Search results

The present study examines entrepreneurship in established firms holistically and critically. The authors start by reviewing previous research and highlight a variety of definitional, conceptual, methodological, contextual, and temporal factors that have been confounding the research. The authors then present a multidimensional framework that specifies a more nuanced picture of the determinants, motives, activities, and consequences of corporate in established firms. Finally, the authors discuss conceptual, methodological, and practical implications, as well as outline future research avenues.

Shane and Venkataraman (2000) suggest “the field [of entrepreneurship] involves the study of sources of opportunities; the processes of discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities; and the set of individuals who discover, evaluate, and exploit them” (p. 218). However, the study of the judgment required for opportunity evaluation has been greatly overshadowed by interest in opportunity recognition and to a lesser extent opportunity exploitation. This is surprising considering the number of economic theories of the entrepreneur that recognize sound judgment as a principal quality of entrepreneurship (Cantillon, 1755; Kirzner, 1973; Knight, 1921; Mises, 1949; Say, 1840; Schumpeter, 1934; Shackle, 1955). In fact, the first recognized theory of the entrepreneur defined the entrepreneur as someone who exercises business judgment in the face of uncertainty (Cantillon, 1755/1931, pp. 47–49). Similarly, Knight (1921, p. 271) suggests that the essence of entrepreneurship is judgment, born of uncertainty, and argues that it is this judgment that delineates the function of entrepreneur from that of manager. He goes on to point out that the function of manager does not in itself imply entrepreneurship but that a manager becomes an entrepreneur when he exercises judgment involving liability to error (Knight, 1921, p. 97). However, the judgment referred to by these theorists is not just any form of judgment, it is judgment exercised in the decision of whether to take action.

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.

Although a growing body of literature that we will discuss later in the paper gives evidence of changing perspectives on entrepreneurship – perspectives that reveal increasing emphasis on the collectivity – two troubling themes persist: (1) the “myth of the lonely only entrepreneur,” and (2) the supply versus demand perspectives on mass entrepreneurial activity. In the sections that follow, we briefly describe these perspectives and argue that they have long since overstayed their welcome.

This chapter outlines a design-science perspective of entrepreneurship. It zooms in on the junction between present and future to distinguish entrepreneurship as a natural and as an artificial phenomenon. While the current study of entrepreneurship speaks to the former, it has been silent on the latter. The chapter discusses design as a distinct mode of research, opportunity as a design artifact, and the generative power of recursive action to make the case for problematizing entrepreneurial action as a focus of research. It then defines its research questions, discusses the logic and process for addressing them, and outlines the nature of research outputs.

Entrepreneurial education is gaining traction in Ghana. The purpose of this chapter was to assess the influences of social enterprises in promoting entrepreneurial education, using Ghanaian social enterprises as a case study. The study adopted a qualitative research approach. A multiple case study analysis examined the influences of social enterprises in Ghana. Four in-depth qualitative case studies offer insight into social enterprise practices. Sustainability, innovation, control and employment issues stand out as key effects of Ghanaian social enterprise practices. The social practice theory framework is used to draw the linkages of the structure and agency relationships. Sustainability emerges as the most dominant impact of social enterprise practice followed by innovation, control and employment. These four descriptive terms summarise the universal effects of Ghanaian social enterprises' practices. The study identifies and assesses the role of social enterprises in social entrepreneurial education in addressing social ills and environmental challenges facing Ghana. The emphasis placed on each of the identified four constructs describes the plausible roles of Ghana's social enterprises in achieving productive entrepreneurship through entrepreneurship education. The result shows the pursuit of multiple practices is a common feature of social enterprises. The limitations of the study stem from methodological approach as it is qualitative approach bias and a single country case. Likewise, the subjectivities of the samples direct the results of the study. The study draws the attention of stakeholders and policymakers to the goodwill of social entrepreneurship education in Ghana. Many studies have been conducted on entrepreneurial education in the contextual setting of this study. This present study focused on the practices of social enterprises in Ghana that influences entrepreneurial education.

This chapter sets forth how and why diary data analysis can help significantly advance inquiry into the intersubjective aspects of entrepreneurial opportunities. We start the chapter with a presentation of the sensemaking perspective for the study of intersubjectivity in entrepreneurship. Next, we address epistemological limitations of retrospective data collection methods and examine the relevance of real-time, prospective data, specifically diary data, for the study of intersubjective phenomena associated with entrepreneurial activity. Furthermore, we describe our experiences with application of this method to the study of entrepreneurial cognitive development in the context of longitudinal, diary data-based research on this topic. We also address limitations of the diary data collection method and propose future research avenues for studies on intersubjective dimensions of entrepreneurial agency, before concluding this chapter.

In a world where we recognize entrepreneurial means, ends and values in terms of geographies of meaning, this book explores the phenomenon of Entrepreneurial Place Leadership. This book identifies that a place-led perspective of entrepreneurial development is becoming increasingly important, given narratives around entrepreneurial ecosystems, spatial and temporal contexts, and the active design of entrepreneurial institutions. This introductory chapter outlines the rationale for the book, explores the entrepreneurial landscape and then highlights the chapter contributions. It concludes by drawing together policy and practice recommendations and suggesting directions for future research.

The chapter analyzes tendencies and initiatives regarding entrepreneurship development and support at European Union and Romanian levels, and also the role and importance of education by investigating the existence of specific training courses for entrepreneurs and guiding successors from family-owned technology-based businesses. The purpose of the analysis is to determine the tendency to involve graduate students in entrepreneurial field and to provide solutions to streamline entrepreneurship education and educational institutions.

The chapter focuses on the difficulties faced by the Romanian family-owned and technology-based businesses (in general) and small businesses in particular – the aim of this chapter is to reveal that – while [technology] entrepreneurship and small business management are topics fairly well covered by the engineering curricula of the Romanian technical universities – the problem of business succession (either property or management succession) is not discussed; therefore, there is no wonder that entrepreneurs are not prepared to make the related decisions; even worse, they are not aware of the capital importance of planning the succession process well in advance, and – as result – their decisions in this regard are precarious.

Conclusions can be useful to engineering professors, university managers and policymakers as well as young people who want to pursue an entrepreneurial path or are about to take over the management of the family business; they should realize that entrepreneurship is not just starting-up a business, but it involves a way of strategic thinking which leads to attitude formation and development of useful skills in the field of business development and management.