Coupling engagement with analytical rigor: advancing research on religion and entrepreneurship using a mechanism-based approach

Abstract

Plain English Summary
How can religion be so central to the everyday lives of most people around the globe yet receive so little attention in entrepreneurship research? The overwhelming response to the call for papers in this special issue of Small Business Economics on the relationship between religion and entrepreneurship suggests that it is not a lack of interest in the topic that explains the slow development of the literature. Rather, it seems that the researcher’s engagement with the topic often has a bearing on the analytical rigor of the study. We explain how the Weberian distinction between value-neutrality and value-relevance can help to increase the rigor of studies on the relationship between religion and entrepreneurship. Value-neutrality emphasizes the importance of maintaining impartiality in social research, including the study of beliefs and religion, while value-relevance means that values, including religious values, may be present in the choice of research topics. Moreover, we argue for a closer examination and analysis of mechanisms to advance the study of interrelationships between religion and entrepreneurship because such mechanisms are often assumed rather than empirically tested. We also contribute to current and future research by offering a framework explaining the different ways in which religion and entrepreneurship are interrelated.

Full text

Vol.: (0123456789)
1 3
Small Bus Econ (2024) 62:1273–1284
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00837-4
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Coupling engagement withanalytical rigor: advancing
research onreligion andentrepreneurship using
amechanism‑based approach
MarcusDejardin· BrigitteHoogendoorn· FrankJanssen·
Cornelius A.Rietveld· ElcovanBurg
Accepted: 24 October 2023 / Published online: 10 November 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract Secularization processes alongside sup-
posed tensions between science and religion may
partly explain the slow development of literature on
the relationship between religion and entrepreneur-
ship. Nevertheless, the overwhelming number of sub-
missions we received for the present special issue of
Small Business Economics suggests a profound inter-
est in this topic by researchers from all around the
globe. In many of these submissions, the researcher’s
own personal values or beliefs explicitly or implicitly
motivated the research question, shaped the research
design, and steered the interpretation of outcomes –
regrettably, although this engagement often being at
the expense of the study’s analytical rigor. We explain
how the Weberian distinction between value-neutral-
ity and value-relevance can help to increase the rigor
of studies on the relationship between religion and
entrepreneurship. Moreover, we propose a mecha-
nism-based approach to explain and test the multiple
interrelationships between religion and entrepreneur-
ship because such mechanisms are often assumed
rather than empirically tested. By drawing on and
extending Saroglou’s religious dimensions model, we
structure potential mechanisms between religion and
entrepreneurship as well as between entrepreneurship
and religion.
Plain English Summary How can religion be so
central to the everyday lives of most people around the
globe yet receive so little attention in entrepreneurship
research? The overwhelming response to the call for
papers in this special issue of Small Business Economics
on the relationship between religion and entrepreneur-
ship suggests that it is not a lack of interest in the topic
that explains the slow development of the literature.
Rather, it seems that the researcher’s engagement with
the topic often has a bearing on the analytical rigor of the
study. We explain how the Weberian distinction between
value-neutrality and value-relevance can help to increase
the rigor of studies on the relationship between religion
and entrepreneurship. Value-neutrality emphasizes the
importance of maintaining impartiality in social research,
including the study of beliefs and religion, while
M.Dejardin
Université de Namur, Namur, Belgium
e-mail: marcus.dejardin@unamur.be
M.Dejardin· F.Janssen
Université Catholique de Louvain,
Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium
e-mail: frank.janssen@uclouvain.be
B.Hoogendoorn· C.Rietveld
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam,
TheNetherlands
e-mail: bhoogendoorn@ese.eur.nl
C. Rietveld
e-mail: nrietveld@ese.eur.nl
E.vanBurg(*)
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
TheNetherlands
e-mail: elco.van.burg@vu.nl
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1274
M.Dejardin et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
value-relevance means that values, including religious
values, may be present in the choice of research topics.
Moreover, we argue for a closer examination and analysis
of mechanisms to advance the study of interrelationships
between religion and entrepreneurship because such
mechanisms are often assumed rather than empirically
tested. We also contribute to current and future research
by offering a framework explaining the different ways in
which religion and entrepreneurship are interrelated.
Keywords Religion· Entrepreneurship·
Mechanisms· Values
JEL Classification A13· L26· Z12
1 Introduction
Religion is “one of the most pervasive and central
topics in society” (Smith etal., 2019, p. 1). Although
secularization theory (Swatos & Christiano, 1999)
predicts that religion would become less important
as human development progresses, religions show
persisting and even growing importance (Neubert,
2019). Currently, more than eight in ten people
belong to a religion globally (Pew Research Center,
2018). With the exception of Western Europe, the
world has remained very religious, as evidenced, for
instance, by the rise of evangelical movements in the
USA, Africa, Latin America, and Asia, the increased
spread of Islam in Southeast Asia and Europe, and
the religious resurgence in Eastern Europe and Russia
since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Throughout the history of thinking about eco-
nomics and business, seminal thinkers have paid
attention to the interrelationship between religion,
business, and economics (Iannaccone, 1998). In
the Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith already
looks at the economic consequences of religious
beliefs and the motivations of clergy. Marx points
out that religion and economics are deeply linked
(Raines, 2002), while the question of institutions,
including religion, and economic processes is
examined by new institutional economics (North,
1990). Notably, in Weber’s work (Weber, 1930),
Protestant beliefs and practices are considered to
produce a “capitalist” spirit driven by a vocation
or calling (serving God through work). Despite the
importance of religion for many around the globe,
religion is relatively neglected in economics and
business research in general (Chan-Serafin et al.,
2013) and in entrepreneurship research in particu-
lar (Busenitz & Lichtenstein, 2019; Henley, 2017;
Smith et al., 2019). According to Gümüsay (2015,
p. 199), “Religion is like an elephant in the room:
impossible to overlook, yet largely ignored.”
An important explanation for the relatively small
body of literature linking religion and entrepreneur-
ship pertains to the perceived tensions between sci-
ence and religion (Busenitz & Lichtenstein, 2019;
Smith etal., 2023a, 2023b). Secularization marginal-
izes religion as a private or non-political concern. For
over a century, a dominant assumption among social
scientists is that secularization is strongly associated
with modernization, with religion being a remainder
of a “pre-scientific” time (Ianaccone, 1998). For that
reason, Durkheim, Weber, and Marx, among others,
predicted that religion would become marginalized in
modern societies (Ebaugh, 2002). “If religion is on its
way out in modern, industrial societies, why should
social scientists take it seriously in their explana-
tory models of contemporary societies?” (Ebaugh,
2002, p. 387). This frame discouraged research on the
relationship between religion and entrepreneurship,
among others, by making it difficult to publish on this
theme (Smith et al., 2019; Tracey & Philips, 2014).
Although we see an increase in the number of publi-
cations on this topic (for a recent bibliometric over-
view, see Block etal. (2020)), the development of this
literature is indeed rather limited and slow.
Nevertheless, we noticed huge enthusiasm for stud-
ying the interrelationship between religion and entre-
preneurship after publishing the call for papers for the
present special issue of Small Business Economics.
We received almost 100 proposals as initial expres-
sions of interest, suggesting that the explanation for
the scarcity of studies does not lie in the perceived
tensions between science and religion, discouraging
researchers to study this topic. Furthermore, what we
noticed in many submissions is that the authors’ own
personal values or beliefs were explicitly or implic-
itly used to motivate their study on the relationship
between entrepreneurship and religion. These beliefs
sometimes even steered the research process or inter-
pretation of outcomes at the expense of the study’s
analytical rigor.
This latter observation raises an important ques-
tion for studying the relationship between religion
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1275
Coupling engagement withanalytical rigor: advancing research onreligion andentrepreneurship…
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
and entrepreneurship: Should scientific neutrality
preclude researchers from following their personal
beliefs and values in the context of their profession or,
more specifically, from using these beliefs and values
to shape research? Based on the Weberian distinction
between value-neutrality and value-relevance that we
describe in more detail in the “Value-neutrality and
value-relevance” section, we argue that the answer
to this question is “no.” That is, we stress the impor-
tance of maintaining impartiality in social research
(value-neutrality), but values and beliefs, including
religious values and beliefs, may certainly impact the
choice of research topics (value-relevance).
Subsequently, in the “Mechanisms” section, we
outline how a mechanism-based approach can fur-
ther foster theorizing and understanding relationships
between religion and entrepreneurship. Mechanisms
can be used to bridge different research traditions
and perspectives, but are often assumed rather than
empirically tested in research on religion and entre-
preneurship. We draw on and extend Saroglou’s
(2011) religious dimensions model to structure poten-
tial mechanisms between religion and entrepreneur-
ship as well as between entrepreneurship and religion.
The “Articles in this special issue” section intro-
duces the four papers in this special issue. Finally, in
the “Conclusion” section, we provide a conclusion
including a table based on the framework developed
in the “Mechanisms” section with research questions
that can be addressed in future studies.
2 Value‑neutrality andvalue‑relevance
The principle of scientific neutrality can be traced
back to the works of Bacon (1620), Descartes (1637),
Hume (1739), as well as, more recently, Popper
(1959), Kuhn (1962), and Feyerabend (1975). Scien-
tific neutrality refers to the ability of researchers to
remain objective, impartial, and free from personal
biases or external pressures that could influence their
research results (National Academy of Sciences,
National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of
Medicine, 1995). It involves transparency, objectiv-
ity, and accountability in the research process as well
as acknowledging and addressing potential sources of
bias or conflicts of interest that may affect research
outcomes. Scientific neutrality aims at ensuring the
integrity and credibility of research findings, as it
helps to prevent the results from being influenced by
factors that could compromise their accuracy or reli-
ability (Ioannidis, 2005; Kuhn, 1962). Using rigorous
research methods, being transparent about these, and
minimizing personal biases are also deemed critical
for building trust between researchers and the public
(Kitcher, 2001).
In this context, the term axiological neutrality
is often used, referring to the ability of researchers
to maintain impartiality with respect to values and
ethical issues in their research (Kitcher, 2001). Axi-
ological neutrality aims at ensuring that research is
not used to support one’s beliefs or preferences, or
specific political or social agendas. Yet, axiological
neutrality is not easy to attain, especially in the social
sciences and humanities, because funding sources,
institutional norms, and personal beliefs and values
inevitably affect a researcher’s ability to remain neu-
tral. Personal values and biases are deeply ingrained
and can be difficult to recognize and eliminate. Con-
sequently, the concept of axiological neutrality is crit-
icized because values and beliefs cannot be entirely
separated from research (Longino, 1990).
Axiological neutrality is often attributed to Weber
(see, for example, Vandenberghe (2017)) despite
never having used the term himself. Actually, Weber
differentiates between value-neutrality and value-
relevance, thus addressing the criticism aimed at axi-
ological neutrality. Weber (1949) develops the idea of
value-neutrality (Wertfreiheit) in social sciences and
argues that social scientists must seek to be value-
neutral in their research and teaching, meaning that
they should avoid imposing their personal values or
beliefs. Their personal values should not influence the
research process or outcomes, and they must be aware
of their own values in their scientific work in order to
minimize biases that could result from their inherent
value judgments. This does not mean that research-
ers may not have personal opinions or values, whether
political, social, religious, or esthetic, but they must
try to avoid the risks of hidden imposition of personal
opinions. Researchers cannot instrumentalize facts, as
that is incompatible with the fundamental objective
of science to establish reliable knowledge of observ-
able phenomena. Therefore, it is in the formulation of
conclusions, and not in the choice of a subject or data,
that value judgments must be absent.
The requirement of value-neutrality does thus
not prevent a researcher from having values. On the
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1276
M.Dejardin et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
contrary, Weber (1949) did not believe that social
science research could ever be completely value-free
and instead referred to value-relevance (Wertbezo-
genheit), which is the recognition that certain values
and beliefs may be relevant to the research question
and may shape the social phenomena being studied.
Value-neutrality, on the other hand, concerns the non-
imposition of researchers’ own values and beliefs on
the research process or outcomes. Weber also empha-
sized the need for researchers to be aware of their val-
ues and to be transparent about how their values may
influence their research findings. An example is found
in his work on the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism (1930), where he acknowledges that his
own values and biases may have influenced his inter-
pretation of historical data, but he also emphasizes
the need for transparency in his research process. His
analysis is not meant to be a judgment on the moral
or ethical value of Protestant beliefs or any other reli-
gious or cultural tradition but aimed at examining
the social and historical factors that led to the rise of
capitalism.
Thus, overall, value-neutrality emphasizes the
importance of maintaining impartiality in social
research, including the study of beliefs and religion,
while value-relevance means that values, includ-
ing religious values, may be present in the choice of
research topics. In this view, science and religion are
certainly not incompatible. Importantly, this view reso-
nates in more recent perspectives in the philosophy of
science, such as in the works of Lakatos (1970, 1978),
recognizing that values can influence the choice of
research problems and the direction of research pro-
grams, rightfully motivating researchers to question
certain problems rather than others. However, Lakatos
also stresses that values can be problematic if they lead
to the suppression of evidence or the rejection of alter-
native hypotheses (Laudan, 1981).
3 Mechanisms
Thus, religion is a perfectly suitable research object in
entrepreneurship, with the values and beliefs of entre-
preneurship researchers legitimately shaping their
research questions. In fact, Dyck and Purser (2019,
p. 265) note that “more than 80% of professors in the
United States self-identify as spiritual persons, and
that 60% of business professors believe that faculty
members’ spiritual dimensions should have a place
in their academic work (Astin etal., 2006).” Within
management research, entrepreneurship is identified
as one of the most promising fields for studying its
interactions with religion (Tracey, 2012). Religion
can influence engagement in entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial decision-making in multiple ways.
Conversely, entrepreneurship may also influence
religion and/or religious practices. To obtain a com-
prehensive explanation of the relationships between
religion and entrepreneurial outcomes, we take a
mechanism-based approach.
Mechanisms explain “why a certain outcome is pro-
duced in a particular context” (Van Burg & Romme,
2014, p. 373). Mechanisms are powerful analytical tools
(Hedström & Ylikoski, 2010), as they function as mid-
range theories (Merton, 1968) that are rather agnostic
regarding ontological assumptions about the nature of
social action (Gross, 2009) and, thus, can help to bridge
different research traditions and perspectives. Moreover,
mechanisms serve to integratively describe both positive
and negative outcomes of social (inter)action (Van Burg
& Romme, 2014), thus helping to understand and theo-
rize about the variety of relationships between religion
and entrepreneurship.
Here, we describe mechanisms that first explain the
relationship between religion and entrepreneurial out-
comes, but that also, in turn, clarify how entrepreneurship
may influence religion or religious behaviors. In describ-
ing these mechanisms, we consider not only religion as
an affiliation but also religiosity, referring to the degree
to which people engage in their religion, whether through
personal devotion or institutional participation (Hackney
& Sanders, 2003). Religiosity is shown to affect entrepre-
neurial intentions differently across religions (Giacomin
et al., 2023): The more religious people are, the more
likely it is they will be acting according to their values
and beliefs. In the same vein, the extent of engagement
in nontheistic religions, atheism, or agnosticism may also
have a bearing on these mechanisms (Block etal., 2020;
Giacomin etal., 2023).
It is important to note that in the existing literature on
the relationship between religion and entrepreneurship,
such mechanisms are often assumed, rather than empir-
ically measured and tested. For instance, when studying
the relationship between religion and entrepreneurial
performance, often only religion and performance are
measured, but not the mechanism that explains how
religion leads to performance (e.g., through religious
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1277
Coupling engagement withanalytical rigor: advancing research onreligion andentrepreneurship…
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
motivations for hard and disciplined work, as Weber
suggests). We structure these mechanisms, building
on Saroglou’s (2011) framework that describes four
basic interrelated, yet distinct, dimensions of religion:
believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging. These
dimensions reflect four psychological processes: cog-
nitive, emotional, moral, and social, respectively. This
framework has been used before in research on entre-
preneurship and religion (e.g., Giacomin et al., 2023;
Hoogendoorn et al., 2016). By additionally projecting
these dimensions onto entrepreneurship, we use them
to classify mechanisms linking religion and entrepre-
neurship, and vice-versa. A graphical summary of the
mechanisms described in the next subsections is pro-
vided in Fig.1.
3.1 Believing
Believing is considered the basic and universal compo-
nent of any religion, referring to a set of beliefs that are
held about the transcendental (Saroglou, 2011).
3.1.1 Religion-entrepreneurship: distinct
entrepreneurial knowledge
Transcendental beliefs constitute distinct ways of
knowing in religion, with cognitive sources that are
considered to be the “truth” and outside direct human
control. This is sometimes referred to as spiritual
capital, i.e., “the set of personal, intangible, and trans-
cendent resources that emanate from an individual’s
spiritual or religious beliefs and experiences and may
be used in economic activity” (Neubert etal., 2017, p.
622). Thus, in relation to entrepreneurship, believing
relates to entrepreneurial cognition, forming distinct
ways of perceiving entrepreneurial opportunities,
for instance, as divine revelation or consciousness
(Chiles et al., 2021), along with special confidence
as such knowledge may be perceived as transcend-
ing human boundaries of knowing, including toward
the future (Busenitz & Lichtenstein, 2019). Believ-
ing may also impact how means are perceived and
framed, with religious entrepreneurs potentially con-
sidering more extensive resource positions (see Dol-
mans etal. (2014)), including transcendental means.
Judge and Douglas (2013) also stress religion’s
importance in assisting entrepreneurs to deal with
resource-scarcity, overcome apparently unsurmounta-
ble obstacles, and identify opportunities. Such beliefs
could then translate into greater confidence to engage
in self-employment, as indicated by the positive rela-
tionship between believing and self-employment rates
(Hoogendoorn etal., 2016). Moreover, believing may
increase perseverance because entrepreneurs believe
they have found their path, obtain the necessary
answers along the way, and are at peace with where
the path is leading (Ganzin etal., 2020; Smith etal.,
2021). Ultimately, it might even lead to increased
Fig. 1 Linking religion and entrepreneurship through the dimensions of believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging: main mechanisms
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1278
M.Dejardin et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
entrepreneurial performance, as Neubert etal. (2017)
find that spiritual capital is associated with positive
entrepreneurial outcomes such as trust, growth in
number of employees, and total sales. Beliefs may
also result in a tendency to engage in greater risk-tak-
ing behavior (Liu etal., 2019), although others find
that religious orthodoxy is instead associated with
risk-aversion (Ferguson etal., 2014).
3.1.2 Entrepreneurship-religion: sharing religious
beliefs
Entrepreneurs may use their entrepreneurial practices
to share religious knowledge, thus influencing reli-
gion and religiosity (Smith etal., 2019). Such sharing
can be rather implicit but also rather open and trans-
parent, like in the broader “faith at work movement,”
aimed at inspiring and empowering Christians to use
their work in line with God’s purpose (Miller, 2007).
Relatedly, in programs like “Business for Missions,”
students are trained to have a social impact and also
evangelize through entrepreneurship (Beckwith,
2016). Another famous example is American Pat
Robertson (1930–2023), a minister, religious broad-
caster, author, and former presidential candidate who
“built an entrepreneurial empire based on his faith”
(Martin, 2023) including a cable channel called the
Christian Broadcasting Network, a university, a law
school, and several international relief organizations.
3.2 Bonding
Bonding refers to the emotional dimension of reli-
gion, through which people feel connected to
the “transcendent,” to others, and to their selves
(Saroglou, 2011). Such connectedness is often formed
and expressed through practicing rituals, including
prayer.
3.2.1 Religion-entrepreneurship: distinct
commitment
In a work context, bonding can be experienced as
a calling when people feel connected to a higher
summons and, in turn, have a distinct commit-
ment to pursue certain goals (Duffy & Dik, 2013;
Faletehan etal., 2021). For entrepreneurship, this
can lead to a special commitment to their course
of action, often related to pursuing pro-social or
sustainable goals through their venture (Rietveld
& Van Burg, 2014; Smith et al., 2019). At the
same time, entrepreneurs who feel connected to
God’s plan for their lives may perceive business
failure differently and find setbacks as less dev-
astating (Ganzin etal., 2020; Smith etal., 2021).
For instance, the belief in God-giving strength
may serve to cope with adversities (Drumm etal.,
2014; Sullivan, 2006). Altogether, bonding may
form a religious identity that next influences
entrepreneurial endeavors as well as collaboration
and market outreach (Smith et al., 2019, 2023a,
2023b). For instance, Essers and Benschop (2009)
describe how some female Muslims use their reli-
gious identity to signal their ethics in doing busi-
ness. Moreover, Smith et al. (2023b) find that
religious entrepreneurs have a relational identity
with God that may conflict with their entrepre-
neurial identity. Over time, these entrepreneurs
often develop a sense of stability between these
two identities, leading to increased resilience, risk-
taking, mental health, and well-being.
3.2.2 Entrepreneurship-religion: serving
andhonoring
Entrepreneurship is seen by some entrepreneurs
as a duty to their family, community, and God
(Balog et al., 2014) and as a means to serve and
honor God or gods (Smith et al., 2019). In this
way, it becomes a form of bonding in a religious
way. That is, entrepreneurship becomes a means to
practice religion, often not primarily nor for imme-
diate spiritual gain but out of gratitude (Neubert
et al., 2014). Entrepreneurship and work broadly
have innate value, but their ultimate value is then
seen as serving God (Keller & Alsdorf, 2012).
Furthermore, research also shows that individuals
sometimes report engaging in entrepreneurship in
order to be able to practice their religion, like in
halal-based businesses, for instance (Gaillard &
Mazari, 2021).
3.3 Behaving
Behaving is particularly concerned with instilling and
prescribing morality, setting specific norms about
right and wrong behavior (Saroglou, 2011).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1279
Coupling engagement withanalytical rigor: advancing research onreligion andentrepreneurship…
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
3.3.1 Religion-entrepreneurship: distinct values
andbehavioral norms
Religion can be the basis of cultural value systems that
impact attitudes toward entrepreneurship (Henley, 2017).
Religion may just directly impact not only the behavior of
its believers but also the larger community indirectly, as it
is part of a country’s institutions, which means that even
non-religious people are influenced by religious values
(Dana, 2009; Zelekha etal., 2014). The legal system of
a country can be influenced by beliefs and impact entre-
preneurship by, for example, being supportive, or not, of
private property rights (Henley, 2017). Culture, including
religion, is also central in explaining variations in eco-
nomic activity across regions within the same country
(Audretsch etal., 2017). The specific values of a religion
even influence economic development (Kuran, 1997).
Furthermore, if a religion has a founder or a role model
who favored entrepreneurship, his/her followers could
be encouraged to follow the same path (Audretsch etal.,
2013). In some countries, like Congo, religious beliefs
and practices cannot be viewed as disconnected from
society and organizations, but intermingle constantly
(Balemba etal., 2021). Values and norms, shaped by reli-
gion, are regularly studied (see Rietveld & Hoogendoorn,
2022), suggesting a higher propensity to engaging in
entrepreneurial (capitalistic) behavior due to an empha-
sis on hard work (as originally posited by Weber (1930);
and later shown by others, e.g., Hoogendoorn etal. (2016)
and Parboteeah et al., (2015)). Coping with challenges
and demonstrating courage are also considered virtues
in Catholicism. As many point out, religious beliefs may
also encourage individuals to run value-driven businesses,
such as more sustainable businesses (e.g., Graafland,
2017; Rietveld & Van Burg, 2014; Mazereeuw-Van der
Duijn Schouten et al., 2014) or social entrepreneurship
(Cater etal., 2017). Contributing to such goals, even if not
necessarily financially attractive, may be seen as equally
rewarding, potentially with transcendental rewards
(Faletehan & Van Burg, 2023; Gümüsay, 2018). Many
social entrepreneurial ventures were indeed founded by
religious individuals or organizations (Tracey, 2012).
3.3.2 Entrepreneurship-religion: entrepreneurial
religious practice
Addressing the entrepreneurship-religion inter-
face, researchers have most frequently, although still
rather limited, explored how entrepreneurial behavior
influences religious practices. An exemplary study is
by Pearce etal. (2010), who show that entrepreneurial
orientation behaviors positively influence the mem-
bership growth of religious congregations as well as
the donations to these congregations. Similarly, oth-
ers show that entrepreneurial behavior can benefit
religious institutions (e.g., Anggadwita etal., 2021).
These practices also raise issues of mission drift
related to organizational hybridity caused by compet-
ing spiritual, social, and business-like missions (Gun-
dolf & Sarason, 2021). This might also spill over into
practices that are perceived as questionable, such as
proselytism resulting from growth objectives or being
a purpose per se.
3.4 Belonging
Belonging is essential for any group or community
(Saroglou, 2011). Religion is typically practiced in
religious communities, for instance, around a church,
mosque, or temple. Through religious practices, peo-
ple form strong social capital (Putnam, 2000). While
this is easily observed, it is challenging to differen-
tiate social capital formed through religion from that
formed through other social practices (Saroglou,
2011).
3.4.1 Religion-entrepreneurship: distinct social
capital
Social capital refers to the set of social relationships
along with the norms and trust within these relation-
ships (Elfring et al., 2021). Religion, typically prac-
ticed in communities of faith, is likely to strengthen
all aspects of social capital (Deller etal., 2018; Dodd
& Gotsis, 2007; Hoogendoorn etal., 2016). As such,
social capital formed through religion might form
an otherwise overlooked aspect in entrepreneurial
ecosystems (Spigel, 2017), especially in rather rural,
small-town ecosystems, where one of the strongest
social networks is formed through religious belong-
ing (Deller etal., 2018). More broadly, in the USA,
for example, religious groups are the main source of
social capital (Putnam, 2000). Yet, this social capital
is also bounded by religious practices; small religious
communities might give a rather closed and limited
set of relationships, potentially leading to lock-in or
overembeddedness effects (Van Burg et al., 2022).
Indeed, empirical results show that different religions
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1280
M.Dejardin et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
and religious communities have different effects on
entrepreneurship outcomes (Deller etal., 2018).
3.4.2 Entrepreneurship-religion: crafting ways
ofbelonging
Entrepreneurs with strong religious backgrounds
can, through entrepreneurship, craft distinct religious
identities and, thereby, unique ways of belonging
(Essers & Benschop, 2009). For instance, some of the
women in Essers and Benschop’s (2009) study resist
strict sex segregation by emphasizing their work as
a respectful profession and setting their own limits.
Another, and probably more visible, way in which
entrepreneurial practices influence religious ways of
belonging is through movements that make religions
and religious communities more entrepreneurial. For
instance, the establishment of megachurches, largely
driven by entrepreneurial practices, is a way in which
many people are connected in novel ways to religion
(Lineham, 2021). Through entrepreneurship, even
very old religious communities, such as the Francis-
can Mission, craft new ways of belonging to these
communities (Galbraith etal., 2010; Lineham, 2021).
The same applies to the Trappist monasteries, where
the strict application of the rule of Saint Benedict
goes hand in hand with entrepreneurial activities.
This rule rests on three pillars (ora et labora et lege,
i.e., pray and work and read), one of which is work,
often in the form of cheese and beer production and
selling.
4 Articles inthis special issue
First, Nunziata and Rocco’s article, “The Protestant
ethic and entrepreneurship: Inside the black box,”
builds upon two of their earlier papers (Nunziata &
Rocco, 2016, 2018) and examines the cultural and
value dimensions through which Protestantism
impacts entrepreneurship. It looks at historically
determined religious minorities in some regions of the
former Holy Roman Empire. It stresses that minori-
ties are often strongly attached to their religion’s eth-
ics, even more so than non-minorities. The authors
find that Protestantism significantly affects the prob-
ability to be an entrepreneur and that the effect is
relatively more important for larger enterprises. The
effect of Protestantism is mediated by education and
individualism, i.e., a lower preference for following
rules and for being humble, as well as a stronger taste
for an exciting life. Overall, this study expands the
literature on the behaving dimension of the religion-
entrepreneurship relationship in our framework.
Second, in the article “Specifying the role of
religion in entrepreneurial action: A cognitive per-
spective,” Dubard, Barbosa, and Smith show, using
within-subject experiments, that entrepreneurs who
integrate their religious beliefs in their ventures tend
to evaluate opportunities more positively, even in
the face of negatively framed opportunity cues. This
study, drawing on the process perspective of entrepre-
neurial cognition, advances research on the believing
dimension of the religion-entrepreneurship relation-
ship by showing that religious beliefs can help to fos-
ter optimism and cope with uncertainty. The experi-
mental design, which prompted subjects with four
variations of a basic scenario, contributes to the ana-
lytical rigor of the study. Overall, it is a clear example
of how the study of religion fosters moving from an
economic paradigm to a more holistic one.
Third, Jones, Hymer, Roccapriore, and Smith,
in their contribution “Have a little faith in me: How
investors perceive religious claims,” explore the role
of religion in the decision-making process of angel
investors. The study ties into the believing dimension
of the religion-entrepreneurship relationship by test-
ing how the institutional logic of the group of angel
investors (faith-based or market-based) and the indi-
vidual beliefs of the investor relate to the investor’s
perception of the entrepreneur and the venture. Using
scenario-based experiments, results are based on 49
investors affiliated with a faith-based angel group
assessing 196 investor-entrepreneurship combinations
and 56 investors affiliated with a traditional angel
group assessing 204 combinations. The contribution
of this study lies in the role of religion in early-stage
investment decisions characterized by high levels of
unknowable risk. Based on the similarity attraction
paradigm and expectancy violation theory, the study
concludes that the religious claim about a venture’s
mission can appeal to some and repel other inves-
tors. Additionally, faith-driven investors form posi-
tive evaluations of ventures with religious claims only
through perceptions of the entrepreneur.
Finally, focusing on the behaving dimension of
the entrepreneurship-religion relationship, Van Wer-
ven, in the article “Entrepreneurship in religious
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1281
Coupling engagement withanalytical rigor: advancing research onreligion andentrepreneurship…
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
organizations: How the Church of England developed
an entrepreneurial orientation,” analyzes how novel
entrepreneurial initiatives of “churchplants” were
introduced in the Church of England. In particular,
he shows how the discourse about such “fresh expres-
sions” changed an established religious organization.
The findings indicate that, in this setting, an entre-
preneurial orientation materializes through a lengthy,
contested process. Van Werven shows two mutually
reinforcing mechanisms that play an important role in
this process. Polysemy dynamics point out that con-
cepts and words with multiple meanings (e.g., “fresh
expressions”) gave the organization the time to take
its own pace in adapting to, but also slowed down,
the process of becoming more entrepreneurial. The
second mechanism, idea sedimentation, describes the
burying and resurfacing of ideas. Proposals, whether
accepted or rejected by the church leadership, added
to the growing stock of entrepreneurial ideas that
often resurfaced in later stages as proponents of these
ideas could point at ideas that were accepted, or rather
call out the inaction through rejecting prior ideas. In
sum, this study shows that, in this way, resistance
against entrepreneurial initiatives is addressed and
the Church of England was able to progress toward a
comprehensive entrepreneurial orientation.
5 Conclusion
In the development of this special issue on religion
and entrepreneurship, we noticed huge enthusiasm
to further develop the literature on this topic. Never-
theless, the researcher’s engagement with the topic
often came at the expense of analytical rigor. For
this reason, we highlight how the Weberian distinc-
tion between value-neutrality and value-relevance
can help to bring more rigor to this field of research.
While religious values and beliefs are important for
choosing research topics, we emphasize the impor-
tance of maintaining impartiality in the execution of
the study.
Moreover, based on Saroglou’s (2011) religious
dimension model and using a mechanism-based
approach, we provide a framework to theorize and
test relationships between religion and entrepreneur-
ship. Table1 highlights the eight main mechanisms in
this framework (see also the “Mechanisms” section)
and additionally includes general research questions
Table 1 Linking religion and entrepreneurship through the dimensions of believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging: main research questions
The references from the list have been deleted
Dimension Religion → entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship → religion
Believing Distinct entrepreneurial knowledge
How do transcendental “resources” enable as well as hinder entrepreneurial
actions, for instance, with respect to opportunity identification?
Sharing religious beliefs
How do entrepreneurial ideas shape (contemporary) religious beliefs, for instance,
in the context of the so-called “prosperity gospel?”
Bonding Distinct commitment
How does a religious entrepreneur’s commitment enable as well as hinder them
in venturing practices, for instance, when it comes to coping with adversities?
Serving and honoring
How and when does entrepreneurship become a means to serve God or gods, and
how does this impact entrepreneurial practices, in general, as well as in busi-
nesses set up with a specific goal?
Behaving Distinct values and behavioral norms
How do religious values impact new ventures over time, for instance, in terms of
goal-setting?
Entrepreneurial religious practice
How do entrepreneurial practices shape contemporary religious ways of behaving,
for instance, in missionary activities?
Belonging Distinct social capital
What are the positive and dark sides of belonging to religious communities in
relation to entrepreneurial outcomes, and whether this, for instance, differs
across religions and contexts?
Crafting ways of belonging
How do entrepreneurial ways of shaping communities create new ways of con-
necting people to religion, for instance, communities around megachurches?
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1282
M.Dejardin et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
to be addressed in future studies. We specifically call
for studies analyzing the entrepreneurship-religion
relationship, as the number of these studies is rather
limited.1
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Com-
mons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any
medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Crea-
tive Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The
images or other third party material in this article are included
in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your
intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engi-
neering, and Institute of Medicine (1995). On being a
scientist: Responsible conduct in research. National Acad-
emy Press.
Anggadwita, G., Dana, L.-P., Ramadani, V., & Ramadan, R. Y.
(2021). Empowering Islamic boarding schools by apply-
ing the humane entrepreneurship approach: The case
of Indonesia. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research, 27(6), 1580–1604.
Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., Lindholm, J. A., Bryant, A. N., Cal-
derone, S., & Szelenyi, K. (2006). Spirituality and the
professoriate: A national study of faculty beliefs, attitudes,
and behaviors. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Higher Educa-
tion Research Institute.
Audretsch, D. B., Bönte, W., & Tamvada, J. P. (2013). Reli-
gion, social class and entrepreneurial choice. Journal of
Business Venturing, 28(6), 774–789.
Audretsch, D. B., Obschonka, M., Gosling, S. D., & Potter,
J. (2017). A new perspective on entrepreneurial regions:
Linking cultural identity with latent and manifest entre-
preneurship. Small Business Economics, 48(3), 681–697.
Bacon, F. (1620, 2002). Novum Organum (New Organon).
Cambridge University Press
Balemba, E., Bucekuderwha, C., Haguma, B., Cubaka, J., Labi,
H., & Ombeni, J. (2021). Religiosité, philanthropie et per-
formance des entrepreneurs en République démocratique
du Congo. In K. Gundolf & F. Janssen (Eds.), Religion,
spiritualité et entrepreneuriat (pp. 99–130). De Boeck.
Balog, A. M., Baker, L. T., & Walker, A. G. (2014). Religi-
osity and spirituality in entrepreneurship: A review and
research agenda. Journal of Management Spirituality and
Religion, 11(2), 159–186.
Beckwith, L. (2016). The evolution of marketplace ministry:
An exploratory study of strategies used in business evan-
gelism. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 8(1), 6–22.
Block, J., Fisch, C., & Rehan, F. (2020). Religion and entrepre-
neurship: A map of the field and a bibliometric analysis.
Management Review Quarterly, 70(4), 591–627.
Busenitz, L. W., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2019). Faith in
research: Forging new ground in entrepreneurship. Acad-
emy of Management Perspectives, 33(3), 280–291.
Cater, J. J., Collins, L. A., & Beal, B. D. (2017). Ethics, faith,
and profit: Exploring the motives of the US fair trade
social entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(1),
185–201.
Chan-Serafin, S., Brief, A. P., & George, J. M. (2013). Perspec-
tive—How does religion matter and why? Religion and
the organizational sciences. Organization Science, 24(5),
1585–1600.
Chiles, T. H., Crawford, B., & Elias, S. R. T. A. (2021). Mind,
body, and soul: A spiritual perspective on the entrepre-
neurial imagination. Organization Theory, 2(2), 1–20.
Dana, L. P. (2009). Religion as an explanatory variable for
entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneur-
ship and Innovation, 10(2), 87–99.
Deller, S. C., Conroy, T., & Markeson, B. (2018). Social capi-
tal, religion and small business activity. Journal of Eco-
nomic Behavior & Organization, 155(1), 365–381.
Descartes, R. (1637, 1902). Discours de la Méthode & Essais. Cerf.
Dodd, S. D., & Gotsis, G. (2007). The interrelationships
between entrepreneurship and religion. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 8(2),
93–104.
Dolmans, S. A. M., Van Burg, E., Reymen, I. M. M. J., &
Romme, A. G. L. (2014). Dynamics of resource slack and
constraints: Resource positions in action. Organization
Studies, 35(4), 511–549.
Drumm, R., Popescu, M., Cooper, L., Trecartin, S., Seifert,
M., Foster, T., & Kilcher, C. (2014). “God just brought
me through it”: Spiritual coping strategies for resilience
among intimate partner violence survivors. Clinical
Social Work Journal, 42(4), 385–394.
Duffy, R. D., & Dik, B. J. (2013). Research on calling: What
have we learned and where are we going? Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 428–436.
Dyck, B., & Purser, R. (2019). Faith, theoria, and OMT: A
Christian and a Buddhist walk into a business school….
Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(3), 264–279.
Ebaugh, H. R. (2002). Return of the sacred: Reintegrating reli-
gion in the social sciences. Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion, 41(3), 385–395.
Elfring, T., Klyver, K., & Van Burg, E. (2021). Entrepreneur-
ship as networking: Mechanisms, dynamics, practices,
and strategies. Oxford University Press.
Essers, C., & Benschop, Y. (2009). Muslim businesswomen
doing boundary work: The negotiation of Islam, gender
and ethnicity within entrepreneurial contexts. Human
Relations, 62(3), 403–423.
Faletehan, A. F., & Van Burg, E. (2023). “We will not pay you,
but God will remunerate”: The paradox of volunteer tran-
scendental rewards in faith-based organizations. Journal
1 The article by Van Werven (in this special issue) on the
development of an entrepreneurial orientation in the Church of
England is a notable exception.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1283
Coupling engagement withanalytical rigor: advancing research onreligion andentrepreneurship…
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought,
42(2), 238–258.
Faletehan, A. F., Van Burg, E., Thompson, N. A., & Wempe,
J. (2021). Called to volunteer and stay longer: The sig-
nificance of work calling for volunteering motivation and
retention. Voluntary Sector Review, 12(2), 235–255.
Ferguson, T. W., Dougherty, K. D., & Neubert, M. J. (2014).
Religious orthodoxy and entrepreneurial risk-taking. Soci-
ological Focus, 47(1), 32–44.
Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against method. New Left Books.
Gaillard, H. & Mazari, L. (2021), Sentiment d’exclusion à
motif religieux et choix entrepreneuriaux. Une étude de
cas unique dans une PME affinitaire. In K. Gundolf & F.
Janssen (Eds.), Religion, spiritualité et entrepreneuriat
(pp. 42–69). De Boeck.
Galbraith, C. S., Stiles, C. H., & Benitez-Galbraith, J. (2010).
Economics and spirituality in the entrepreneurial develop-
ment strategy of the Franciscan California missions: The
historical case of San Diego. In L. P. Dana (Ed.), Entre-
preneurship and religion. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ganzin, M., Islam, G., & Suddaby, R. (2020). Spirituality and
entrepreneurship: The role of magical thinking in future-
oriented sensemaking. Organization Studies, 41(1), 77–102.
Giacomin, O., Janssen, F., Shinnar, R., Gundolf, K., & Nema-
tollah, S. (2023). Individual religious affiliation, religios-
ity and entrepreneurial intentions among students in four
countries. International Small Business Journal, 41(3),
318–346.
Graafland, J. (2017). Religiosity, attitude, and the demand for
socially responsible products. Journal of Business Ethics,
144(1), 121–138.
Gross, N. (2009). A pragmatist theory of social mechanisms.
American Sociological Review, 74(3), 358–379.
Gümüsay, A. A. (2015). Entrepreneurship from an Islamic per-
spective. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(1), 199–208.
Gümüsay, A. A. (2018). Unpacking entrepreneurial opportuni-
ties: An institutional logics perspective. Innovation, 20(3),
209–222.
Gundolf, K., & Sarason, Y. (2021). Les pasteurs/prêtres en
tant qu’entrepreneurs sociaux. In K. Gundolf & F. Jans-
sen (Eds.), Religion, spiritualité et entrepreneuriat (pp.
132–142). De Boeck.
Hackney, C. H., & Sanders, G. S. (2003). Religiosity and men-
tal health: A meta–analysis of recent studies. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(1), 43–55.
Hedström, P., & Ylikoski, P. (2010). Causal mechanisms in
the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1),
49–67.
Henley, A. (2017). Does religion influence entrepreneurial
behaviour? International Small Business Journal, 35(5),
597–617.
Hoogendoorn, B., Rietveld, C. A., & van Stel, A. (2016).
Belonging, believing, bonding, and behaving: The rela-
tionship between religion and business ownership at the
country level. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 26(3),
519–550.
Hume, D. (1739, 2000). A treatise of human nature. Oxford
University Press
Iannaccone, L. R. (1998). Introduction to the economics of reli-
gion. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(3), 1465–1496.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research find-
ings are false. PLOS Medicine, 19(8), e1004085.
Judge, W. Q., & Douglas, T. J. (2013). Entrepreneurship as a
leap of faith. Journal of Management, Spirituality and
Religion, 10(1), 37–65.
Keller, T., & Alsdorf, K. L. (2012). Every good endeavor:
Connecting your work to God’s work. Riverhead Books.
Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford
University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions.
University of Chicago Press.
Kuran, T. (1997). Islam and underdevelopment: An old puz-
zle revisited. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical
Economics, 153(1), 41–70.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of sci-
entific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Mus-
grave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp.
170–196). Cambridge University Press.
Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research
programmes. Cambridge University Press.
Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation of convergent realism. Phi-
losophy of Science, 48(1), 19–49.
Lineham, P. (2021). The entrepreneurial church. In (E. Pio,
R. Kilpatrick & T. Pratt (Eds.), Reimagining faith and
management (pp. 104–116). Routledge.
Liu, Z., Xu, Z., Zhou, Z., & Li, Y. (2019). Buddhist entrepre-
neurs and new venture performance: The mediating role
of entrepreneurial risk-taking. Small Business Econom-
ics, 52(3), 713–727.
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and
objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton University Press.
Martin, D. (2023, June 8). Pat Robertson, who gave Chris-
tian conservatives clout, is dead at 93. Retrieved from
https:// www. nytim es. com/ 2023/ 06/ 08/ us/ pat- rober tson-
dead. html.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure.
Free Press.
Miller, D. W. (2007). God at work: The history and promise
of the faith at work movement. Oxford University Press.
Neubert, M. J. (2019). With or without spirit: Implications
for scholarship and leadership. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 33(3), 253–263.
Neubert, M. J., Dougherty, K. D., Park, J. Z., & Griebel, J.
(2014). Beliefs about faith and work: Development and
validation of honoring God and prosperity gospel scales.
Review of Religious Research, 56(1), 129–146.
Neubert, M. J., Bradley, S. W., Ardianti, R., & Simiyu, E.
M. (2017). The role of spiritual capital in innovation
and performance: Evidence from developing economies.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(4), 621–640.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and
economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
Nunziata, L., & Rocco, L. (2016). A tale of minorities: Evi-
dence on religious ethic and entrepreneurship. Journal
of Economic Growth, 21(2), 189–224.
Nunziata, L., & Rocco, L. (2018). The protestant ethic and
entrepreneurship: Evidence from religious minorities in
the former Holy Roman Empire. European Journal of
Political Economy, 51(1), 27–43.
Parboteeah, K. P., Walter, S. G., & Block, J. H. (2015).
When does Christian religion matter for entrepreneurial
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1284
M.Dejardin et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
activity? The contingent effect of a country’s investments
into knowledge. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(2),
447–465.
Pearce, J. A., Fritz, D. A., & Davis, P. S. (2010). Entrepreneur-
ial orientation and the performance of religious congrega-
tions as predicted by rational choice theory. Entrepreneur-
ship Theory and Practice, 34(1), 219–248.
Pew Research Center (2018, October 29). Eastern and west-
ern Europeans differ on importance of religion, views of
minorities, and key social issues. Retrieved from https://
www. pewfo rum. org/ 2018/ 10/ 29/ easte rn- and- weste rn-
europ eans- differ- on- impor tance- of- relig ion- views- of-
minor ities- and- key- social- issues/.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Basic
Books.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. Simon and Schuster.
Raines, J. (2002). Marx on religion. Temple University Press.
Rietveld, C. A., & Hoogendoorn, B. (2022). The mediat-
ing role of values in the relationship between religion
and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 58(3),
1309–1335.
Rietveld, C. A., & Van Burg, E. (2014). Religious beliefs and entre-
preneurship among Dutch protestants. International Journal
of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 23(3), 279–295.
Saroglou, V. (2011). Believing, bonding, behaving, and belong-
ing: The big four religious dimensions and cultural vari-
ation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(8),
1320–1340.
Mazereeuw-van der Duijn Schouten, C., Graafland, J., &
Kaptein, M. (2014). Religiosity, CSR attitudes, and CSR
behavior: an empirical study of executives’ religiosity and
CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(3), 437–459
Smith, B. R., Conger, M. J., McMullen, J. S., & Neubert, M. J.
(2019). Why believe? The promise of research on the role
of religion in entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business
Venturing Insights, 11(1), e00119.
Smith, B. R., McMullen, J. S., & Cardon, M. S. (2021). Toward
a theological turn in entrepreneurship: How religion could
enable transformative research in our field. Journal of
Business Venturing, 36(5), 106139.
Smith, B. R., Gümüsay, A. A., & Townsend, D. M. (2023a).
Bridging worlds: The intersection of religion and entre-
preneurship as meaningful heterodoxy. Journal of Busi-
ness Venturing Insights, 20, e00406.
Smith, B. R., Lawson, A., Dubard Barbosa, S., & Jones, J.
(2023b). Navigating the highs and lows of entrepreneurial
identity threats to persist: The countervailing force of a
relational identity with God. Journal of Business Ventur-
ing, 38(4), 106317.
Smith, A. (1776; 1965). An inquiry into the nature and causes
of the wealth of nations. Modern Library.
Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneur-
ial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
41(1), 49–72.
Sullivan, S. C. (2006). The work-faith connection for low-
income mothers: A research note. Sociology of Religion,
67(1), 99–108.
Swatos, W. H., Jr., & Christiano, K. J. (1999). Introduction—
Secularization theory: The course of a concept. Sociology
of Religion, 60(3), 209–228.
Tracey, P. (2012). Religion and organization: A critical review
of current trends and future directions. Academy of Man-
agement Annals, 6(1), 87–134.
Tracey, P., & Philips, N. W. (2014). Taking religion seriously in
the study of organizations. In P. Tracey, N. Phillips, & M.
Lounsbury (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organiza-
tions (pp. 3–21).
Van Burg, E., & Romme, A. G. L. (2014). Creating the future
together: Toward a framework for research synthesis in
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
38(2), 369–397.
Van Burg, E., Elfring, T., & Cornelissen, J. P. (2022). Con-
necting content and structure: A review of mechanisms in
entrepreneurs’ social networks. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 2(4), 188–209.
Vandenberghe, F. (2017). Sociology as moral philosophy
(and vice versa). Canadian Review of Sociology, 54(4),
405–422.
Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capi-
talism. Scribner.
Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of social sciences. Free Press.
Zelekha, Y., Avnimelech, G., & Sharabi, E. (2014). Religious
institutions and entrepreneurship. Small Business Eco-
nomics, 42(4), 747–767.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”),
for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are
maintained. By accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use
(“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or
a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or
a personal subscription (to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the
Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data
internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking,
analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of
companies unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that
Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to
circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil
liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by
Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer
Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates
revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain.
Springer Nature journal content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal
content on a large scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any
information or content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or
without notice. Springer Nature may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature
journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express
or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or
warranties imposed by law, including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be
licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other
manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com