Search results

The pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities is not always successful. On the one hand, entrepreneurial failure offers an invaluable opportunity for entrepreneurs to learn about their ventures and themselves. On the other hand, entrepreneurial failure is associated with substantial financial, psychological, and social costs. When entrepreneurs fail to learn from failure, the potential value of this experience is not fully utilized and these costs will have been incurred in vain. In this chapter, the authors investigate how the stigma of failure exacerbates the various costs of failure, thereby making learning from failure much more difficult. The authors combine an analysis of interviews of 20 entrepreneurs (who had, at the time of interview, experienced failure) with an examination of archival data reflecting the legal and cultural environment around their ventures. The authors find that stigma worsens the entrepreneurs’ experience of failure, hinders their transformation of failure experience, and eventually prevents them from utilizing the lessons learnt from failure in their future entrepreneurial activities. The authors discuss the implications of the findings for the entrepreneurship research and economic policies.

Entrepreneurship research has paid little attention to variance in entrepreneurial opportunities, instead choosing to treat them as homogenous. Thus, the field has failed to acknowledge that there are significant variations in means–ends conceptualizations giving rise to different types of opportunities. Further, researchers and educators have not fully considered that the type of opportunity being pursued has implications for which entrepreneurial actions are required to realize a successful outcome. We address these issues in this chapter by distinguishing means–ends combinations such that four types of opportunities – replication, reinterpretation, revelation, and revolution – are introduced. This matrix leads to propositions regarding differing actions that would be emphasized as a function of the type opportunity under consideration (e.g., legitimacy building, knowledge assimilation, market demand, and resource acquisition). The net effect is an improved understanding of how variations in means–ends conceptualizations influence how entrepreneurs interpret their particular opportunity, which in turn drives the actions they take as they attempt to turn their vision into reality. This improved understanding has important implications for entrepreneurship education and we suggests a number of possible changes to pedagogy that flow from our framework. We believe that these changes will bring added richness and value to the classroom.

This chapter is designed to outline how current methods in formal policy analysis have evolved to better respect limits to an analyst's knowledge. These limits are referred to as model uncertainty both in order to capture the idea that formal policy analysis is predicated on mathematically precise formulations that embody assumptions on the part of an analyst and because model uncertainty, which represents a recognition of the potential for these assumptions to produce unsound analyses, has been an active area of research in economics and statistics for the last 15 or so years. The argumentation in this chapter is not original and is admittedly selective. For Austrian economists, the paper will hopefully be of interest in indicating how empirical work is evolving in a way that better respects limits to a social scientist's knowledge. I certainly do not mean to suggest that these arguments should eliminate the objections that have been raised by some Austrian economists to formal empirical work. Rather, the intent of this chapter is to indicate the possibility of dialog and debate between Austrian and non-Austrian economists on the role of formal empirical work. In several contexts, I have introduced arguments concerning the limits of formal econometric analysis by Hayek and von Mises to both illustrate how the perspectives in this chapter relate to their views in order to suggest why, in my judgment, some of their skepticism is unwarranted.

Entrepreneurship is a social role, suggesting that different communities and societies will hold different typical expectations for who the entrepreneur should be (i.e., personal characteristics) and how an entrepreneur acts (behaviors). In this chapter, we describe the results of two studies that elucidate the content of the entrepreneur’s role and assess its generalizability and cultural uniqueness in three cultures: the United States, China, and Taiwan. We do so by examining the prototypes, or culturally shared implicit theories or schema that individuals hold about the attributes and behaviors characterizing the entrepreneur’s role. We suggest that the entrepreneur prototype has overlapping content across these three cultures, and that they also reflect cultural uniqueness due to different political, economic, and social histories and conditions. First, we conducted an initial inductive study designed to elicit a comprehensive list of representative characteristics and behaviors that are commonly recognized in each society as typical of an “entrepreneur,” resulting in an inclusive list of 87 prototypical/anti-prototypical items. These items were subsequently used in a survey-based study to assess the specific content that each culture endorses as prototypical of an entrepreneur, the extent to which those prototypes varied across the three cultures, and relationships of prototype evaluation with individuals’ personal values and exposure to entrepreneurship. Results showed that prototypes were distinct in each culture, but with some overlap of attributes, especially between China and Taiwan. Results showed some support for the relationship between top-ranked prototypical attributes and individuals’ exposure to entrepreneurship as well as openness-to-change values and conservation values, but also interesting differences in these relationships in the three cultures. The findings highlight that role prototype formation processes across these cultures were etic, but that the content of the role may well be emic or culturally specific.

Entrepreneurship education has had a remarkable evolution over time and the number of entrepreneurship textbooks has multiplied given the increased interest in entrepreneurship programs in higher education. Yet, studies that review the coverage of textbooks focusing on entrepreneurship are scarce. This study provides an inventory of entrepreneurship textbooks and the topics they cover as well as specific emerging topics they do not cover by analyzing the content of 57 textbooks. Our results suggest that most textbooks provide significant coverage of such topics as the nature of entrepreneurship, business plans, financing, marketing, and cases. Among emerging concepts, social media has been relatively well covered with increasing coverage in more recent textbooks, while business canvas, as an example of alternatives to conventional business plans, is rarely covered. Most textbooks have provided little coverage of such topics as sales, family business, women and minorities, as well as ethics and sustainability. This study not only reveals areas that are covered by existing textbooks but also themes that future textbooks and research could cover to address the challenges of future entrepreneurship education.

This chapter examines the definitions of bullying used by students and adults in elementary schools and the effects that these definitions had within the broader school culture.

I combine interviews with 53 students and 10 adults and over 430 hours of participant observation with fifth grade students at two rural elementary schools.

Definitions of bullying held by those in these schools typically differed from those used by researchers. Even when individuals held definitions that were in line with those used by researchers, however, a focus on identifying bullies rather than on behaviors that fit definitions of bullying contributed to a school culture in which negative interactions were normalized and student reports of these behaviors were discouraged.

This study is limited to two elementary schools in the rural Midwest and cannot be seen as representative of all schools. Support for my findings from other research combined with similar definitions and school cultures in both schools, however, suggest that these definitions and practices are part of a broader cultural context of bullying in the United States.

These findings suggest that schools might be better served by focusing less on labels like “bully” and more on particular behaviors that are to be taken seriously by students, teachers, staff members, and principals.

Although other researchers have studied definitions of bullying, none have combined these definitions with observational data on the broader school contexts in which those definitions are created and used.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.