Search results

There is progress in entrepreneurship research. Important works in entrepreneurship increasingly appear in highly respected, mainstream journals (see Busenitz et al., 2003; Davidsson, Low & Wright, 2001). There is conceptual development that attracts attention (e.g. Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) and handbooks are compiled, providing the field with more of a common body of knowledge (Acs & Audretsch, 2003a; Shane, 2000a; Westhead & Wright, 2000). Further, there is evidence of methodological improvements (Chandler & Lyon, 2001) and accumulation of meaningful findings on various levels of analysis (Davidsson & Wiklund, 2001). Moreover, due to time lags in publication the reported improvements are likely to be underestimated. This author’s experience as organizer, reviewer and participant in core entrepreneurship conferences on both sides of the Atlantic (e.g. Babson; RENT) suggests that much of the lower end of the quality distribution has either disappeared from the submissions or is screened out in the review process. Much more than used to be the case a few years back we find among the presented papers research that is truly theory-driven; research on the earliest stages of business development, and research that employs methods suitable for causal inference, i.e. experiments and longitudinal designs.

This chapter is a reflection of how Venkataraman’s “The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research” has influenced the field of entrepreneurship. The theory underlying the original chapter provided the first true theoretical basis for the discipline of entrepreneurship, grounded in Kirzner and Schumpeter. Its two discrete components, opportunity, and role of the individual became the basis for new approaches in empirical research and new conceptualizations of entrepreneurship theory. These components led to new approaches to concepts such as motivation, perception, and information’s role in the entrepreneurial process. The chapter revisits the three core questions raised by “The Distinctive Domain”: how opportunities arise, why do only some recognize and pursue opportunities, and what are the consequences of the pursuit of opportunities. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the impact of the original chapter in practice and academia.

Resilience has evolved as a dynamic process in the entrepreneurship field. The purpose of this paper is to outline a comprehensive structure to analyse the patterns and trends in the publications of the existing literature at the junction of entrepreneurship and resilience. With the help of bibliometric and network analysis, this study offers insights into the topic that have not been evaluated and assessed by previous reviews.

A computerised search of 104 papers was performed using the Scopus database, and graphical visualisation of the bibliographic material was developed using VOSviewer software.

This comprehensive bibliometric mapping helps in the graphical visualisation of publication evolution of the domain along with identifying present research trends and possible future directions. There is not much collaborative research in the field, as most prolific thinkers work in isolation or in pairs. Hence, there are limited publications in top-rated journals. Future researchers need to work collaboratively to produce high-quality papers. Developed nations make a sound contribution to the field. The exact significance of resilience in entrepreneurship is yet to be determined due to a wide variety of themes that reflect the multi-disciplinary nature of the domain.

Uncovering the trends and developments of the field, this study provides a global perspective and potential themes lying at the junction of resilience and entrepreneurship. Hence, this study provides a robust roadmap for future researchers interested in this area.

In this chapter an argument is made for a clear articulation for the exclusive domain of entrepreneurship research. To date, the entrepreneurship academic community has neglected to define clear boundaries as to what distinguishes entrepreneurship scholarship from other closely related fields. It is argued here that the well-worn constructs of firm performance or success and failure of the individual entrepreneur do not provide the field the clarity of purpose and unique domain it desires. Similarly, the context of small business is not what will bring singular clarity for the field. Instead, this chapter argues that entrepreneurship research should be focused upon understanding how opportunities to bring future goods and services into existence occur.

In this chapter, we review and examine the differences and similarities between social, sustainable, and environmental entrepreneurship. We explore the concepts, key questions, empirical methodologies, and disciplinary roots that differentiate and relate these emergent interest areas. The result of this comparative analysis inevitably raises the question of whether these new literature streams are inclusive or separate from the traditional domain of entrepreneurship research. We find that these three areas share many similarities, yet are distinguishable from one another and from more traditional, commercial forms of entrepreneurship. However, we determine that although these three areas of entrepreneurial scholarship raise unique questions and highlight different types of phenomena, they are not their own fields of study, but rather promising contexts for studying key questions of the entrepreneurship field.

This chapter explores the concept of an entrepreneurship education ecosystem. The concept of ecosystem comes from the natural sciences, but is increasingly applied to regional development, or clusters, which focus on firm inter-organizational relationships. Building on the idea of the university is a key player in a local entrepreneurship ecosystem, this chapter provides a framework for examining a school’s role in this process. A typology is presented that articulates roles that schools may pursue in developing their own internal entrepreneurship education ecosystem.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the elements of education and training intervention that facilitate occupational transition intentions of undergraduates and encourage them to opt for entrepreneurial pursuit.

The study, conducted in India, employed the nominal group technique (NGT) – A systems science technique – which considers that users are experts and they must participate in the decision-making process. The application of NGT involved a workshop format; 15 domain experts participated in the workshop. Throughout the process, a democratic process was followed to avoid individual dominance and premature focusing on a single idea.

The study obtained 63 responses from experts for effective entrepreneurship education in India. The responses were reduced to seven elements after a few thematic iterations. These elements were then segregated into content (knowledge, skills and attitude) and learning interaction on the basis of experts’ responses. An initial draft of the course based upon the elements identified through NGT is presented in this paper.

This study is unique and different from previous research on entrepreneurship education in several ways: It takes cognizance of multiple stakeholders; It provides a theoretical framework along with empirical groundwork; It suggests curriculum contents that have contextual as well as universal relevance. This paper contributes to the emerging dimensions of entrepreneurship literature, which implies a shift from understanding a well-established Western context of entrepreneurship research to transitional societies from the East.

Nation-states, researchers, and organizations realized the pivotal role of social entrepreneurship in economic development in the recent two decades. The body of knowledge in this domain witnessed consistent research growth but it still lacks a critical review to guide future researchers. This chapter contributes to the body of knowledge by presenting the first bibliometric analysis (using software such as HistCite, VOSviewer, and Biblioshiny). The relevant articles were searched in the Web of Science (WOS) database to ensure the inclusion of high-quality research. Among 910 initially retrieved publications 86 most relevant publications were included in the final dataset. The analysis included various bibliometrics and visualization maps such as the publication trends, most influential articles and journals, most productive countries and organizations, co-citation analysis, and thematic clustering of the research. The findings showed an overall consistent growth in research publications during the last 16 years (2005–2020) with Social entrepreneurship and enterprise: international and innovation perspectives' as the most influential article, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development as the most influential journal, and the United States and the United Kingdom as the most productive countries. The keyword co-occurrence analysis exposed five thematic clusters within the selected dataset indicating a relatively less focus on economic development aspects. Thus, future research should explore how social entrepreneurship, while solving social, cultural, environmental, and community issues, contributes to economic development. The research implications and limitations are discussed in the end.

Tucked in the back of Venkataraman’s 1997 work on the distinctive domain of entrepreneurship (DDE) lies a pointer to a question each individual must face when choosing to start a new venture; “is entrepreneurship worth it?” Inventorying costs associated with risk, uncertainty, and illiquidity against surpluses from financial and psychological factors unique to entrepreneurship, Venkataraman tempts readers to tally entrepreneurial returns. The authors summarize and integrate an academic study of these various cost and return components over the past 20 years using Venkataraman’s original framework. The authors find the answer to the question of “is entrepreneurship worth it?” varies with time. Researcher’s answer to the question has shifted from an early view that entrepreneurs sacrifice financial gain in exchange for soft psychological benefits to a more positive view that entrepreneurs are rewarded both financially and psychologically for the unique costs borne in the DDE. But the rewards are not immediate. In entrepreneur time, break-even emerges by gradually overcoming an initial deficit. As surpluses accrue, returns to entrepreneurs likely eventually exceed those of their wage-earning peers.

The purpose of this paper is to create a better understanding of how entrepreneurial education research has evolved with regard to pedagogy over the past decades.

The authors employed systematic review methodology to enable an in-depth analysis of the literature in a process that was both replicable and transparent. Guided by the research purpose, the systematic review of 395 articles published between January 1980 and December 2018 was influenced by a configurative approach aimed at interpreting and understanding the phenomenon under study.

The analysis suggests that the scholarly discourse on pedagogy in entrepreneurial education research has developed over time from teacher-guided instructional models to more constructivist perspectives. A shift in the literature was also observed, where scholarly discussions moved from addressing the issue of teachability to a greater emphasis on learnability. Contemporary discussions centre on the theoretical and philosophical foundations of experience-based teaching and learning.

The study illustrates how entrepreneurial education has evolved into a distinct research theme, characterized by a practice-oriented research agenda that emphasizes the need to connect teaching to “real-world” environments. The practice-oriented agenda has led to continued societal interest in promoting entrepreneurial education, while at the same time creating low academic legitimacy.