The practice of “we”: A framework for balancing rigour and relevance in entrepreneurship scholarship

Abstract

The rigour-relevance divide remains a longstanding concern for the entrepreneurship field. In this article we elucidate the practice of "we" in entrepreneurship scholarship and propose a means to encourage and realise it. Our contribution is in the combination of reflection (content reflection, process reflection, and premise reflection) and design science phases; thus, we develop and outline the concept and communal practice of entrepreneurial scholarship informed by a structured reflection framework. Our original model and related framework detail a series of overlapping phases of inquiry and questioning, demonstrating how can we work together with non-academics to collectively strengthen the relevance of entrepreneurship scholarship and, ultimately, be more accountable and relevant to those whom we research.

What is not said in organisational methodology: how to measure non-verbal communication

“…As a cultural insider of the group being studied, the primary researcher prioritised a practice of researching with entrepreneurs rather than about them (Vershinina et al, 2019) to achieve the study's IPA goal of foregrounding the participants' voices (Smith, 2019). Following the lead of well-known qualitative researchers (Kapasi and Rosli, 2020;Vershinina MD 62,4 et al, 2019), a co-creative approach to knowledge was chosen to lower the risk of interpretation and cultural bias. This was done by asking the participants to confirm the interpretation of their experiences of acculturation that was given during the interviews.…”

“…, 2019) to achieve the study's IPA goal of foregrounding the participants' voices (Smith, 2019). Following the lead of well-known qualitative researchers (Kapasi and Rosli, 2020; Vershinina et al. , 2019), a co-creative approach to knowledge was chosen to lower the risk of interpretation and cultural bias.…”

Crafting and Assessing Design Science Research for Entrepreneurship

“…Ill-defined problems often require efforts to collaborate with practitioners to frame them clearly (Hyytinen, 2021;Kapasi & Rosli, 2020;Wiklund et al, 2019) and engage in a ''reality check'' ( Van de Ven, 2007) to tackle relevance-rigor challenges by jointly producing knowledge (Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006). However, despite the frequent benefits, collaboration with practitioners may not always be equally feasible, for instance, when the focus of DS research is on very long-term problems or problems with great externalities that are of great interest to the ecosystems or society but of lesser interest to individual entrepreneurs or organizations.…”

Ex Ante Predictability of Rapid Growth: A Design Science Approach

“…6 A design task identifies a goal or a problem (A), characterizes the context (B), and finds a tool or solution (X), as captured in the following quote: “If you wish to achieve A, and you believe you are in a situation B, then you should do X” (Niiniluoto, 1993, p. 1). Knowledge of A, B, and X helps in bridging the gap between scholarship and practice in entrepreneurship, because it shows us “how to do it” (Dimov et al, 2021; Kapasi & Rosli, 2020), at least in principle (for practical challenges, see Duflo, 2017, 2020).…”