Search results

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instead of single actors and/or teams of actors because value can only be assessed in relation to the costs of services withdrawn.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.

Scholars have applied a number of theoretical perspectives to enhance understanding of social entrepreneurial opportunities, and have most recently turned to the lens of critical realism. Although this metatheoretical perspective overcomes some problems with previous views and helps to identify the essence of a construct, the level of abstraction required by this approach leaves unanswered questions related to how social entrepreneurs leverage opportunities. The purpose of this paper is to create a framework to describe social entrepreneurial opportunities in a way that facilitates action and decision-making by social entrepreneurs.

Through adapting Davidsson's (2015) deconstruction of the opportunity construct and using it to inform the pragmatist view of entrepreneurs as theory-testing scientists, this paper develops a framework for understanding social entrepreneurial opportunities. The paper explores the idea that social opportunities are composed of external enablers, a new social venture idea, and social opportunity confidence, and integrates the existing literature on social opportunities into this framework.

Using the framework developed, the authors advance a template of questions, hypotheses and quasi-experimental means that social entrepreneurs can use to determine how to move forward in social opportunity actualization. The authors also expand three categories of research questions that scholars may explore to extend the practical and theoretical understanding of social opportunities.

This work is among the first to adopt the pragmatist lens to elucidate social opportunities in a practical way. It takes an important first step in offering a means for social entrepreneurs to investigate when or where the requisite components of a social entrepreneurial opportunity may exist. Furthermore, it advances the pragmatist perspective of social opportunities by using Davidsson's model to explain the components of theories about what may or may not be a social opportunity.

Entrepreneurship research has grown in both quality and quantity over the past decade, as many theoretical innovations and important empirical research findings have been introduced to the field. However, theoretical approaches to understanding entrepreneurship remain fragmented, and empirical findings are unstable across different contexts. This chapter describes features of a multi-level process view of new venture emergence that adds coherence to the entrepreneurship theory jungle and brings order to idiosyncratic empirical results, by explaining how ideas become organized into new ventures. The centerpiece of this effort is enactment theory, a general process approach specifically developed to explain organizing processes. Enactment theory – and Campbellian evolutionary theorizing more generally – has a long history of use within and across multiple levels of analysis. Consequently, the description here illustrates how organizing unfolds across multiple levels of analysis and multiple phases of development. After describing the theorizing assumptions and multi-level process view of new venture organizing, the chapter explores implications of applying this perspective by suggesting new research directions and interpretations of prior work. The aim is to advocate process theorizing as a more productive approach to understanding new venture emergence.

The purpose of this article is to extend effectuation theory at the front end by building cognitive foundations for the effectual design process.

We adopt an integrative conceptual approach drawing on design cognition theory to explain entrepreneurial cognition.

We find a significant gap in the entrepreneurial cognition literature with respect to effectuation processes. We thus integrate the Situated Function–Behavior–Structure framework from design theory to elaborate on the cognitive processes of effectuation, specifically with regard to the opportunity development process. This framework describes the cognitive subprocesses by which entrepreneurs means and ends are cyclically (re)formulated over time until a viable “opportunity” emerges, and the venture is formalized, or else, the entrepreneur abandons the venture and exits.”

Unravelling this entrepreneurial design process may facilitate more appropriate and effective design work by entrepreneurs, leading to more successful product designs. It also should facilitate the development of better design techniques and instruction.

This research contributes to new cognitive foundations for effectuation theory and entrepreneurial process research. It better explains how means are transformed into valuable goods over time through an iterative reconsideration of means-ends frameworks. This theoretical elaboration will expectedly facilitate additional research into the iterative cognitive processes of design and enable more formulaic design thinking.

Twenty-one years ago (1997), the entrepreneurial revolution, both academic and actual, was just beginning. Entrepreneurial opportunities represent both the core theoretical construct and the plethora of products, services, processes, and business models, which dramatically changed daily life. This chapter examines key developments, which have emerged in the scholarly investigation of the opportunity identification process during the intervening years: what fundamentally is an opportunity; what socio-cognitive processes are involved; what is the role of time, of meaning, of context; and finally, what is the relationship between the academic and practitioner. In addition, exemplary research work is highlighted and guidelines for future academic efforts are offered.

In the United States, policy discussions of teacher education in relationship to teacher quality have tended to focus more closely around debates about the nature of teacher preparation and the need for quality teachers to possess advanced degrees or certification. The field is in need of an array of indicators – a set of powerful, well-researched indicators that can be applied to large public universities as well as small regional private colleges, from university-based programs to “alternative” programs and to more “hybrid” programs. These indicators need to be relevant for teacher certification across a variety of age-ranges and developmental stages. In this chapter, we build on a growing conversation about practice in teacher education and efforts on the part of researchers to identify key features of powerful teacher education. We propose that quality teacher education is designed around a clear and shared vision of good teaching; it is coherent in that it links theory with practice and offers opportunities to learn that are aligned with the vision of good teaching; and it offers opportunities to enact teaching. While these features are supported for the most part by growing consensus in the literature (National Research Council, 2010; NCATE, 2010), there is also an emerging empirical base that provides support for the value of these features as well.

Entrepreneurial process strongly relies on context. The previous entrepreneurship research in developed countries over-emphasizes on its economic impact, but ignores its social impact, which leads to the slow development of entrepreneurship theories. Transitioning China provides entrepreneurs with a typical environment where opportunities and constraints coexist, which is a new research area in the field of entrepreneurship study.

Based on the grounded theory approach, this paper generalizes a local entrepreneurial process model from a multiple case study.

The paper states that the interaction among entrepreneurs, opportunities and institutional context is the core of the process. To be specific, entrepreneurial process includes an inner and an outer mechanism. The inner mechanism is based on the relations among institutional constraints, entrepreneurs and opportunities: nascent entrepreneurs, forced by institutional constraints to start a business, undergo a psychological process with entrepreneurial angst, reflective learning and effectuation and finally create business opportunities. The outer mechanism is grounded in the relations among new ventures, institutional evolution and opportunity development: new ventures facilitate institutional evolution through institutional entrepreneurship strategies, which in turn supports the ventures in the sustainable development of opportunities.

This study illuminates the social and institutional impact of entrepreneurial behavior, which is gradually fading and forgotten in modern society. The findings of the study enrich the research on entrepreneurial process, entrepreneurial cognition and institutional entrepreneurship and also provide implications for entrepreneurs.

The purpose of the paper is to address the fundamental nature of skill and identify how an examination of skill may be introduced into theoretical understanding of the entrepreneurial process.

The paper undertakes a fundamental review of skill.

Skill is an under‐researched construct. Skills once learnt are discounted, undervalued and largely ignored, excepting when they are not executed. Skills are multidimensional and continuous, and context‐related. They are not the same as competencies. Skills associated with the entrepreneurial process are primarily theoretical constructs and have been associated with opportunity recognition theory. The initiation of the process through alertness may be challenged and substituted with identification of a social/market valued need. Adopting different paradigmatic approaches to entrepreneurial behaviour yields different issues including problems of measurement and how skills are valued socially, politically and economically. Insufficient empirical research has been carried out to test theory, and identify critical skills.

Further empirical research is needed to test and build theory that resonates with practitioner – in particular of the entrepreneur – understanding. Education and training policies should reflect sound theory and practice and where appropriate fund further work on the nature and development of entrepreneurial skills.

A fundamental review of skill has not been carried out academically since 1990; this paper is timely as it not only addresses that gap, but develops the work by applying an understanding the issues of researching skill to the entrepreneurial process.