Search results

Intrapreneurs are those employees who identify and pursue opportunities in a firm. By pursuing these opportunities with new products, services or processes, intrapreneurial employees may influence the strategic direction of the firm, a process called intrapreneurial strategy-making. Little consideration has been given to how small firms may use this process to improve performance. To this end this paper describes the results of an empirical study conducted with 454 small firms. Analysis of the data indicates that intrapreneurial strategy-making has a significant positive relationship with firm performance, depending on the size of the firm, its organizational structure and the dynamism of the environment. It further shows that differentiation strategies may mediate this relationship.

In today's competitive environment firms can seldom rely on their current products and services to secure their future success (Miller, 1983; Zahra, 1993; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Neither can they ignore their position in the market vis-à-vis their current and potential competitors (Barney, 2002). To win in the competitive global market, firms also have to continuously improve their internal processes in order to ensure that operations are efficiently performed (Carpinetti & Martins, 2001; Tompkins, 2001). These challenges may seem overwhelming and even threatening, but by generating more opportunities firms can increase the possibility of obtaining successful outcomes. This is based on the assumption that the discovery of new opportunities helps leverage a firm's value creation and ensures that the firm remains vital (Stevenson, 1983).

This tenth volume in the series Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth focuses on entrepreneurial strategic processes. Papers related to strategic processes in entrepreneurship have been a recurring feature of the Advances series, starting with the second volume, which included Slevin and Covin's (1995) article of record on entrepreneurial strategic behavior, as well as process-related strategy articles by Carsrud and Kruerger (1995) and Bloodgood, Sapienza, and Carsrud (1995). Subsequent explorations included Volume 7's material on corporate entrepreneurship, Fernhaber and McDougall's (2005) work on strategic adaptation in Volume 8, as well as Salvato, Lassini, and Wiklund's (2006) acquisition process model and Samuelsson's innovative-imitative process comparison in Volume 9. Common to all of these has been the central intent of the strategy approach: the pursuit of organizational success.

This essay addresses the topic of research lifeworlds and personal lifeworlds and what we gain and lose as researchers, and as people, from their overlaps and collisions. The essay analyses six narrative accounts of the authors lived experience of a unique collision between research and personal lifeworlds when the researcher-mother presented with her sick daughter to the hospital emergency department that served as the field site for her own research. This analysis revealed the following themes through which a researcher’s personhood animates the research process: feeling exposed but empowered; gaining conceptual clarity while opening up ethical ambiguity; and becoming liminal because of identity shifts and coping through self-reflexivity. The essay contributes to our collective understanding and shared learning of the ways a researcher’s personhood shapes, and is shaped by, the research process and (re)production of knowledge.

The intellectual and academic legitimacy of Comparative Education has been a critical issue in the international debate for a long time now. The fragility of the field is well known and understood. Despite frictions and misunderstandings, there are academic and professional structures robust enough to sustain the identity of the field in numerous countries on all continents. In Romania, there are no systematic concerns related to Comparative Education as an epistemologically autonomous field. Moreover, we cannot even argue for the existence of enough academic infrastructures to support Comparative Education as a research direction. But as countries in the world cannot afford to ignore global trends in terms of economy, technology, culture, Romania cannot disregard developments of educational policies and practices in Europe and throughout the world. Globalization and interconnections between contemporary societies raise common challenges for education systems in the world, and these are eventually reflected in national academic discourses. The major objectives of the present chapter are the following: (1) proposing an inventory of causes that led to the delay in establishing Comparative Education as an autonomous research field in Romania and (2) identifying progresses and accumulations that could lead to establishing Comparative Education as an explicit rather than tangential research field in Romania.