Resilience through adversity: a case of informal artisan entrepreneurs in Kenya Open Access

Artisan entrepreneurs are key economic players in tourism-dependent countries, particularly those in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (Dana et al., 2022; Ratten et al., 2019). However, their abounded presence in the informal sector has created adverse environments such as harassment by authorities, limited financial resources, scarcity of essential infrastructures, insecurity, and constant market competition (Grobar, 2019; Dalal et al., 2024). Moreover, fluctuations due to the seasonal nature of the tourism industry, regional political instability, terrorism and natural disasters have exacerbated adversities for artisan entrepreneurs (Harris et al., 2012; Dahles and Susilowati, 2015).

Amid such adversities, informal artisan entrepreneurs continue to emerge and operate, including in the tourism sector (Hasanah et al., 2023; Ratten et al., 2019). Their persistence in running enterprises through adversity alludes to their resilience (Caliendo et al., 2020; Huggins and Thompson, 2015; Nautiyal and Pathak, 2023). Informal artisan entrepreneurs are at the intersection of informality and creativity and remain under-theorised in entrepreneurship research (Smagina and Ludviga, 2020, 2021). They are commonly positioned along a behavioural continuum from “a total focus on creative output to a complete commitment to economic performance” (Tjemkes, 2011 p. 122), and their resilience during adversity is often conflated within general conceptualisations of entrepreneurship resilience.

Against this backdrop, we look at the case of informal artisan entrepreneurs in tourism, whom we define as those who manually make and sell handicrafts to tourists (Wright, 2009) and operate businesses in a socially acceptable manner but are not registered or regulated by the state (Chen, 2005; Salvi et al., 2023). We focus on Kenya and answer the research question: How do informal artisans handle the adversities they experience, and how does this differ from other informal entrepreneurs? In doing so, the paper proposes to extend existing theories of entrepreneurship resilience to contribute to a better understanding of how this type of entrepreneur demonstrates resilience and the factors that enable this. It also contributes empirically towards the literature on informal entrepreneurs, specifically informal artisan entrepreneurs within tourism and craft industries.

Resilience is studied and conceptualised in various disciplines like ecology, physics, control system design, engineering, biology, psychology and economics, to mention a few (Hudson, 2010; Carlson et al., 2012; Walker et al., 2004). Given the diverse disciplinary views, we narrow our focus and draw on the theoretical background of resilience in entrepreneurship and informal entrepreneurship.

While there is no universally accepted definition, resilience is commonly understood as the ability to maintain positive functioning while others experience considerable disruption or adversity (Bonanno, 2005; Shepherd et al., 2020). In entrepreneurship, the conceptualisation of resilience has been greatly influenced by positive psychology (Hartmann et al., 2022; Bernard and Barbosa, 2016), where it is considered a positive adaptation to adversity and associated with success and better-than-expected outcomes (Norris et al., 2008; De Bruijne et al., 2010; Masten, 2001). Consequently, resilience is used to explain different facets of an entrepreneur and business success. For example, resilient entrepreneurs are seen as those who end up as successful and more robust after facing adversity or crisis (Duchek, 2018; Bullough and Renko, 2013; Boyd et al., 2023; Fisher et al., 2016). They bounce back after failures (Bernard and Barbosa, 2016; Huggins and Thompson, 2015) and adjust operations or regenerate while facing shocks or uncertainty (Dahles and Susilowati, 2015; Huggins and Thompson, 2015). Similarly, resilience explains why some entrepreneurial ventures perform better than others (Subekti et al., 2023; Korber and McNaughton, 2018; Powell and Baker, 2014).

Several individual attributes explain entrepreneurial resilience. These include holistic positivism, motivation, perseverance, resourcefulness, hardiness, optimism, persistence, self-efficacy, purpose in life and problem-solving (De Vries and Shields, 2006; Ayala and Manzano, 2014; Korber and McNaughton, 2018; Bullough and Renko, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2020; Fisher et al., 2016). These individual attributes are viewed as dimensions of resilience and are associated with psychological capital that enables entrepreneurial success (Tang, 2020; Welter and Scrimpshire, 2021). In the context of adversity, which we define as the state of serious and continued difficulty (Tian and Fan, 2014), entrepreneurial resilience is similarly connected to individual traits and identity that drive perception and responses to adversity (Shepherd et al., 2020; Powell and Baker, 2014).

Other conceptualisations of entrepreneurial resilience, specifically in the informal sector, include the ability to overcome unemployment and make a living during an economic crisis and the ability to withstand and recover from financial turmoil (Moyo, 2018; Lubell and Zarour, 1990). This stems from the perception that resilience is synchronous to the economic performance of entrepreneurs (Williams and Vorley, 2014; Iyengar et al., 2021). While these give an understanding of resilience in relation to the economy, they may risk giving a narrow perspective that focuses heavily on individual financial well-being. They also risk promoting the assumption that informal entrepreneurs are survivalists, which has led to their persistence in entrepreneurship being deemed necessity-driven (Adom, 2014). These demean their entrepreneurial practices, where they are considered illegitimate and not actual entrepreneurs (McElwee and Smith, 2015).

Skills are essential for entrepreneurial resilience, and existing literature has identified problem-solving, relationship-building, planning, negotiating and so forth (Baron and Markman, 2003), most of which are acquired through experience or formal training. Both skills and experience have a positive correlation with entrepreneurial resilience, yet for informal entrepreneurs, most of their acquired skills come from informal training or traditional education (Berengu, 2012). Informal training and learning often play the most significant role in providing skills (Overwien, 2005), but there is limited understanding of how those in the informal sector, who have limited access to formal education and training (Lautier, 2000), remain resilient through adversity.

Overall, while individual-level factors such as skills, attributes and behaviours help to understand the resilience of entrepreneurs to an extent, they are likely to offer a restricted individualistic perspective (Ungar, 2010; Van Breda, 2018). Thus, it begs the need for a more holistic understanding of resilience beyond the individual-level factors of entrepreneurs.

Kenya has a predominant informal sector that is estimated to account for 95% of the country’s businesses and entrepreneurs (Safavian et al., 2016). Conspicuously, the informal sector in the country is known as “jua kali”, a Swahili word for “hot sun.” The term originated from the observation that people in the sector work outside in the scorching sun (Hope, 2014), indicating the precarious nature of the informal sector.

Alongside the predominant informal sector, Kenya is a tourism destination that offers diverse tourist attractions due to its beaches, wildlife, geographical diversity, history, culture and heritage (Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife, 2022). Notably, Kenya’s tourism industry is not new to crises. Alongside the COVID-19 pandemic, Kenya has experienced several crises, like political instabilities and terrorist attacks, that have resulted in insecurity and travel advisories against the country (CEIC, 2020; Buigut and Masinde, 2021). Kenya also operates in a competitive environment against destinations like South Africa and Namibia, which may threaten the sustainability of tourism (Mayaka and Prasad, 2012). These challenges and crises have negatively affected Kenya’s tourism industry and economy. Ultimately, they present an adverse environment for entrepreneurs such as artisans who depend on the industry for their livelihoods.

As an African nation, Kenyan informal entrepreneurs are also influenced by the country’s culture and traditions, which further inform various practices. For example, the family, as a highly valued social unit, is a source of social welfare and business support (Njoh, 2016), while religion and ancestral roots are said to influence entrepreneurship (Jaravaza et al., 2024; Namatovu et al., 2018). Additionally, values and norms around non-individualist behaviours in business are considered important to the community, which suggests the existence of an African philosophy that permeates business practices (Jaravaza et al., 2024; Woermann and Engelbrecht, 2019). In the following section, we discuss the need for a culturalist approach to exploring resilience among informal artisan entrepreneurs in Kenya.

The idea that culture influences entrepreneurship through social values and norms can be linked to institution theory (North, 1990). Institutions, in the form of formal and informal structures, are perceived to define the “rules of the game” (North, 1990 p. 1); that is, the structures consist of rules, social norms, values, and cognitive structures that shape various practices in society. Through this lens, culture is a societal-level informal institution that can shape intention, desirability, and decision-making within entrepreneurship (Szyliowicz and Galvin, 2010).

Artisanry and artisan entrepreneurship have strong connections with culture. Hoyte (2019) conceptualised culture from the perspective of the artisan entrepreneur’s personality and found dimensions such as cultural heritage, community, entrepreneurship, craftsmanship and innovation. Other studies found that artisan entrepreneurs favour collective good over individual desires and value cultural heritage and traditions, craft fidelity and quality more than mass production (Dana et al., 2022; Ratten et al., 2019). Thus, artisan entrepreneurs tend to embed cultural practice into their business activities, and their behaviours seem to be defined by norms and values in their society and profession. Relatedly, knowledge associated with artisanry is tacit and culturally derived, given that it is learnt through an experiential process and direct interaction with others (Ratten, 2021). Entrepreneurship research defines tacit knowledge as a necessary cognitive capacity to create entrepreneurial intentions and design and make entrepreneurial artefacts (Dorst and Cross, 2001). The knowledge context of entrepreneurs is influenced by entrepreneurial models, know-how, and know-who (Chirico, 2008; Dohse and Walter, 2012), which places the family and networks as important in the creation and transfer of knowledge for artisan entrepreneurs.

While there are some studies on entrepreneurial resilience within SSA (Nakpodia et al., 2023; Dimitriadis, 2021; Tengeh, 2016), a specific focus on understanding the influence of culture, on resilience within informal entrepreneurship remains scarce. This paper presents a unique opportunity to explore the resilience of entrepreneurs who are not only impacted by the challenges of operating in the informal sector and a highly volatile industry but also in a context that is strongly informed by cultural norms and values. We, therefore, propose to explore the resilience of informal artisan entrepreneurs through adversity by considering both individual-level factors and culture. We define individual-level factors as skills, attributes and behaviours, and culture as societal norms and values that program peoples’ way of thinking and behaving (Soares et al., 2007).

The study assumed a social constructionism philosophical stance, which posits that reality and knowledge are not objective but are constructed through social interactions and interpretations (Lindgren and Packendorff, 2009). It also emphasises the role of culture and social norms in shaping people’s individual and collective perceptions, beliefs and behaviours and is rooted in qualitative methods (Burr and Dick, 2017).

Therefore, a qualitative approach was chosen for this study as it provides a more in-depth understanding and insight into the complex informal entrepreneurship (Akin, 2000). Qualitative approaches are also highly encouraged in the study of marginalised groups in SSA as they focus on individual experiences, give entrepreneurs a voice, and minimise the loss of meaning (Keikelame and Swartz, 2019; Adu-Gyamfi et al., 2018).

The study was conducted between November 2020 and August 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic, which restricted physical access to the field. Given the widespread access to mobile telephone devices in Kenya, including in the informal sector (Communications Authority of Kenya, 2020), telephone interviews were selected as an ideal method for the study.

The study used purposive and snowball sampling techniques (Saunders, 2019). Participants were selected based on three specific criteria: they had to be adult artisans who made and sold handicrafts for a living; they had to own informal businesses not registered by the government; and they had to operate in the tourism industry, where they primarily sold handicrafts to tourists. The lead researcher received several referrals and interacted with many potential participants, and in the end, 32 artisans were sampled, as shown in Table 1. The artisans made handicrafts such as but not limited to wooden and stone carvings like animals, maces, walking sticks, utensils and accessories; weaved items like bags and baskets; and beaded ornaments like necklaces, bracelets, rings and keychains.

The semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were carried out over two phases. The first phase was conducted between November 2020 and January 2021, whereas the second phase was conducted 6–9 months after the first phase, between June and August 2021. This allowed for follow-up interviews with some artisans, resulting in 46 interviews. The follow-up interviews were crucial in overcoming some challenges of telephone interviews. For instance, it enabled the researcher and the participants to establish trust, build rapport and enrich depth through probing and seeking clarity (Read, 2018; Drabble et al., 2016).

Other vital methodological considerations were employed while conducting the remote data collection and engaging with participants. For example, the study managed the insider-outsider researcher positions and identities to enhance proximity. In this case, the lead researcher drew on areas of similarity with the participants. These included the common language of Swahili, similar cultural backgrounds and the shared contextual knowledge of Kenya’s informal sector and tourism industry. Notably, the telephone interviews were valuable in silencing some of the socioeconomic differences between the researcher and the marginalised participants. These included differences in age, financial position, education levels and social status. Collectively, these strategies enhanced the depth of the interviews, built rapport, developed trust and heightened the participants’ collaboration.

The semi-structured interviews were conducted at the participant’s convenience to ensure that they had the power and flexibility to schedule the interviews (Holt, 2010). Interviews lasted an average of between 30 min to 1 h, thus enabling varied questions to be asked. These included questions on the adversities they experienced, how they overcame them and how they persistently worked in the context.

Ethical considerations were upheld throughout. For example, the artisans consented to the interviews, their participation was anonymous, and the study ensured they did not get any physical, emotional or psychological harm (Leavy, 2014).

Data were analysed using six phases of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The first step was data familiarisation, which entailed replaying the audio-recorded interviews, transcribing and carefully translating from Swahili to English. The second step involved generating initial codes. Here, line-by-line coding was done to derive codes that were relevant to the research question and key concepts. These included, but were not limited to, individual factors, which we defined as skills, attributes and behaviours, and culture, which we defined as societal norms and values that program peoples’ way of thinking. The third step was searching for themes. This involved sorting out and categorising codes to derive themes. It started by inductively establishing themes based on the data. This was followed by a deductive approach, where themes were sought based on key theories and concepts, such as resilience, adversity, artisan entrepreneurship, culture and tacit knowledge. For example, the theme of positive attitudes for persistence was derived from analysing the theoretical dimensions of resilience, such as hope, optimism, perseverance and self-efficacy (De Vries and Shields, 2006; Ayala and Manzano, 2014; Korber and McNaughton, 2018).

The fourth step entailed reviewing the themes. Here, themes were assessed to check whether they aligned with the identified codes. This process resulted in some themes being split, combined, or discarded. The fifth step involved defining and naming the themes, where careful consideration was given to ensure the themes addressed the research question and reflected the findings. The last step was producing the report, which is presented in the findings and discussion.

The data analysis was an iterative process that involved several rounds. To promote rigour, the above steps were enhanced further by starting off with open coding to create first-order codes from the participants’ words. This was followed by axial coding, where the first-order codes were further categorised based on theoretical lenses of resilience, adversity, artisan entrepreneurship and culture. Hence, resulting in theory-centred second order themes. Afterwards, the second-order themes were distilled to create aggregate themes. The above steps are represented in a data structure shown in Figure 1 below.

Findings show that artisans experience adversity through ongoing hardship and scarcity of resources. They lack decent work environments and fixed work locations, resulting in constant transport of handicrafts, which creates further risks of damage and increases operation costs:

Additionally, artisans have limited financial resources caused by inconsistent sales, slim margins and restricted access to credit facilities. The recent COVID-19 pandemic also negatively affected their financial positions due to a drastic decline in tourists. Consequently, artisans were exposed to other livelihood challenges like poverty and were unable to procure tools and raw materials for their businesses.

Furthermore, the findings show that artisans operate in a context governed by authorities such as government institutions. It is apparent that these institutions contribute to the artisan’s adversity through unfavourable policies that result in marginalisation, harassment, eviction from business premises and the artisans’ lack of voice. Artisans believe these challenges are heightened by the negative perception that they are inferior to their formal counterparts, who own registered businesses.

Furthermore, artisans experience competition from intermediaries, comprising tour guides, traders and brokers who easily access handicrafts and customers. The intermediaries are also notorious for defaulting on credit and restricting access to customers.

Artisans also experience fluctuations in the tourism industry caused by seasonality. They point out that the tourism industry is characterised by high and low seasons. The high seasons enable them to generate more income and save money. Nonetheless, the low season is characterised by fewer tourists, resulting in minimal income, with some artisans being forced to close their businesses temporarily.

Aside from seasonality, the findings suggest that artisans are not new to challenges caused by the impact of crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, political instability, and terrorism. They attest that these crises have diminished tourism and resulted in uncertainty around their livelihoods and business ventures.

The above adversities are summarised in Table 2.

Figure 1, derived from the findings, illustrates that the resilience of informal artisans can be attributed to three factors. These include individual attributes and behaviours, cultural norms on resourcing and culturally derived tacit knowledge.

The findings show that despite being informal, artisans have entrepreneurial attributes pertinent to their resilience. To elaborate, artisans portray agency and entrepreneurial traits that enable them to run enterprises while experiencing adversity. For instance, despite adversity, artisans run entrepreneurial ventures because they desire independence and autonomy. They enjoy the independence of being entrepreneurs, which they may not otherwise attain.

Additionally, while they have limited financial resources, artisans save and reinvest money into their businesses and pursue sales. They also negotiate prices with customers to maximise profit. These entrepreneurial behaviours have proven valuable in helping them manage and create financial cushions during adversity.

Besides this, the findings point to the artisans’ entrepreneurial ambitions. Despite operating small-scale informal businesses, they aspire to expand their enterprises, grow income and employ more people. They also seem determined to overcome adversity and sustain their businesses. Thus, they display entrepreneurial drive that has shown to be essential in motivating their persistence.

Furthermore, the artisans display the ability to identify and pursue business opportunities, which has proven essential in enabling them to cope with competition in the informal sector.

Relatedly, the artisans’ entrepreneurial traits and behaviours have allowed them to cope with other similar difficulties. For instance, owing to their ability to pursue sales, artisans cope with challenges in tourism by using handicrafts to diversify their customers outside the industry. These customers include local households that buy sculptures as home decoration and local people who buy beaded items like necklaces, bracelets, belts and other handicrafts as fashion accessories or gift items. It also includes intermediaries who buy handicrafts for resale. Hence, the artisans’ handicraft-making skills and ability to pursue customers appear valuable in helping them sustain an income during a tourism decline.

Alongside the entrepreneurial attributes, the findings show that artisans portray individual and collective psychological behaviours and attitudes of hope, optimism, perseverance and self-efficacy.

These are also recognised as dimensions of resilience and enable artisans to perceive and respond to adversity positively. Consequently, while they experience adversity, their individual and collective hope, optimism and perseverance generate positive attitudes that build resilience.

Artisans’ resilience is also attributed to their cultural norms on resourcing. They live and work with family, friends, colleagues and affiliate groups, where they exchange key resources during adversity as discussed below.

Cultural norms around collective support enable artisans to access labour from family members. The family members are not formal employees but provide free labour by assisting artisans in making handicrafts and running businesses. The findings show they do so because of societal expectations and cultural obligations. Ultimately, the family members make it possible for artisans to access human capital, which may otherwise be challenging due to financial constraints.

Additionally, the findings show that artisans work in clusters, where they interact with their colleagues, family and friends. These networks have emerged as critical towards enabling them to access business premises.

As mentioned, artisans lack permanent business structures and run businesses in open-air markets or on roadsides. They are also often harassed and evicted from business premises by authorities. Therefore, social networks enable artisans to cope with indecent work environments. They facilitate access to business premises by sharing and offering short-term rent-free spaces, which are vital, especially during adverse weather conditions.

The findings also show that cultural norms foster social networks and relations that enable artisans to seek resources such as raw materials and finances. For example, affiliate social groups, popularly called chama, a Swahili word for “group” or “body”, are often drawn upon for financial assistance. The chama forms part of the institutionalised social capital and is popular amongst the artisans who would otherwise not have easy access to financial support due to marginalisation and their informality.

Likewise, artisans access raw materials like wood, stone and beads through their social capital, which may otherwise be difficult to access due to financial constraints.

Cumulatively, the findings show that cultural norms enhance social capital, which enables artisans to access vital resources such as human, financial and physical capital. Hence enabling them to persist through adversity.

Artisans learnt their skills from earlier generations, meaning their skills and knowledge were passed across generations. Hence, they are not first-generation artisans and have other family members who are artisans. They also learn skills informally through friends and other social networks.

Learning skills from an early age initiated the artisans’ entrepreneurial endeavours. It also created a sense of familiarity and established an environment normalising artisanry, not just as a source of income but also as a social practice that binds family members together and ensures traditions are preserved. Thus, the artisans’ tacit knowledge, passed through social practices and traditions, drives artisans to persist in making handicrafts despite ongoing adversity.

Artisans are passionate and derive creative fulfilment from making handicrafts. They gain a sense of fulfilment they are unlikely to get while engaging in other economic activities. Thus, showing how artisanry is more than just a hobby or a source of income.

Therefore, despite adversity, artisans persist in making handicrafts, which may otherwise not be the case if they did not have such attachments to their handicrafts.

Additionally, as artisan have made handicrafts from an early age, their skills and knowledge are positively ingrained. This has made them attached to handicrafts and inflexible towards alternative economic activities. Consequently, artisans persist in making handicrafts, including during crises and challenges.

Some artisans attribute the ingrained skills to in-born talents, which they believe have further attached them to making handicrafts. They also attribute their success to their inborn talents and knowledge.

The findings display various indicators that showcase informal artisans’ resilience. For example, artisans portray attitudes of hope, optimism, self-efficacy and perseverance, which are associated with building resilience (Eggerman and Panter-Brick, 2010). These individual attributes are also recognised as common dimensions of entrepreneurial resilience (De Vries and Shields, 2006; Ayala and Manzano, 2014; Korber and McNaughton, 2018). Artisans also show the ability to persist in pursuing entrepreneurial ventures regardless of adversity or the availability of an existing alternative (Caliendo et al., 2020). Furthermore, they can handle challenging situations and survive adverse conditions (Branzei and Abdelnour, 2010). Cumulatively, these showcase the artisan’s psychological capital (Tang, 2020; Welter and Scrimpshire, 2021) and resilience.

Besides this, the findings show that artisans have individual attributes and behaviours that enable their persistence through adversity. These traits also make artisans legitimate entrepreneurs despite being informal. For instance, like other entrepreneurs, it appears that artisans also work in the informal sector out of their own free will and for personal reasons such as a social appreciation for business ownership and self-employment (King, 2001; Adom, 2014). They also focus on and aim to increase their economic capital (Çakmak et al., 2018). Additionally, they desire independence and autonomy, which are recognised attributes of entrepreneurs (Lordkipanidze et al., 2005).

Beyond their individual behaviours and pursuits, artisans have collective working arrangements and access to social capital, which have emerged as critical towards their resilience. They have cultural norms that strengthen social ties, thus enabling them to work and live together and access resources such as human, financial and physical capital, which they would otherwise not easily access due to marginalisation (Hope, 2014). The findings confirm that the collective cultural norms around the family and other social ties are the backbone of artisans’ entrepreneurial ventures and resilience. Apart from access to resources, the family and networks facilitate the creation and transfer of tacit knowledge, making artisanry more than a livelihood pattern but a context where artisans become entrepreneurial by learning and developing the cognitive capacity to evolve, create, and solve problems (Chirico, 2008; Dohse and Walter, 2012).

Besides this, the artisan’s skills and craft allow them to diversify customers outside of tourism, which is valuable when there is a decline in the industry. Notably, the ingrained skills through tacit knowledge distinguish artisans from other entrepreneurs in the informal sector (Çakmak et al., 2018). While the skills allow artisans to use handicrafts to venture out of tourism, the cultural meaning behind the tacit knowledge also contributes to a strong attachment to handicrafts, leading to inflexibility towards other economic activities. This is despite working in the informal sector, where there is flexibility and opportunities to engage in other economic activities due to the ease of entry (Gërxhani, 2004). Hence, they appear different from other informal entrepreneurs who are likely to close their businesses during adversity or when better business or employment opportunities arise (La Porta and Shleifer, 2014). Consequently, they have run informal businesses for several years and generations, including during crises like political instability, terrorism and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Furthermore, the findings show that despite desiring to make money, the artisans’ passion and creative fulfilment take precedence. On the one hand, this confirms that artisans are creative entrepreneurs (Ferreira et al., 2019; Dana et al., 2022). Nonetheless, on the other hand, it portrays that the artisans’ perception of work may vary from that of other informal entrepreneurs, who perceive work as necessary for survival (Blunch et al., 2001). Hence, the artisans’ creative fulfilment attaches them to handicrafts and motivates their persistence in running enterprises. Acknowledging these distinguishing behaviours and attributes is essential as they have emerged as enablers of resilience through adversity.

Overall, the individual traits and behaviours, cultural norms on resourcing and culturally derived tacit knowledge explain the artisans’ resilience through adversity. Figure 2 below showcases a conceptual model of these factors.

To an extent, resilience theory and the entrepreneurial theory of resilience enable an understanding of the artisans’ resilience. For instance, they make it possible to understand the resilience of artisans by explaining the behaviours and traits such as hope, optimism and perseverance. As mentioned, these are recognised as dimensions of entrepreneurial resilience (De Vries and Shields, 2006; Ayala and Manzano, 2014; Korber and McNaughton, 2018). Nonetheless, it is evident that the theories may not be sufficient to elaborate on the artisan’s resilience. To expound, resilience theory prescribes that resilience is achieved when better-than-expected outcomes exist (Van Breda, 2018). Thus, the theory emphasises resilience as a positive outcome after adversity. This is similarly the case within entrepreneurship, where resilience is viewed as a positive outcome and resilient entrepreneurs are classified as those who do better after facing adversity (Bernard and Barbosa, 2016; Huggins and Thompson, 2015). Consequently, there are underlying assumptions that resilience and vulnerability are flipsides and opposite (Berkes, 2007; De Bruijne et al., 2010). These imply that more resilience leads to less vulnerability or adversity and vice-versa.

However, the findings suggest that resilience amongst artisans does not necessarily result in better-than-expected outcomes. Additionally, their resilience does not mean that they stop experiencing adversity. This is because artisans experience constant challenges in the tourism industry and the informal sector, which are beyond their control. They are also often oppressed, marginalised, and harassed by institutions. Owing to this, artisans are in a state of ongoing adversity. Hence, their resilience is not necessarily manifested in positive or better-than-expected outcomes pointed out in the resilience theory.

Additionally, entrepreneurial resilience tends to focus on individual traits and behaviours. As alluded to, it focuses on individual traits such as but not limited to perseverance, persistence, optimism, flexibility, hardiness and self-efficacy (Ayala and Manzano, 2014; De Vries and Shields, 2006; Korber and McNaughton, 2018; Bullough and Renko, 2013). While these behaviours and traits are essential resilience indicators, they risk being individualistic. More specifically, they insinuate that people are responsible for their resilience and minimise institutional and social contexts that are a part of people’s resilience (Van Breda, 2018). For artisans, this narrow conceptualisation ignores the responsibility of the government and other institutions in supporting people’s resilience.

Furthermore, the focus on individual traits and behaviours restricts the consideration of other aspects like social and cultural norms, which should be considered when understanding resilience. This is not to say that artisans lack agency to determine their resilience, but to point out that the knowledge context beyond the individual also influences entrepreneurial resilience.

Based on the above findings and discussion, Table 3 below summarises these differences. It showcases how resilience is conceptualised in entrepreneurship against the empirical evidence of the resilience of informal artisan entrepreneurs.

Moreover, it is evident that the artisans’ resilience and persistence to work in the informal sector are not purely based on necessity. Instead, it is a culmination of individual attributes and behaviours, cultural norms on resourcing, and culturally derived tacit knowledge. As alluded to, this is essential to note as the informal sector is associated with marginalisation and poverty (Kanbur, 2017). Thus, there is an assumption that informal entrepreneurs persistently work in the informal sector out of necessity (Adom, 2014) due to poverty, lack of employment opportunities and alternative livelihood options. Therefore, there is a need to go beyond this narrow perspective, which minimises the complexity of how informal artisan entrepreneurs handle adversity and persist in running enterprises.

The paper sought to understand how informal artisan entrepreneurs demonstrate resilience while experiencing adversity. It has discussed the adversities artisans experience, how they handle them, and how they differ from other informal entrepreneurs. It is apparent that artisans experience ongoing adversity but have remained resilient. This is possible because of their individual attributes and behaviours, cultural norms on resourcing and culturally derived tacit knowledge. Collectively, they enable artisans to cope with challenges, combine resources to handle adversity and persist in running enterprises.

The paper makes theoretical, empirical, and contextual contributions. Firstly, it contributes to the theoretical understanding of resilience. It challenges how resilience is conceptualised in entrepreneurship and calls for a more holistic conceptualisation that considers culture alongside individual attributes and behaviours. This is essential as resilience theory and entrepreneurial theory of resilience have heavily focused on psychological and individual traits and ignored socio-cultural contexts (Van Breda, 2001; Korber and McNaughton, 2018).

Secondly, this paper contributes empirically to our contextual understanding of artisan entrepreneurs, specifically those in the informal sector and the tourism industry in SSA. It has elaborated on the traits and behaviours that make artisans legitimate entrepreneurs despite being informal. It has also discussed how artisans are distinguished from other entrepreneurs in the informal sector because of their ingrained skills, inflexibility towards other economic activities, desire for creative fulfilment and the influence of cultural norms on their resilience. More so, it is evident that the artisans’ persistence and resilience in the informal sector and tourism industry is not purely based on necessity. Instead, it is a culmination of individual attributes and behaviours, cultural norms on resourcing and culturally derived tacit knowledge. By making this contribution, the paper also extends the empirical research on artisan entrepreneurs, which is still limited in the African context (Pret and Cogan, 2018; Hasanah et al., 2023).

Thirdly, the paper makes a methodological contribution. It draws research implications by highlighting some methodological considerations for conducting remote qualitative data collection and engaging with participants operating in an informal setting. It also shows the value of telephone interviews in overcoming difficulties of accessing participants, increasing flexibility for participation, and silencing the potential socioeconomic differences between the researcher and the participants.

Artisans make significant contributions. They make and sell handicrafts that maintain culture and heritage. They also create jobs that contribute to the economy and sustain livelihoods in their communities. Thus, their persistence and resilience in the informal sector and the tourism industry cannot be understated. Consequently, by discussing their adversities, we create awareness and generate the need for supportive policies to alleviate these challenges. These include policies that promote conducive work environments, alleviate financial struggles, ensure institutional support and safeguard artisans against sectoral challenges and unexpected crises.

While the study incorporated various methodological strategies to attain rich data, which addressed the research aim, the study faced limitations of telephone interviews, such as the lack of visual contact and one-on-one engagement with participants (Drabble et al., 2016). Therefore, future studies can consider conducting a similar study using methodologies that allow for immersion and engagement with participants as they can overcome the limitations of telephone interviews, enable an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon and ease the establishment of trust and rapport with participants (Leavy, 2014).

Furthermore, while climate change and its effects did not emerge in the findings, it is inevitable and likely to shift artisans’ ways of doing business and cultural traditions (Panneels, 2023). It is also likely to generate more challenges, such as disruptions in the tourism ecosystem and limited access to raw materials like wood. Thus, future studies can examine how the adversities of climate change will impact artisans.