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.

Experiential approaches have become increasingly common in entrepreneurship education in response to calls for different approaches to the traditional didactic process-driven approach. Experiential approaches offer the potential to develop the skills and mindset that are required in entrepreneurship. Research has highlighted the critical importance of educator pedagogical competence in the delivery and quality of teaching and learning in further and higher education. Nevertheless, educator narratives and practices are often based on foundations that suggest a lack in the depth of knowledge and understanding of the underlying pedagogic learning theories and practice. This paper brings educational theory and pedagogic practice together in a three-stage framework of the experiential entrepreneurship learning process to support entrepreneurship educators within further and higher education.

This paper reviews and brings together the seminal educational theories and philosophies of constructivism, objectivism, Kolb's (1984) theory of experiential learning, Schön's (1983) reflection-in-action and Mezirow's (1997) theory of transformative learning, to develop a framework which underpins the experiential entrepreneurship learning process.

This paper develops a three-stage framework which informs the roles of an educator and a learner in experiential entrepreneurship education within further and higher education, based on educational theories and philosophies that inform the learning process.

The developed framework supports the pedagogic competence of educators in the delivery of experiential entrepreneurship education through a deeper understanding of the supporting theory that informs the pedagogic practice. This will provide consolidation to enable educators to maximise the effectiveness of their educational practice (Kaynardağ, 2019) and can increase the legitimacy of entrepreneurship education (Foliard et al., 2018).

This paper meets calls in the literature to provide a closer engagement between educational theory and pedagogic practice to afford guidance as to how educators can navigate some of the different educational theories and philosophies to consolidate the effective delivery of quality experiential entrepreneurship education. Applying seminal educational theories and philosophies to ensure the quality of experiential education can support the legitimacy of experiential entrepreneurship education.

The purpose of this research was to empirically examine the career transitions of mid-career African American women leaving traditional careers for entrepreneurship. The authors illustrate how transition theory and effectuation principles ameliorate an African American woman's transition to entrepreneurship.

The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with nine African American woman entrepreneurs. The data collected were evaluated through the lens of transition theory and effectuation theory.

The study results show that despite being the chief officer, many African American women still face inequalities when negotiating business deals, interacting with partners and when seeking capital for their business. Effectuation theory partially supports an African American woman's career transition to entrepreneurship, but the theory does not fully address the unique experiences of this demographic.

The results of this study reveal that effectuation principles do not fully explain the entrepreneurial career transition experiences of African American women. Theory development and extensions of existing theories should consider the potential discriminatory practices that limit financial resources and strategic partnerships for African American women entrepreneurs. The authors also advocate for consideration of identities, particularly related to gender and race, as factors that contribute to entrepreneurial experiences.

The study findings support the notion that each woman's situation will be different and unique, requiring aspiring African American woman entrepreneurs to assess their individual situation. Consistent access to minority-specific programs can help aspiring African American women entrepreneurs visualize her new identity and provide the support needed to enhance her career transition. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, so each woman will need to craft her own individualized plan.

Findings from this study solidify the role of African American women entrepreneurs as business leaders with influence and direct impact on the US economy. Their success enables African American women to contribute to more inclusive societies through their service to diverse members of society. In addition, their attainment of success serves as a testimony to aspiring African American women that entrepreneurial success is achievable, encouraging more diversity in entrepreneurship.

Few entrepreneurial studies exist on both women and racial minorities, resulting in a paucity of strategies to support African American women throughout their entrepreneurial journey. The results of this study revealed barriers which require specific strategies to address discriminatory lending practices and acceptance when forging new business relationships.

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.

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.

This paper aims to evaluate the progress made in understanding the impact of multi-level institutions on entrepreneurship.

Based on scientific articles published between 1992 and 2017, the authors take a unique focus on both institutional theory applied and research topics of this area. Bibliometric method and systematic literature review method are used.

The results demonstrate that although institutional theory is well prepared for entrepreneurship context operating at different levels, the major knowledge foundation used predominantly focuses on macro and meso level. When it comes to research topics, entrepreneurship is often simplified as the founding of new venture, and the unique venture founding process has rarely been explored.

This paper is the first to provide a full picture of the multi-level institutions and their consequences on different kinds of entrepreneurial activities. The authors’evaluation of this research area also points out directions for future study.