Buch, Englisch, 235 Seiten, HC runder Rücken kaschiert, Format (B × H): 153 mm x 216 mm, Gewicht: 438 g
Building the Future of the Field
Buch, Englisch, 235 Seiten, HC runder Rücken kaschiert, Format (B × H): 153 mm x 216 mm, Gewicht: 438 g
ISBN: 978-3-030-61028-9
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Zielgruppe
Research
Autoren/Hrsg.
Fachgebiete
Weitere Infos & Material
Chapter synopsis: (500 words or so each chapter synopsis)
Chapter 1: Introduction
The introduction will focus on outlining the ways entrepreneurship as a scholarly field has developed since 2000, as a follow up to our initial co-edited volume on foundational pieces within the field. It will focus on important contributions available from groundbreaking work that has taken shape in entrepreneurship research since 2000, and discuss how the papers in the book speak to important and emergent areas for research.
Banu Ozkazanc-Pan
Dev K. Dutta
Golshan Javadian
Vishal K. Gupta
Chapter 2: Gendered Perspectives on Organizational Creation: Lessons from the Past and Insights for the Future
Golshan Javadian
Bird and Brush (2002), in their seminal piece on a gendered perspectives on organizational creation, draw from three theoretical frameworks (Jungian psychology, cognitive and moral development, and feminist theory) to develop a new perspective on organizational creation that presented a gendered balance viewpoint on venture creation process and new venture attributes. Before this paper, the study of venture creation mainly used masculine gender frameworks. The paper highlights both the feminine and masculine aspects of venture creation and presents new concepts such as gender-maturity (an individual difference) and gender-balance (an organization quality).
Entrepreneurship has traditionally been understood as a masculine activity (De Bruin, Brush, & Welter, 2006) that is often defined by stereotypically masculine terms (Baron, Markman, & Hirsa, 2001; Fagenson & Marcus, 1991). This gender stereotypical context portrays women as “less” qualified entrepreneurs (Ahl, 2006) and negatively impacts women’s entrepreneurial intention and opportunity evaluation as well as venture capitalists’ evaluations of women entrepreneurs (Gupta, Turban, Bhawe, 2008; Gupta et al., 2009; Gupta, Goktan & Gunay, 2014; Malmstrom, Johansson & Wincent, 2017). Bird and Brush work is unique given that they highlighted the relatively less visible feminine perspective of venture creation and compared it to the traditional masculine perspective to better understand how gender impacts the different dimensions of an organization.
Bird and Brush also clarified how entrepreneurial behavior is shaped and how it is affected by the gender maturity of the entrepreneurs. They argued that gender awareness and gender integration form gender maturity which influences the gendered processes in venture creation. The gendered processes include dimensions such as concept of reality, time, power and ethics. The gendered process then leads to gendered-balanced organizations which entails uses of resources, structuring, controlling, integration through systems, policy and culture. Throughout their discussion, Bird and Brush distinguished between sex in terms of biology and gender in terms of socialized perspective helps us better understand how the social processes impact entrepreneurial behavior and venture creation.
My goal in this chapter is to reflect on this important work, which has become the foundation for many important studies on women entrepreneurship. I aim to look at the studies that have used Bird and Brush arguments in their theoretical development and categorize them based on different themes. For example, one category will be the studies that have used Bird and Brush to develop a framework or agenda for women entrepreneurship research (e.g. Ahl; 2006; Brush, De Bruin & Welter, 2009). Another category will be the studies that have focused on gender stereotypes in the entrepreneurship context (e.g. Gupta et al., 2008; Gupta et al., 2009). Or a category will be on the studies who have focused on gender differences in entrepreneurial activities and the reasons behind such differences (e.g. Fairlie & Robb, 2009; Langowitz, & Minniti, 2007). I aim to look at studies within each category to explore how Bird and Brush argument was utilized. I will also identify the arguments within Bird and Brush article that did not receive much attention. I will further discuss why and how the ideas within Bird and Brush article are relevant to the field and how future research can build on the insights the paper suggested.
References
Ahl, H. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 30(5), 595-621.
Baron, R. A., Markman, G. D., & Hirsa, A. (2001). Perceptions of women and men as entrepreneurs: Evidence for differential effects of attributional augmenting. Journal of Applied psychology, 86(5), 923.
Brush, C. G., De Bruin, A., & Welter, F. (2009). A gender-aware framework for women's entrepreneurship. International Journal of Gender and entrepreneurship, 1(1), 8-24.
De Bruin, A., Brush, C. G., & Welter, F. (2006). Introduction to the special issue: Towards building cumulative knowledge on women's entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and practice, 30(5), 585-593.
Fagenson, E. A., & Marcus, E. C. (1991). Perceptions of the sex-role stereotypic characteristics of entrepreneurs: women's evaluations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(4), 33-48.
Fairlie, R. W., & Robb, A. M. (2009). Gender differences in business performance: evidence from the Characteristics of Business Owners survey. Small Business Economics, 33(4), 375.
Gupta, V. K., Goktan, A. B., & Gunay, G. (2014). Gender differences in evaluation of new business opportunity: A stereotype threat perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(2), 273-288.
Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., & Bhawe, N. M. (2008). The effect of gender stereotype activation on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1053.
Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., Wasti, S. A., & Sikdar, A. (2009). The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 33(2), 397-417.
Langowitz, N., & Minniti, M. (2007). The entrepreneurial propensity of women. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 31(3), 341-364.
Malmström, M., Johansson, J., & Wincent, J. (2017). Gender stereotypes and venture support decisions: how governmental venture capitalists socially construct entrepreneurs’ potential. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5), 833-860.
Marlow, S., & Patton, D. (2005). All credit to men? Entrepreneurship, finance, and gender. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(6), 717-735.
Chapter 3: Entrepreneurship Research After Chiles, Bluedorn, And Gupta (2007): Has The Field Delivered On The Promise Of Good Scholarship?
Vishal Gupta
Joshua White
Following decades of research predicated on assumptions of equilibrium, Chiles, Bluedorn, and Gupta (2007; henceforth CBG) broke with tradition by introducing scholars to the work of Austrian economist Ludwig Lachmann, whose “radical subjectivist” approach promised a new paradigm for study within the increasingly “fragmented literature” of entrepreneurship. Acknowledging that researchers have long idealized illusions of equilibrium, CBG instead presented a new conceptual framework with revolutionary insights for entrepreneurial theory and scholarship. Given that CBG was published more than a decade ago, and entrepreneurship research has expanded greatly during this time (Landstrom & Harirchi, 2018), it seems timely to conduct a comprehensive analysis or review of CBG’s legacy. Consequently, the present work seeks to investigate the extent to which entrepreneurship research over the past decade (2008-2018) has delivered on the intriguing promises of CBG’s innovative framework.
As conveyed by Chiles et al. (2010), scholarship that privileges equilibrium can result in contorted research models as scholars struggle to fit an idealized worldview. Despite comprehensive refinement of the equilibrium-based approach (e.g. competitive equilibrium theory, punctuated equilibrium theory, etc.), no amount of intellectual elasticity within these existing paradigms could account for individual creativity, firm-level recombination of resources, or markets’ penchant for disequilibrium. Moreover, models predicated on equilibrium could not account for the heterogeneity of time, thus impeding temporal interpretation and measurement of entrepreneurial activity. To address these potential limiting factors, CBG proposed a robust theoretical framework based upon the work of Ludwig Lachmann to guide future scholars seeking to address potential shortcomings of the traditional equilibrium-based approach.
To assess the impact and influence of CBG on subsequent entrepreneurial scholarship, the present study leverages bibliometric co-citation analysis techniques. This method is uniquely suited to the needs of the present project for several reasons. First, academic papers are only interpretable based on the prior research they annotate (Locke and Golden-Biddle, 1997). As scholars position themselves within the academic conversation (Huff, 1998), they utilize citations as heuristics to enable other authors, reviewers, and readers to assess the scholarly contribution of the present work within a larger, on-going narrative (Hargens, 2000). In evaluating CBG, we seek to assess its contribution within subsequent scholarly conversations. Moreover, citations are the currency of the academic profession. To quote Sandberg and Alvesson (2011: 35), “academia is a crediting economy”. Therefore, in assessing citations, we can evaluate the residual value of CBG throughout the decade following its publication. Finally, mapping references and citations enables assessment of topical convergence or divergence (Gregoire et al., 2006). We seek to assess the degree of contextual overlap within citing works as the primary method for identifying common themes as well as notable omissions and gaps.
CBG is a highly cited article within the field of entrepreneurship, with over 10 SSCI citations per annum since its publication, which qualifies it as a ‘classic’ in the field (Durden & Ellis, 1993). Moreover, the 130 scholarly works citing CBG have been cumulatively cited nearly 2,000 times. As we endeavor to scientifically assess the nature of this research stream, bibliometric co-citation analysis is a useful research tool. Co-citation analysis is explicitly empirical (Schildt et al., 2006). Moreover, bibliometric studies are quantitative in nature (Ferreira et al., 2014). Consequently, they are an efficient way to evaluate the totality of a research stream in a relatively objective, scientific and replicable way (Nerur et al., 2008). Following our bibliometric co-citation analysis, we will report our empirical results evaluating CBG and its influence upon entrepreneurial researchers.
References
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247-271.
Chiles, T. H., Bluedorn, A. C., & Gupta, V. K. (2007). Beyond creative destruction and entrepreneurial discovery: A radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 28(4), 467-493.
Chiles, T. H., Vultee, D. M., Gupta, V. K., Greening, D. W., & Tuggle, C. S. (2010). The philosophical foundations of a radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(2), 138-164.
Durden, G. C., & Ellis, L. V. (1993). A method for identifying the most influential articles in an academic discipline. Atlantic Economic Journal, 21(4), 1-10.
Ferreira, M. P., Santos, J. C., de Almeida, M. I. R., & Reis, N. R. (2014). Mergers & acquisitions research: A bibliometric study of top strategy and international business journals, 1980–2010. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2550-2558.
Gregoire, D. A., Noel, M. X., Déry, R., & Béchard, J. P. (2006). Is there conceptual convergence in entrepreneurship research? A co–citation analysis of frontiers of entrepreneurship research, 1981–2004. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 333-373.
Hargens, L. L. (2000). Using the literature: Reference networks, reference contexts, and the social structure of scholarship. American Sociological Review, 65(6), 846–65.
Huff, A. S. (1998). Writing for scholarly publication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Landström, H., & Harirchi, G. (2018). The social structure of entrepreneurship as a scientific field. Research Policy, 47(3), 650-662.
Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and “problematizing” in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1023-1062.
Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139-161.
Nerur, S., Rasheed, A., & Natarajan, V. (2008). The intellectual structure of the strategic management field: An author co-citation analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 319–336.
Schildt, H. A., Zahra, S. A., & Sillanpää, A. (2006). Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship research: A co–citation analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 399-415.
Chapter 4: A Reflection on “Emerging Issues in Corporate Entrepreneurship” by Dess, Ireland, Zahra, Floyd, Janney and Lane (2003, JOM)
Grace Guo
Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) has long been recognized by scholars as a viable way for firms to sustain and enhance their competitive advantages (e.g. Burgelman, 1983; Covin & Miles, 1999; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Zahra, 1995; 1996). In this book proposal, we focus on a modern classic on this topic by Dess et al. (2003) in which the authors discussed the emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship and suggested insightful directions for future research. The impact of Dess et al. (2003)’s article is evident in recent empirical studies on the content and structure of corporate entrepreneurship, the leadership role in promoting CE, as well as CE and internationalization and CE engaged by emerging market firms.
In this article, Dess et al. (2003) adopted the definition of CE by Sharma and Chrisman (1999) as “… the process whereby an individual or a group of individuals, in association with an existing organization, create a new organization, or instigate renewal or innovation within that organization” (p.18). The central argument of Dess et al. (2003) is that effective CE is “a knowledge enabler” (p.353) that allows firms to develop new knowledge and innovations to outperform their competitors. Dess et al. (2003) highlighted the importance of entrepreneurial leadership and explicated how social exchanges across multiple levels of management may stimulate or impede organizational learning in firms’ domestic and international operations. Dess et al. (2003) also identified major outcomes in the CE research and paid special attention to how social, human and intellectual capital could necessitate these outcomes.
First, based on the knowledge-based view, Dess et al. (2003) theorized that organizational learning (acquisitive learning and experimental learning) mediated the relationship between different forms of CE (sustained regeneration, organizational rejuvenation, strategic renewal, and domain redefinition) and development of new knowledge components (technical, integrative and exploitative knowledge). To maximize the benefit of the new knowledge components, different implantation focuses (leveraging knowledge, recombining and extending knowledge, importing new knowledge to value creating activities) are required. For example, when the firm applies new integrative knowledge, the implementation focus should be on recombining and extending knowledge, whereas when firm applies technology knowledge, the focus should be on leveraging knowledge.
Second, Dess et al. (2003) argue that entrepreneurial leadership plays an important role in resolving conflicts between firms’ old and new priorities and in managing organizational learning process. Dess et al. (2003) maintain that the pursuit of different types of CE requires different strategic roles (e.g. directing, recognizing, implementing, synthesizing and facilitating) being performed by managers at top, middle and operating levels. These strategic roles can promote CE by creating sub-processes including competence deployment, competence modification and competence definition. The combination of these sub-processes allows the pursuit of different forms of CE. For example, firms engage in sustained regeneration and aim to develop a steady source of new product introductions can be best supported by a combination of competence deployment and competence modification. Dess et al. (2003) acknowledged the potential strategic role conflicts among managers due to differences in their belief structures and suggested control mechanisms (bureaucratic, clan and market controls) that may help develop CE consensus and trust among managers across organizational levels.
Third, Dess et al. (2003) maintain that “global markets require companies to be entrepreneurial in deciding when, how, and where to expand international” (p.363). Hence CE provides an opportunity to establish new ventures in the internationalization of the established companies. Dess et al. (2003) further developed a two by two (content vs. process and new venture vs. established companies) typology to categorize studies done on CE and new venture internationalization and provide suggestions for future research on these topics.
Lastly, Dess et al. (2003) discussed the importance of reassessing the dependent variables in the CE literature. Dess et al. (2003) argue that multiple measures of economic outcomes such as profitability and sales growth should be included in the CE research. Other more sophisticated measures, such as economic value added (EVA) and market value added (MVA) should also be considered when measuring financial performance of the new ventures. Researchers need to take pay close attention to the lag effects to reflect the temporal nature of the outcomes of CE initiatives, such as investment in R&D and new product development. In addition, Dess et al. (2003) proposed that stakeholder perspectives should be incorporated in the CE research and that the balanced scorecard approach could provide important implications for how to study CE activities that must satisfy criteria weighted differently by different stakeholders. Dess et al. (2003) concluded the paper by discussing the increasing role of different forms of capital (human, social, and intellectual) in the context of CE research and new ventures.
In short, Dess et al. (2003) inspired scholars to conduct empirical research to test these theoretical propositions. For example, in 2009, JBV published a special issue on CE. This special issue was largely built on Dess et al.’s (2003) work. The co-editors Phan, Wright, Ucbasaran and Tan (2009) still called for more research to be done on the processes and knowledge-based resources and capabilities involved in CE. Studies included in this special issue examined issues such as types of organizational learning (Burgers, Jansen, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2009), capability development (Yang et al., 2009), managerial roles (Hornsby, Kuratko, Shepherd, & Bott, 2009) and relationship between board of directors and absorptive capability in threshold firms (Zahra, Filatotchev, & Wright, 2009). In addition, scholars have empirically tested how CE provided firms in emerging markets a viable means to transition into market-oriented one and catch up with their global competitors (e.g. Guo, Jiang & Yang, 2014; Yiu, Lau, & Bruton, 2007). More recent empirical studies have examined CE as resource capital configuration (e.g. Yiu & Lau, 2008) and have also provided evidence of the impact of transformational leaders on promoting CE (Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin & Veiga, 2008). Taken together, Dess et al. (2003) provided promising directions for research in CE and highlighted the importance of CE for organizational learning, knowledge creation and exploitation as well as capability development in firms’ domestic and international operations.
References:
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 223–244.
Burgers, J. H., Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., and Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and corporate venturing: The moderating role of formal and informal integration mechanisms. Journal of Business Venturing, 24: 206-220
Covin, J. G. and Miles, M. P. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3): 47–63.
Dess, G.G., Ireland, R. D., Zahra, S. A., Floyd, S. W., Janney, J.J. and Lane, P.J. (2003). Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship, Journal of Management, 29(3): 351-378.
Guo, C., Jiang, C., and Yang, Q. (2014). The Development of Organizational Capabilities and Corporate Entrepreneurial Processes: The Case of Chinese automobile Firms. Thunderbird International Business Review, 56(6): 483-500.
Guth, W. and Ginsberg, A. 1990. Guest editor’s introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11(Summer Special Issue): 5–15.
Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D. F., Shepherd, D. A., Bott, J. P. (2009). Managers' corporate entrepreneurial actions: Examining perception and position. Journal of Business Venturing, 24: 236-247.
Ling, Y., Simesek, Z,m Lubatkin, M. H., and Veiga, J. F. (2008). Transformational leadership’s role in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: examining the CEO-TMT interface. Academy of Management journal, 51(3): 557-576.
Phan, P. H., Wright, M., Ucbasaran, D., and Tan, W. (2009). Corporate entrepreneurship: current research and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 24: 197-205.
Yang, Y., Narayanan, V. K., and Zahra, S. (2009). Developing the selection and valuation capabilities through learning: The case of corporate venture capital. Journal of Business Venturing, 24: 261-273.
Yiu, D. and Lau, C.M. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship as resource capital configuration in emerging market firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32: 37–58.
Yiu, D. W., Lau, C. M. and Bruton, G. D. (2007). International venturing by emerging economy firms: the effects of firm capabilities, home country networks, and corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 519-540.
Zahra, S. A. (1995). Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: the case of management leveraged buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(3): 225-247.
Zahra, S. A. (1996). Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating impact of industry technological opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1713-1735.
Zahra, S. A., Filatotchev, I., and Wright, M. (2009). How do threshold firms sustain corporate entrepreneurship? The role of boards and absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Venturing, 24:
248-260.
Chapter 5: The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alertness
Connie Gaglio
Jerome Katz
The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alertness (Gaglio and Katz, 2001) was developed as an operationalization of Kirzner’s theory of entrepreneurial discovery. As such, it took one of the most rigorously developed and respected conceptual models of entrepreneurship and created a process and evaluation system building on cognitive psychological principles of equal rigor. The resulting model, which focused on entrepreneurial alertness built from individual-level schemas, has become one of the most used models in research and theorizing in the area, along with becoming one of the anchors in the comparisons of the competing models for opportunity identification that have emerged since the paper’s publishing. The model represents a solid theoretical starting point for aspiring researchers, brings conceptual rigor to the teaching of entrepreneurship, and is also useful for reflective practice.
Chapter 6: The emergence of entrepreneurship education
Mary Foster
The proposed chapter would summarize the article by Kuratko (2005) and critically assess it (i.e., argue why this article is a "modern classic”…high citation rate, comprehensive review of sources of entrepreneurial understanding, a declaration that questioning the ability to teach entrepreneurship is obsolete, a summary of themes central to entrepreneurship research and education, a thorough review of the state of entrepreneurship education, enumeration of ten challenges to entrepreneurship education, a motivating call to action, and accessible/readable language presented with rigor). With hindsight, this article may represent a tipping point in the literature regarding recognition of the legitimacy and professionalization of entrepreneurship education. The ideas in the article would be used to assess and critically analyze the key approaches to entrepreneurship education: the traditional business plan approach, the Lean Startup/Lean Launchpad approach, the Disciplined Entrepreneurship approach, and the Practice-Based approach as a way of illustrating how this article can be used to advance the practice of entrepreneurship education and research about entrepreneurship education.
Reference
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 29(5), 577-597. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00099.x
Chapter 7: Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur.
David Townsend
Rick Hunt
For more than a decade, scholars have built upon and extended the foundational work of McMullen and Shepherd (2006) to examine entrepreneurial action and judgment in the face of an uncertain and unknowable future. In this chapter, we re-visit this foundational article in the field of entrepreneurship and consider how the advent and emergence of intelligent machine learning systems presents both opportunities and challenges for the uncertainty-bearing thesis of entrepreneurial action. In particular, we explore how near-term advances in artificial intelligence/machine learning tools and systems will mediate and alter the calculus of the actor-environment nexus. In doing so, we outline an agenda for future research to explore how the technological augmentation of entrepreneurial judgment and decision-making will fundamentally change entrepreneurial action under conditions of a priori uncertainty.
Reference
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132-152.
Chapter 8: Towards a theory of indigenous entrepreneurship
Robertson Tenge
As a discipline, entrepreneurship evolved from other disciplines such as economics a and management. Following this, reference is often made to the works of authors such as Cantillon (1755) and Say (1803). Earlier (Schumpeter, 1954) and subsequent attempts to categorise and understand the role of the entrepreneur as a development agent influenced the evolvement of the term to its current state (see Shumpeter, 1949; Shane & Venkatraman, 2000).
As a broad discipline, entrepreneurship has fascinated scholars, practitioners and policy-makers over the years. For some reason, as this interest grew so too did other sub-disciplines sprang-up and gained momentum. Moreover, Filion (1997) predicted that this diversion would continue when he remarked that “the field is currently in the midst of an explosion, in that it is spreading into almost every other soft science discipline.”
The dismemberment and reconstruction entrepreneurship is the result of several factors, including attempts to address the limitations of the fundamental constructs, but more importantly its perceived role as a panacea for the most severe problems that humanity has faced. Besides this, there have been new insights, significant changes that have impacted on resource endowments (in both natural and human-made resources) that seem to be central to the success of entrepreneurial endeavours. While there has been a need to unpack the cumbersome and multifaceted nature of entrepreneurship, most of the developments have been precipitated by the need to address modern-day problems in both developed and developing nations.
While the maturity and the trajectory of entrepreneurship as a discipline is not straightforward, significant contributions may be used to map out the transition points and the birth of the other essential sub-disciplines. One of the such sub-disciplines or areas of interests is indigenous entrepreneurship.
Confident that entrepreneurship will ensure that the benefits of economic development tickle down to the poorest of the poor, development economists advocated for a holistic and inclusive approach to entrepreneurship development. Although several positive outcomes can be related to increased and successful entrepreneurial activity, there is mounting evidence to suggest that indigenous populations have not fully benefited or have demonstrated unique characteristics and challenges as for as entrepreneurship is concerned. This is particularly intriguing if one were to see them as the original inhabitants of any nation and are supposed to be resource-sufficient- all things being equal.
With sustainable development, the watch slogan today, it is imperative to adopt approaches to growth that are inclusive and entrepreneurship seems to provide such except for the fact that indigenous people are marginally represented. Native or indigenous people are the original inhabitants (or decedents) of a country and everything being equal, one would expect them to own and have access to a significant proportion of the country’s resources. This narrative draw attention to several issues that currently under mind the socioeconomic development of indigenous people. For instance, the issue of resource hijack by settlers comes to the fore as well as cultural and economic assimilation (Hindle & Moroz, 2007).
Early interest in indigenous entrepreneurship can be traced papers such as Dana (1998) that blamed the dismal engagement of native Peruvian in entrepreneurial activities to historical assimilation and distortion of their entrepreneurial ecosystem by western eneraltion. Other papers in this series that predate 2004 include Dana, 1998 and Anderson, 2002. This aside, there has been a significant amount of studies from 2004 to 2010 on the subject (see Anderson et al. 2004; Hindle & Moroz, 2007; Dana & Anderson, 2006; Peredo & Anderson, 2006; Dana 2007). That said, the Peredo, et al., 2004’s title: ‘Towards a theory of Indigenous Entrepreneurship’ has been instrumental in advancing the field of study. The rest of this chapter will attempt to unpack the article and its contribution as a unique piece.
References
Anderson, Robert B. and Giberson, Robert J, 204. Aboriginal Entrepreneurship and Economic Development in Canada: Thoughts on Current Theory and Practice (2004). Ethnic Entrepreneurship: Structure and Process International Research in the Business Disciplines, Volume 4, pp. 141-167, 2004. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2495136
Anderson, R. (2002). Entrepreneurship and aboriginal Canadians: a case study in economic development’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.45–66.
Cantillon, R. (1755). Essai sur la nature du commerce en eneral, London: Fetcher Gyler. Also edited in an English version, with other material, by Henry Higgs, C.B., London: MacMillan (1931).
Dana, L.P. (1988) ‘More small business is not the answer for Peru’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.68–70.
Dana, L. P. (2007). Toward a multi-disciplinary definition of indigenous entrepreneurship. In L. P. Dana & R. B. Anderson (Eds.), International handbook of research on indigenous entrepreneurship (pp. 3-7). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Dana, L. P., & Anderson, R. B. (2006). A multidisciplinary theory of entrepreneurship as a function of cultural perceptions of opportunity. In L. P. Dana & R. B. Anderson (Eds.), International handbook of indigenous entrepreneurship (pp. 595-603). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Filion, L. J. (1997). From entrepreneurship to entreprenology. Paper presented at the United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship Annual Conference, San Francisco.
Peredo, A. M., Anderson, R. B., Galbraith, C. S., Benson, H., & Dana, L. P. (2004). Towards a theory of indigenous entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Small Business, 1, 1-20.
Hindle, K. & Moroz, P. (2007) ‘Defining indigenous entrepreneurship as a research field: discovering and critiquing the emerging canon’, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 27, No. 9, Article 1 [online] http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol27/iss9/1 (accessed 19 December 2018).
Say, J.B. (1803). Traité d’économie politique: ou, simple exposition de la manière don’t se forment, se distribuent et se consomment les richesses, Translation: Treatise on Political Economy: On the Production, Distribution and Consumption of Wealth, Kelley, New York: 1964 (1st edition: 1827).
Schumpeter, J.A. (1954), History of Economic Analysis, Edited by Elizabeth Boody Schumpeter, New York: Oxford University Press, also: London: George Allen & Unwin (6th edition, 1967).
Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1949. Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Peredo, A. M & Anderson R B. (2006). Indigenous Entrepreneurship Research: Themes and Variations, in Craig S. Galbraith, Curt H. Stiles (ed.) Developmental Entrepreneurship: Adversity, Risk, and Isolation (International Research in the Business Disciplines, Volume 5) Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.253 – 273.
Chapter 9: Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: Geographical, discursive and social dimensions
Arturo E. Osorio
Steyaert and Katz (2004) work is a contemporary jewel of research in entrepreneurship. A search within the Web of Science shows that the paper has been cited 293-times and an inquiry on Google Scholar shows 721 citations of this work. Articles citing this work have in turn been cited, according to Web of Science, 4,625 times in the 2004 to 2018 period. Another key marker of the importance of this work is the nature of the research that it has inspire with most of this new work focusing on non-traditional areas like contextualizing-entrepreneurship (e.g., Welter, 2011), non-economic entrepreneurship (e.g., Bengt, 2018) and entrepreneurship research using feminist theory (e.g., Gherardi, 2015).
In this paper Steyaert and Katz, seek to reclaim, in a geographical sense, the space where entrepreneurship occurs. This framing opens the door to an intriguing dialog of possibilities where entrepreneurship is outlined and re-framed within three dimensions; geographical, discursive, and social. The geographical dimension reterritorialize entrepreneurship in a series of spatial categories that are independent yet nested. Accordingly, they place nations and regions on one hand while on the other one neighborhoods and circles are considered. The discursive dimension is a geopolitical framework that considers the multidimensionality of entrepreneurship rather than a sole economic narrative. As such, other discourses like the cultural, ecological, and civic ones are also reflected besides the economic one. The social dimension focuses on entrepreneurship as a social process on itself. Thus, changes the focus from the exceptional individual, into the everyday developments enacted by ordinary people orchestrating entrepreneurship as a local process.
The articulation of these three dimensions helps formulate three distinct, yet interrelated propositions. The first proposition states that entrepreneurship takes place at the intersection of sites (i.e., locations) and spaces (i.e., geographies). Thus, acknowledging the concurrent physical and social embeddedness of the phenomenon. The other two propositions are the consequences of this first one. The second proposition indicates that the geography of entrepreneurship is geopolitical. This perspective seeks to overcome restricting economic definitions of entrepreneurship focusing only on its economic outcomes. This proposition places entrepreneurship as a societal process driven by local social dynamics. The third proposition presents entrepreneurship as an everyday event, rather than an unusual outcome by extraordinary individuals. Thus, presenting entrepreneurship as a social process by ordinary people doing ordinary actions. This view allows to capture previously ignored entrepreneurship processes and outcomes that may happen in the social and/or geographical fringes of a community.
This book chapter intends to explore these and other significant works in entrepreneurship that were premised in the Steyaert and Katz (2014) paper. As of today, the ideas in this paper have serve to frame conversations about gender and entrepreneurship, non-economic purposes of entrepreneurship, community base entrepreneurship, family entrepreneurship, and public sector entrepreneurship among others. Yet these are not all the possibilities for the framework presented here. A closer look at the core idea of this paper can open the door to a new theoretical understanding of entrepreneurship. This new perspective may inform new views describing entrepreneurship as a local pathway of access to resources and services. Within this innovative view, the entrepreneurs are agents that enact and control these access processes. These control processes accounts for the frequency in access, the number of available accesses, and the “speed” of flow of resources (and/or services) during each access interaction. In all, this “control process” thus can be best described as the entrepreneurial process.
References
Bengt J. (2018) Disclosing everyday practices constituting social entrepreneuring – a case of necessity effectuation, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30:3-4, 390-406, DOI: 10.1080/08985626.2017.1413770
Gherardi, S. (2015). Authoring the female entrepreneur while talking the discourse of work-family life balance. International Small Business Journal, 33(6), 649–666. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242614549780
Steyaert, C., & Katz, J. (2004). Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: geographical, discursive and social dimensions. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(3), 179–196.
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing Entrepreneurship—Conceptual Challenges and Ways Forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x
Chapter 10: Causation and effectuation
Khao Dao
In her seminal 2001 paper, Sarasvathy challenges common beliefs relating to decision-making and firm creation. She contrasts the usually recognized causation with what she describes as effectuation. She describes causation as a known end with unknown means. By opposition, effectuation has known means with an unknown end. As such, an entrepreneur would create a firm on the basis of what he or she already possesses instead of what can be gained. She does not discredit causation but rather argues that they are interweaved and when put into a continuum displays a dichotomy of behaviors. She presents two thought experiments to advocate her position, one hypothetical, Curry in a Hurry, and one real, U-Haul. She also presents four effectuation principles: Affordable loss, Strategic alliances, Exploitation of contingencies and Controlling an unpredictable future. She also relates effectuation to the work of important scholars: March, Weick and Mintzberg. Finally, she makes proposition on how effectuation could be used at different levels of the firm. This paper is an important one because it allowed for a different perspective on Entrepreneurship. It has been cited more than 4000 times and has effectively changed the field. Effectuation is still a large part of studies by entrepreneurship scholars and has truly been a modern classic in Entrepreneurship studies.
Reference
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). "Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency." Academy of Management Review, 26(2): 243-263.
Chapter 11: Conclusion
This chapter will provide a summary of contributions to the book and propose important new areas for growth and research in the entrepreneurship field based on them. It will propose that entrepreneurship as a scholarly field continues to grow in significance and relevance within the broader context of society, policy makers and researchers. The conclusion will also re-emphasize why it is important to understand how these emergent trends will influence the trajectories of future research in entrepreneurship.
Banu Ozkazanc-Pan
Dev K. Dutta
Arturo E Osorio
