering the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Iran and in the Iranian diaspora . Singapore: Springer.

74.

Riddle

Hrivnak

G. A.

Nielsen

T. M.

(2010). Transnational diaspora entrepreneurship in emerging markets: Bridging institutional divides. Journal of International Management , 16(4), 398–411.

75.

Sahoo

Pattanaik

B. K.

(2014). Global diasporas and development . UK: Springer.

76.

Santamaria-Alvarez

S. M.

Śliwa

(2016). Transnational entrepreneurship in emerging markets: The Colombian case. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy , 10(2), 203–223.

77.

Shane

(2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science , 11(4), 448–469.

78.

Stokes

Wilson

Mador

M. E. H.

(2010). Cengage Learning EMEA, 2010 (ISBN 978-1-4080-0745-7). Boston, MA: South-Western CENGAGE Learning.

79.

Suzanne

(1999). Michigan Association for Female Entrepreneurs (MAFE). Entrepreneurship Network Feature at IT Business Conference . Retrieved from the University of Michigan Record. https://www.mafedetroit.org/ [Accessed 8 July 2017].

80.

Terjesen

Elam

(2009). Transnational entrepreneurs’ venture internationalization strategies: A practice theory approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 33(5), 1093–1120.

81.

UNESCO. (1963). Bioclimatic map of the Mediterranean zone: Ecological study of the Mediterranean zone . California, USA: UNESCO.

82.

Urban

(2011). Entrepreneurial networking differences: An ethnic in-group and out-group analysis. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology , 37(1), 01–14.

83.

Van Gelderen

(2007). Country of origin as a source of business opportunities. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business , 4(4), 419–430.

84.

Yeasmin

(2016). The determinants of sustainable entrepreneurship of immigrants in Lapland: An analysis of theoretical factors. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review , 4(1), 129.