Content uploaded by Richard Adams
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richard Adams on Aug 30, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Researching the lived life of the entrepreneur
Abstract
This working paper begins to scope out the conceptualisation of a research project designed to integrate and address two perennial themes within the entrepreneurship literature, namely methodological innovation and enriching our understanding of the entrepreneurial process. Specifically, we propose a novel methodology exploiting the affordances of digital technologies to address the challenge of unobtrusive longitudinal data collection at scale in respect of the ‘lived life of the entrepreneur’.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
We analyze the effects of the program Cognitive Entrepreneurial Training in Opportunity Recognition on the accurate assessment of prototypical viability of business opportunities. The training integrates the principles of experiential learning and is designed to reach students across campus. We also investigate the moderating role of entrepreneurial passion on opportunity recognition learning. We use a quasi-experimental design with pre-test, post-test in two European universities. The results demonstrate that the training has positive significant effects on the accurate identification of business opportunities' prototypical viability. Intense positive feelings about entrepreneurship moderate the learning process. We provide insights into entrepreneurship education practice across campus.
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address the research questions: which methodologies and data gathering methods are employed by researchers publishing in top entrepreneurship journals, and how has this changed over time? Design/methodology/approach – The data gathering methods of research published in five top entrepreneurship journals between 1985 and 2013, a period of nearly three decades, were recorded. Findings – The data demonstrate that entrepreneurship research is dominated by positivist approaches and data gathering methods, but that this picture is changing over time. The data also reveal differences in methods used in research published in North American and European journals. Research limitations/implications – It is argued that increased discussion of the limitations, benefits and implications of research methods is needed across the field as a whole. It is concluded that although there is some methodological reflexivity in the field of a macro, abstract nature, there is little at the micro level of individual research designs. Originality/value – There is a number of existing reviews of methods in the field but none over such a long time period that include such a large corpus of papers. Of particular value to scholars engaged in debates about the proportions and merits of different research methods is the identification of long-term trends away from primary data gathering in general and survey approaches in particular. Debates surrounding the existence of different regional “schools” of entrepreneurship will be informed by the differing patterns of methods found in the five outlets included in the study.
Entrepreneurship research is still developing as a management science. This is especially visible when entrepreneurship research is compared to the disciplines from which it emerged, and it needs to develop its own methods and theories. Entrepreneurship research uses concepts garnered from diverse disciplines, which requires consideration of the central questions and the appropriate tools with which to study them. Several recommendations for research methods for an entrepreneurship paradigm are made: (1) less physics envy - avoid reductionism in entrepreneurship research and focus on the research as a whole through case studies; (2) fewer theoretical models and more empirical models - the present empirical knowledge of entrepreneurship research is inadequate for building robust theories; (3) less concern with sophisticated statistical analyses - entrepreneurial ventures begin with unique events and understanding them is one of the aims of entrepreneurship research. No amount of complex statistical analysis will substitute for field studies of the unique events; (4) more field research - entrepreneurship research will not get to the heart of the startup process unless it observed happening in the field; (5) more longitudinal studies - entrepreneurship is a process that evolves with time and doing only cross-sectional studies would cause much of the richness that comes from longitudinal studies to be lost; (6) dedicated researchers - better quality empirical research is needed that is exploratory or grounded and to achieve this more researchers are needed; (7) original field-derived data bases - it is difficult to do valid research on data bases that others have built since there may be unknown pitfalls, therefore entrepreneurship research should create its own data sets built from raw data; and (8) less obsession with revolutionary science - it is better to stress excellence in research, rather than glorifying extraordinary science and depreciating ordinary science. Excellent routine science is often more valuable than revolutionary science. (SFL)
"'There is no hiding behind the ramparts of dry scholarship here. The credibility of the theory being spoken of is not the stuff of constructed proofs, but alignments of critical insight and utility. This is where qualitative work can make a difference to the field, and where this book makes its mark.' - Robin Holt, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research".
This study explores the pathways from the aspiration to make a difference in the world to vision and action of social entrepreneurs. Based on the qualitative analysis of interviews with 23 individuals who have pioneered institutions and initiatives around corporate responsibility, we find two predominant pathways to vision. The deliberate path starts with aspiration and moves through purpose toward a relatively intentional vision that ultimately leads to, and is subsequently informed by, action. The emergent path also begins with aspiration then moves directly to action and only retrospectively to a sense of a vision behind the actions taken. The emergent path, in which action precedes vision, is contrary to the dominant assumption that vision leads to action in an entrepreneurial context and may be further characterized as either inadvertent or developmental. In advancing a conceptual model of the vision–action or action–vision trajectories of social entrepreneurs, this study highlights the iterative nature of vision. This study also demonstrates the importance of considering formative experiences that contribute to the aspiration to make some kind of a difference in the world, a sense of purpose or intentions, and core values and beliefs in examining the ethicality of social entrepreneurship.
This article analyzes the role of context in the advancement of entrepreneurship research. It defines contextualization and discusses why and how it is important in entrepreneurship research analysing the evidence relating to different dimensions of entrepreneurial context, focusing on temporal, industry, spatial, social and organizational, ownership and governance. The nature of entrepreneurship research, with and without contextualization, is explored and finally, the article considers the challenges in undertaking contextualized entrepreneurship research.