Creating the Future Together: Toward a Framework for Research Synthesis in Entrepreneurship

Abstract

To develop a body of evidence-based knowledge on entrepreneurship, findings and contributions from the positivist, narrative and design research traditions in this area need to be combined. Therefore, a framework for research synthesis in terms of social mechanisms, contextual conditions and outcome patterns is developed in this paper. Subsequently, a synthesis of the existing body of research findings on entrepreneurial opportunities serves to illustrate how this framework can be applied and provides results that inform entrepreneurial action. Finally, we discuss how this synthetic approach serves to systematically connect the fragmented landscape of entrepreneurship research, and thus gradually build a cumulative and evidence-based body of knowledge on entrepreneurship.

Well-trodden highways and roads less traveled: Entrepreneurial-oriented behavior and identity construction in international entrepreneurship narratives

“…With this in view, we have retreated from viewing IE behavior as a firm-level construct (Miller 2011), reinterpreting what it means to be an international entrepreneur, and whence IE behaviors originate. Hence, considering entrepreneurship to be the product of how entrepreneurs make sense of the world (Steyaert and Katz 2004;van Burg and Romme 2014), and seeking to bridge various dimensions of the phenomenon (Gartner et al 1992;Randerson 2016), we embarked on an exploration of the developmental experiences of founders (Gioia and Manz 1985;Jones and Casulli 2014;Krueger 2007).…”

Advancing entrepreneurship as a design science: developing additional design principles for effectuation

“…Applied to entrepreneurship, mainstream science answers descriptive and explanatory questions, such as BHow do entrepreneurs develop a business model?^, whereas design sciences ask BHow can entrepreneurs develop business models?^Thus, design sciences focus on what is possible and useful for the creation of the future rather than what currently prevails (Hevner et al 2004;Romme 2003). Table 1 compares the scientific method with design science and entrepreneurship, drawing on Sarasvathy and Venkataraman (2011) and Van Burg and Romme (2014).…”

The liquid politics of an urban age

“…This has increased potential to find alternatives in the way water is managed and services delivered (Mitlin, 2008). However, others have questioned the real impacts of water co-production if solely sought as a practical mechanism for water delivery, and warned about state entities devolving risk and responsibilities to people (Boyle and Harris, 2009). The extent to which these governance models can build local-level empowerment and be reproduced in a manner it leads to transformative agendas depends on many factors, including that of the underpinning incentives of 'coproducers'.…”