Search results

In this study, the authors develop knowledge and insights on how the perception of interestingness influences the structure and focus of conversations in entrepreneurial education (EE) research. In particular, the authors elaborate on what is perceived as interesting among different subgroups of EE researchers, and not least, how EE researchers can identify and engage in scholarly conversation within the field.

The study is based on a unique database with web-based responses from 465 EE researchers from around the world. The authors conduct analyses of both open-ended and closed questions. The open-ended questions are analyzed by inductive categorization. The closed questions are subject to factor and cluster analyses.

The findings suggest that EE research is a topic-oriented field, characterized by a strong focus on novel and challenging research issues. In addition, the field is individualistic and fragmented, and the perception of interestingness differs between five subgroups of EE researchers, whose members have a somewhat different perception of interestingness. Accordingly, the authors also find different core conversations going on within the field. Obviously, these conversations tend to be triggered by the field's obsession with novelty and challenging research, but several conversations are related to practically relevant research, as well as methodological and theoretical discussions.

This is the first study to elaborate on the perception of interestingness among EE researchers and the conversations going on within the field. In the study the authors have explored the characteristics of EE research based on the perception of interestingness among the researchers within the field. In this respect, this study contributes insights on how current and aspiring EE researchers can find and build scholarly conversations embedded in passionate interest, while concurrently disseminating and accumulating knowledge on EE together with like-minded peers.

Research in entrepreneurship has a long radition and there is considerable knowledge within the field. However, in many instances, researches today do not do their “ground work” sufficiently well.

The purpose of the paper is to explore knowledge accumulation in research on pedagogy in entrepreneurship education, with particular attention to how core journal outlets, core topics and core scholarly works have developed over time.

The authors combine a systematic literature review technique and bibliometric analysis to depict the development of this stream of research in the period 1995–2018.

Findings from the analyses suggests that research addressing pedagogy in entrepreneurship education has developed into a coherent research theme over the past decade, with a noticeable cognitive structure in core research topics and core works, as well as a number of core journal outlets for debates and dissemination of findings.

The study is anchored in a bibliometric research tradition and influenced by the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.

The paper provided contributes to the understanding of knowledge accumulation in research addressing pedagogy in entrepreneurial education.

Contemporary entrepreneurial education (EE) has global reach and impact, with a growing number of entrepreneurship courses, specializations, and degrees in all parts of the world. There is no longer a question of the significance and demand for EE in the higher education system. At the same time, the interest in scientific knowledge and proven experience of “what works” has accelerated, resulting in a rapid growth in the number of scholars and research-based publications conversing vividly about the field. This chapter elaborates on the historical evolution of EE as a scholarly field. First, an overview of important milestones and major events that shaped the field is provided. Second, by focusing on the development over the last three decades, the authors present an overview of the advances that have occurred within the field in terms of practice, social, and research-based aspects. The historical review shows how EE began in, but gradually separated from entrepreneurship as a field, which can be observed in the development of research outlets, meeting places, and teaching practice. Consequently, this historical review can serve as a point of departure for showing how the field has emerged and how knowledge has been developed and accumulated over time. The authors believe that this review can be helpful for scholars, particularly new entrants such as PhD students and other scholars entering the EE field, to learn from and contextualize their own research-based historical insight.

Book review by James W. Bronson. Luca Iandoli, Hans Landstrom, and Mario Raffa, eds. Entrepreneurship, Competitiveness and Local Development. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2007. ISBN 9781847203274

A great deal of policy thinking in the last ten to 15 years has been driven by the insights gained from the so‐called “new growth theory”. The theory emphasizes that investments in knowledge and human capital generate economic growth through spillover of knowledge, and the policy implication is that investments in knowledge and human capital are the best way to stimulate growth. However, there is a couple of missing links in the “spillover argument” in that the theory seems to disregard the role of the entrepreneur. The paper aims to answer the question: Why haven't entrepreneurship researchers become a strong voice regarding the understanding of the development of the knowledge economy?

The author argues that a dynamic and innovative research field is characterized by a balance between the pursuit of new issues and knowledge in research, for example, by being sensitive for changes in society, and the development of existing knowledge, by integrating and validating the knowledge base already existing within the field.

The paper shows that one important reason for the lack of visibility of entrepreneurship research can be found in an internal scientific development of the research field – entrepreneurship research has become more and more theory‐driven and shows less sensitivity and openness for changes in society.

The article gives a critical reflection on the development of entrepreneurship as a research field. In this sense the article provides an increased understanding of the knowledge that is within the field, and gives also suggestions for the future development of the research field.