- •Domain of entrepreneurship research
- •Development – and lack thereof – in entrepreneurship research
- •Main Focus of research
- •Other Discussions
- •Entrepreneurship as societal phenomenon
- •Definition of Entrepreneurship by economic activity
- •Definition of Entrepreneurship by outcome
- •Venkataraman’s View
- •Gartner’s View
- •Combining Gartner’s and Venkataraman’s Perspectives
- •Uncertainty and the Concept of Opportunity
- •Concept of opportunity
- •Meaning and Interrelatedness of “Discovery” and “Exploitation”
- •Core Research Questions for the Scholarly Domain of Entrepreneurship
- •Entrepreneurship as a scholarly domain
- •Dimension Overview
- •Conclusions on Entrepreneurship as a Scholarly Domain
- •What Has Been Left Out?
- •Although all the theory, needed by entrepreneurship researchers, exists in the disciplines, some of the questions recommended for asking before applying existing (“as-is”) theory are:
- •Supportive facts for the research questions
- •The issue of lack of community is a very real problem.
- •Argument for entrepreneurship as distinct domain
- •Conclusion about distinctiveness of the entrepreneurship domain
Several issues of “fit” arise from “heterogeneity” along several dimensions. The dimensions are:
Fit between individuals’ prior knowledge [and] (information about) the new opportunity
Relatedness between organizations’ prior knowledge, resources or capabilities [and] information about the new potential venture
Relatedness of the knowledge [and] characteristics of key individuals involved in the processes (example - the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the team)
Fit between existing resources and what strategies can lead to the venture’s success
Fit between characteristics of the new potential venture and current user practices
In conclusion, opportunities to research about “FIT” are available because empirically based knowledge on the issues is limited.
Conclusions on Entrepreneurship as a Scholarly Domain
Scholarly Definition of “Entrepreneurship” = Behaviours undertaken in the processes of discovery and exploitation of ideas for new business ventures (This definition connects well to Venkataraman’s and Gartner’s perspectives because of not including outcome presupposing.
However, this definition does not fully describe the scholarly domain. So the following delineation of entrepreneurship as a scholarly domain is required.
Starter = Assumptions of uncertainty and heterogeneity
Scholarly Domain should include:
Processes of (real or induced, and completed as well as terminated) emergence of new business ventures, across organizational contexts
Study of the origin and characteristics of venture ideas as well as their contextual fit
Study of behaviours in the interrelated processes of discovery and exploitation of such ideas
Study of how the ideas and behaviours link to different types of direct and indirect antecedents and outcomes on different analysis levels
Scholarly Domain should be:
Broad enough to encompass core issues highlighted by Venkataraman’s and Gartner’s respective perspectives
Distinct enough to be the basis of a community and coherent theory building
Explaining and predicting “a set of empirical phenomena not explained or predicted by conceptual frameworks already in existence in other fields” (Opportunities for future research)
What Has Been Left Out?
Delineation criteria EXCLUDED from the domain
Value creation
Wealth creation
Other indicators of “Success”
Purpose and motivation
Skill or expertise
Expectations of gain for self
The reasons for the exclusion
Not necessary ingredients of entrepreneurship as a societal phenomenon or scholarly domain
However, the excluded things are of central interest from the 3rd perspective: “Entrepreneurship as a teaching subject”. So the issues for the 3rd perspective should be:
Self-employment
Small and family business management
Management succession
Although related to competitive behaviours that drive the market process, the issues pertaining to self-employment, or smallness, or family, or succession do not reflect the societal phenomenon “entrepreneurship”
This is because small and independently owned businesses do not necessarily have a larger role in driving the market process than have other types of suppliers.
It's okay for student to learn more in this perspective. (However, we should be careful not to inappropriately put the “entrepreneurship” label on the issues.)
THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP DOMAIN
Important goal for Shane & Venkataraman and Gartner
Establishing entrepreneurship as a distinct scholarly domain
Entrepreneurship research is best pursued within the established disciplines like:
Economics
Psychology
Sociology
Various branches of management studies
Reasons why entrepreneurship research is best pursued within the established disciplines (4.2)
Despite Shane and Venkataraman’s alleged focus on explaining and predicting phenomena not explained or predicted in other fields, there are few interesting contingencies, not the topic of theory in the social sciences, for entrepreneurship scholars.
Disciplinary research is required to meet the quality criteria of the respective discipline.
Pursuit of entrepreneurship questions by disciplinary researchers should be a way for entrepreneurship to attain academic respectability.
Although all the theory, needed by entrepreneurship researchers, exists in the disciplines, some of the questions recommended for asking before applying existing (“as-is”) theory are:
Does the theory acknowledge uncertainty and heterogeneity?
Can it be applied to the problem of emergence, or does it presuppose the existence of markets, products or organizations in a way that clashes with the research questions?
Does the theory allow a process perspective?
Does it apply to the preferred unit of analysis (e.g. “venture idea” or “emerging venture” rather than “firm” or “individual”)?
Is it compatible with an interest in the types of outcomes that are most relevant from an entrepreneurship point of view?
Supportive facts for the research questions
Scrutiny of some existing theories in relation to the five questions above would show.
The domain must allow also for filling gaps and asking new questions through inductive theory-building approaches.
Problem with leaving entrepreneurship research to the disciplines is “lack of community”.
Although disciplinary theories relating to all or most entrepreneurship research questions exists, this does not prove there is no need for entrepreneurship as a distinct scholarly domain.
The issue of lack of community is a very real problem.
Tremendous growth of entrepreneurship research has been accompanied by an increasing share of “transitory” contributors.
Despite their disciplinary training, these scholars are largely non-influential.
Summary - Disciplinary knowledge has to be combined with deep familiarity with the phenomenon in order to make really valuable contributions.
Argument for entrepreneurship as distinct domain
There is no guarantee that a lot of research would be conducted on the most central questions of entrepreneurship.
Failure to collectively cover the entrepreneurship agenda is neither a problem nor a shortcoming on the part of the disciplines.
Interest in maximum knowledge development about entrepreneurship is the vantage point, however, it becomes a problem.
Conclusion about distinctiveness of the entrepreneurship domain
Discussion of the domain vs. Knowledge about best developed entrepreneurship with deep familiarity with combining the phenomenon and disciplinary knowledge and standards --- How to achieve in 3 ways (All 3 of these are more likely to happen in the presence of a distinct, coherent and acknowledged domain of entrepreneurship research)
Researchers who focus their research more or less exclusively on entrepreneurship learn more theory and method from the disciplines
Disciplinary researchers who occasionally apply their knowledge to entrepreneurship read a lot of entrepreneurship research before conducting and publishing their studies
Direct collaboration between topical and disciplinary experts