The evolving domain of entrepreneurship research

Abstract

Research on entrepreneurship has flourished in recent years and is evolving rapidly. This article explores the history of entrepreneurship research, how the research domain has evolved, and its current status as an academic field. The need to concretize these issues stems partly from a general interest in defining the current research domain and partly from the more specific tasks confronting the prize committee of the Global Award for Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship has developed in many sub-fields within several disciplines-primarily economics, management/business administration, sociology, psychology, economic and cultural anthropology, business history, strategy, marketing, finance, and geography-representing a variety of research traditions, perspectives, and methods. We present an analytical framework that organizes our thinking about the domain of entrepreneurship research by specifying elements, levels of analysis, and the process/context. An overview is provided of where the field stands today and how it is positioned relative to the existing disciplines and new research fields upon which it draws. Areas needed for future progress are highlighted, particularly the need for a rigorous dynamic theory of entrepreneurship that relates entrepreneurial activity to economic growth and human welfare. Moreover, applied work based on more careful design as well as on theoretical models yielding more credible and robust estimates seems also highly warranted.

Entrepreneurship Theory: New Challenges and Future Prospects

“…Third, the idea of a contextual approach [Welter, 2011] won many supporters; societal and social framework conditions and their impact on entrepreneurship became a focus of many projects and publications. As a result, the field was characterized by spectacular growth, and the set of topics and theoretical concepts used in the literature widened significantly during the first decade of the 21 st century [Busenitz et al, 2003;Uhlaner, 2003;Ireland et al, 2005;Xheneti, Blackburn, 2011;Carlsson et al, 2013]. Moreover, other researchers have analysed the achievements in particular areas, such as social entrepreneurship [Dacin et al, 2010], sustainable entrepreneurship [Hall et al, 2010], cross-cultural entrepreneurship research [Engelen et al, 2009], entrepreneurship in emerging economies and developing societies [Naudé, 2010;Kiss et al, 2012], and methods in entrepreneurship research [Short et al, 2010].…”

The Importance of Trailblazing Scholarship for Understanding Entrepreneurship

“…Rather, we are suggesting that if incremental research starts to dominate and overtake more trailblazing research, the field could begin to stagnate and lose the essence that makes it special-namely, the very real and pervasive willingness to accept substantial novelty in the way we question, theorize, and test ideas to develop new and stimulating insights. 1 As we consider the entrepreneurship field's future, our goal with this book is not to decry or replace Venkataraman's (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000;Venkataraman, 1997) or others' (e.g., Busenitz et al, 2003;Carlsson et al, 2013;Davidsson, 2003;Gartner, 1990;Wiklund, Davidsson, Audretsch, & Karlsson, 2011) description of entrepreneurship's characteristic domain with our own; rather, our goal is to illuminate areas of unsettled terrain worthy of trailblazing work as a basis for the vitality of the field's future. Such trailblazing is likely to continuously alter what is considered to be entrepreneurship.…”

Social progress orientation and innovative entrepreneurship: an international analysis

“…In this context, the entrepreneur is seen as the agent of change who can contribute toward progress and technology transformation through innovation (Teece 1986). Thus, entrepreneurial activity is a valid conduit for the establishment of new activities that promote economic performance and new jobs, as well as ensuring the well-being of society at regional and national levels (Acs et al 2012;Avlonitis and Salavou 2007;Beugelsdijk 2007;Busenitz et al 2003;Carlsson et al 2013;Díaz et al 2013;Feldman 2014;Ribeiro Soriano and Peris-Ortiz 2011;Urbano and Aparicio 2016;van Praag and Versloot 2007;Wennekers and Thurik 1999). Examining the factors that encourage innovative entrepreneurial activity has attracted the interest of academics and others in different fields and with different perspectives (Audretsch 2012;Shane and Venkataraman 2000;Thornton et al 2011;Veciana and Urbano 2008;Verheul et al 2002).…”

“…This specific recognition is due to the fact that the phenomenon of innovative entrepreneurship has a positive impact on the generation of economic development and social progress at the country level Acs et al 2008b;Amorós and Bosma 2014;Aparicio et al 2016b;Carlsson et al 2013;Reynolds et al 2005;van Stel et al 2005;Wennekers and Thurik 1999;Wennekers et al 2005) and at a regional level Bosma 2009;Dejardin 2011;Feldman 2014;Fritsch 2011). Traditionally, the definition of social progress has been based on economic terms (GDP-oriented).…”

“…Thus, this empirical study contributed to the literature by advancing the application of an institutional approach to understand the determinants of innovative entrepreneurship, and other types of entrepreneurial activity at the country level (especially driven by necessity). Also, these new insights may be useful for the design of policies on the promotion of entrepreneurship based on innovation, and public strategies to control the entrepreneurial activity driven by necessity, with the former considered to be an important driver for economic development (Aparicio et al 2016a;Baumol 1990;Carlsson et al 2013). …”