Search results

How can we foster entrepreneurship? This was one of the basic questions to ask when we, like many others, started to consider different approaches concerning how to motivate students to become interested in entrepreneurship. We soon became puzzled by the theoretical approaches to entrepreneurship. Something seemed to be lacking, for example, the important question of how should one educate entrepreneurs? However, as noticed by Landström (2000) and Sundnäs, Kjellam and Eriksson (2002), it is through the expansion of the theoretical roots of entrepreneurship, i.e. from the economic, behavioural and business studies to multidisciplinary research, that the picture becomes more understandable, albeit more complex.

Entrepreneurship remains a young scholarly discipline characterized by low paradigmatic development. Herein, we discuss theoretical and methodological issues associated with this rapidly emerging yet still developing research area. We argue that theory and methodology are symbiotic components of research and should develop concurrently in order to support the evolution of a paradigm for entrepreneurship research. Further, we posit that effective growth of entrepreneurship research will occur as a result of appropriately extending theory and methods from other scholarly disciplines as well as from theoretical and methodological innovations that are unique to entrepreneurship. Based on the positions taken in this chapter, we also advance recommendations for scholars to consider as work is completed to develop a systematic body of knowledge about entrepreneurship.

The chapter aims to enhance the understanding of the development of Kirzner’s theory of entrepreneurship. To do so, elements in Kirzner’s works published up until 1973 that enclose the central points of this theory are studied. The chapter has four sections, in addition to the introduction and conclusion, that highlight the arguments that relate to Kirzner’s theory of entrepreneurship: (i) before the publication of his 1967 paper that presents the entrepreneurial function in the market process (1960–1967); between the 1967 paper and the publication of his most important book, Competition and Entrepreneurship, in 1973 (1967–1973); (iii) in Kirzner’s latest version of entrepreneurship theory as presented in his 1973 book; and (iv) the evolution of Kirzner’s thinking. The evolution of the author’s thinking regarding equilibrium and the entrepreneur is highlighted by presenting the different stages of his theory of entrepreneurship between 1960 and 1973.

Global entrepreneurship may be defined to be the creation of new, value-adding transactions or transaction streams anywhere on the globe. The objective of this chapter is to present and examine a theory of global entrepreneurship. At the World Economic Forum held in Davos, Switzerland, in January 1999, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called for global entrepreneurship to meet the needs of the disadvantaged and the requirements of future generations. This chapter first presents a transaction cognition theory of global entrepreneurship that is intended as a path for research that responds to this call. Second, this chapter examines the theory from three critical viewpoints: (1) capability for explanation; (2) theoretical and operational utility; and (3) verifiability through the logic of scientific inference, and presents likely propositions that are surfaced by the analysis. Finally in this chapter, some of the likely implications of this theory within the context of globalization are discussed.

Entrepreneurship is ubiquitous, but it is not unequivocally a human force for social and economic good. Critical perspectives of the entrepreneur, entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial success (and failure) are evolving in the scholarly literature. Dark side theory has emerged as a language for critiquing the dominant narratives of entrepreneurship portrayed in scholarship, education, planning, policy, and other forms of practice. This chapter draws from dark side entrepreneurship theory, Baumolian entrepreneurship, and exemplars of counterculture to craft language for an emerging theory of misfit entrepreneurship, which consists of misfit entrepreneurs and alternative enterprises. Alternative enterprises and misfit entrepreneurs are conceptualized, and literary examples (i.e., Robin Hood and Song Jiang) and modern-day examples (i.e., Hacker groups) are supplied. The unique actions and impacts of misfit entrepreneurs and alternative enterprises are offered for discussion. This new theory of misfit entrepreneurship leaves readers with exploratory questions that enhance critical perspectives and modern understandings of entrepreneurship today.

The prevailing theories of entrepreneurship have typically revolved around the ability of individuals to recognize opportunities and act on them by starting new ventures. This has generated a literature asking why entrepreneurial behavior varies across individuals with different characteristics, while implicitly holding the external context in which the individual finds oneself to be constant. Thus, where the opportunities come from, or the source of entrepreneurial opportunities, are also implicitly taken as given. By contrast, we provide a theory identifying at least one source of entrepreneurial opportunity – new knowledge and ideas that are not fully commercialized by the organization actually investing in the creation of that knowledge. The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship holds individual characteristics as given, but lets the context vary. In particular, high knowledge contexts are found to generate more entrepreneurial opportunities, where the entrepreneur serves as a conduit for knowledge spillovers. By contrast, impoverished knowledge contexts are found to generate fewer entrepreneurial opportunities. By serving as a conduit for knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship is the missing link between investments in new knowledge and economic growth. Thus, the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship provides not just an explanation of why entrepreneurship has become more prevalent as the factor of knowledge has emerged as a crucial source for comparative advantage, but also why entrepreneurship plays a vital role in generating economic growth. Entrepreneurship is an important mechanism permeating the knowledge filter to facilitate the spillover of knowledge, and ultimately generating economic growth.

The aim of this chapter is to provide a relevant theoretical contribution to the field of entrepreneurship in cultural and creative industries (CCI) and suggestions for a research agenda. Entrepreneurship research is characterised by an apparent fragmentation, even if scholars advocate the development of a ‘stronger paradigm’ to strengthen the discipline. Rather than making explicit what is specific to entrepreneurship in CCI, or delineating the boundaries of a new community of scholars, in this chapter, the author attempts to identify certain key ingredients of a ‘hodgepodge’. The Schumpeterian entrepreneur, the opportunity seeker, and the everyday entrepreneur are introduced as well as an action model in which the reciprocal agency–structure relationship finds a place. It is highlighted how theories such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour, Social Identity Theory, Institutional Theory, Practice Theory, and Paradox Theory (can) inform research on entrepreneurship in CCI.

How general can a “general” theory of entrepreneurship be? Abstraction is a necessity but is it possible to include venture opportunity variation in a general theory of entrepreneurship building on two contrasting perspectives such as equilibrium economics and disequilibrium economics. Two important boundaries need to be explicated. First, defining entrepreneurship as the creation of new economic activity includes both the creation of new means – ends (cf. Schumpeter, 1934) – as well as optimizing within known means – ends frameworks (cf. Kirzner, 1997). Second, such a theory includes an opportunity – actor nexus because it is the first tangible or intangible evidence of existing venture opportunities. Formal models of entrepreneurship often start with a person and at some point in time an exchange of persons with firms take place which is confusing because both levels of analysis and outcome are mixed with each other. Apparently, there is no such thing as entrepreneurship without actors, but if we want to create knowledge about the creation of economic activity, we need to frame our boundary around the nascent initiative instead of single actors and/or teams of actors because value can only be assessed in relation to the costs of services withdrawn. Analogous to this is, for example, the theory of firm and the theory of organizations with boundaries well beyond single actors or groups of actors. Another factor behind a venture-based theory of entrepreneurship comes from empirical evidence from the Swedish PSED, which suggests that approximately 16% (n=97) nascent entrepreneurs are exchanged during the start-up process. Formal models of entrepreneurship could therefore start with the nexus of venture opportunities and enterprising actors as suggested by Shane (2003) or with resources as suggested by Davidsson (2000) and progress forward in the entrepreneurial process. Entrepreneurship models built around the economic activity itself needs to be dynamic allowing different outcomes and feedback loops because resource combinations alter our perception of value and diffuses information, which may lead to additional resource combinations (Hayek, 1945).

This chapter considers the role of entrepreneurship theory in the development of ideation techniques for entrepreneurship education. It begins by considering how metatheories impact theory construction in entrepreneurship research and discusses the role of ontology, epistemology, axiology, as well as the role of assumptions about human nature and social change. The chapter presents four different paradigms of thought that apply different philosophies and illustrates how these different paradigms conceptualize entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial opportunity differently. The four paradigms include the equilibrium paradigm, the disequilibrium paradigm, the disruptive innovation paradigm, and the social constructionism paradigm. Within each paradigm, the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity is discussed, and the chapter provides examples to show how different ideation techniques can be generated from these different conceptualizations. Forms of ideation technique are presented and explained, as they relate to each paradigm, and the chapter concludes by explaining the value of these techniques for ideation, opportunity discovery, and creation, in the entrepreneurial process.

The methodology discussed in this chapter is extracted from a qualitative analysis that explored the entrepreneurship of Mexicans in three cities in the province of Quebec using the conceptualising categories inspired by grounded theory as an analytical tool. The main contribution of the chapter lies in the fact that the methodological decisions that were taken to answer the research question about the process of business creation by immigrants of Mexican origin are explicitly given in detail. The use and limits of the grounded theory methodology in entrepreneurship studies are discussed. The data collection procedures, the corpus of information that was analysed, the characteristics of the people who participated in the study, as well as the instruments and techniques used to understand the data are described. The chapter details the prior considerations for the selection of the study territory and the particular limits of the research. This is rarely done in studies of immigrant entrepreneurship.