New venture creation Summary
Chapter X-X
Timo Verkade
,Week 35
- What is the field of research in Entrepreneurship?
- The entrepreneur and its relationships
- Understanding entrepreneurship, not predicting
Paper reading: Defining the Field of Research in Entrepreneurship
Christian Bruyat & Pierre-Andre Julien
Is entrepreneurship just a buzzword, or does it have particular characteristics that can be identified
and studied? The goal of this paper is to propose a definition of entrepreneurship as a research field.
A research field can only be build and win legitimacy if it is able to establish its boundaries with other
fields.
The problem
3 men laid the foundations for today’s dominant positions concerning the entrepreneur:
- Cantillon: The entrepreneur is someone who assumes the risk and may legitimately
appropriate any profits. (is an innovator, an exceptional person who changes the economy)
- Turgot and Say: The entrepreneur is different from the capitalist, who assumes
the risk or uncertainly—the entrepreneur obtains and organizes production factors
to create value. (person who creates and develops new business)
- Schumpeter: The entrepreneur performs the function of innovation that enables
the liberal system to persist by going beyond its contradictions. (is an innovator, an
exceptional person who changes the economy)
Those definitions are only useful if
a. It can be used to build theories and carry out more effective empirical research to gain a
better understanding and eventually make good predictions
b. It is shared by the researchers to promote the accumulation of knowledge
Basic ideas have to be shared among researchers
a. The individual is important or even a vital element in creation of new value
b. The individual is not a machine reacting automatically to stimuli from the environment
c. Resources can play a facilitating or stimulating role in increasing the number of
entrepreneurs
The goals of the research is to penetrate the “black box” in order
a. To understand/predict the phenomenon of new value creation initiated by individuals
b. To understand/predict their success, failure or performance
A new perspective
Individual (I) -> New Value Creation (NVC)
“First we shape structures, and afterwards they shape us.”
I <-> NVC
,The first difficulty: sometimes value creation originates from a team, not an individual. Those must
be considered as part of the field of entrepreneurship.
The second difficulty: what is value and where does it come from? (the paper takes the stance; value
is expressed through exchange and through price establishment in a market)
Discussion and implications for future research
In the field of entrepreneurship, not only is “Who is an entrepreneur?” the wrong question, but the
entrepreneur taken in isolation is the wrong research object.
The field of entrepreneurship and related fields
The originality of the fields lies in both its objects and its project. This definition is intended to
demonstrate the different focuses. Economist were interested in the relations between the object
created and the economic environment, not the entrepreneur/”black box”.
If there is no agreement on a paradigm/a minimally defined one, the field of entrepreneurship could
disappear. It would become a meeting point (between small business field and the strategic
management field).
Reproduction : chef that goes into business for himself
Imitation: far-reaching changes in know-how, relations, etc.
must be made
Valorization: engineer who develops a new project for
himself in the field he knows well
Venture: radical changes through creation of significant new
value
The less significant, the less likely it is that the dialogic forms
part of the field of entrepreneurship.
Conclusion
It is highly improbable that we will ever be able to construct a mathematical model of the
phenomenon of entrepreneurship. Therefore, we must aim at understanding, not predicting.
The dialog between the individual and the NVC must be taken into account. We must understand the
individual and the project, and then the links between them throughout the whole process (start-up,
survival, development) and finally the influence of the environment.
Positivism = the only way to gather knowledge is from (empirical) science.
Constructivism = people actively construct or make their own knowledge and the reality is
determined by the experience of the learner.
, Paper reading: The Emergence of evidence-based Entrepreneurship
Michael Frese, Denise M. Rousseau & Johan Wiklund
Introduction
EBE pursues the science-informed practice of entrepreneurship.
It is important to establish standards based on the best available evidence.
Dissemination of knowledge is a challenge in entrepreneurship (heterogeneous group, no systems)
Promoting EBE
1. Taking stock of what we know (review literature to identify the important practice questions)
2. Encourage research to generate new knowledge (employing controlled randomized
experiments & longitudinal studies)
Articles included in this special use
6 meta-analyses develop new knowledge in the field of entrepreneurship
1. One that examines the relationship between entrepreneurship education and intentions
a. Finding 1: correlation between business education and intention is smaller than the
one for specific entrepreneurship education
b. Finding 2: in general, the correlations between entrepreneurship and business
education with intentions are lower than most entrepreneurship researchers would
expect.
c. Finding 3: cultural practices influence the size of the correlations significantly.
d. Finding 4: a nonsignificant relationship between entrepreneurial/business education
and the intention to start a business, when prior intentions are controlled for.
2. Cultural and macroeconomic moderators of the relationship between entrepreneurial
orientation and entrepreneurial performance.
a. Finding: there are moderators or the relationship. Cultural (uncertainty avoidance,
power distance and in-group collectivism) & politico-economic (developing country
and political stability).
3. Determinants of entrepreneurial intent
a. Finding: some commonly used variables influence intentions to a large extent and
other only to a small extent to have implications for scholars, entrepreneurs and
educators alike (e.g. it is valuable for owners of a family business to know what
makes their children more or less interested in pursuing entrepreneurship).
4. A qualitative approach to EBE (outlining principles, guidelines and examples for synthesizing
the findings of qualitative research)
a. Finding: the purpose is to generalize findings (which are typically not seeked)
5. Future toward a framework for research synthesis in entrepreneurship
a. Finding: they suggest a research synthesis to take stock of findings of entrepreneurial
research on exploitation of opportunities and results achieved.
6. A marketing approach to improve communication of academic research to entrepreneurs
a. Finding: demonstrates that entrepreneurs can have particular preferences regarding
the presentation of research findings, providing evidence of a preference to receive
research summaries characterized by rich details but minimal use of jargon (together
with author’s academic and industry credentials).
Chapter X-X
Timo Verkade
,Week 35
- What is the field of research in Entrepreneurship?
- The entrepreneur and its relationships
- Understanding entrepreneurship, not predicting
Paper reading: Defining the Field of Research in Entrepreneurship
Christian Bruyat & Pierre-Andre Julien
Is entrepreneurship just a buzzword, or does it have particular characteristics that can be identified
and studied? The goal of this paper is to propose a definition of entrepreneurship as a research field.
A research field can only be build and win legitimacy if it is able to establish its boundaries with other
fields.
The problem
3 men laid the foundations for today’s dominant positions concerning the entrepreneur:
- Cantillon: The entrepreneur is someone who assumes the risk and may legitimately
appropriate any profits. (is an innovator, an exceptional person who changes the economy)
- Turgot and Say: The entrepreneur is different from the capitalist, who assumes
the risk or uncertainly—the entrepreneur obtains and organizes production factors
to create value. (person who creates and develops new business)
- Schumpeter: The entrepreneur performs the function of innovation that enables
the liberal system to persist by going beyond its contradictions. (is an innovator, an
exceptional person who changes the economy)
Those definitions are only useful if
a. It can be used to build theories and carry out more effective empirical research to gain a
better understanding and eventually make good predictions
b. It is shared by the researchers to promote the accumulation of knowledge
Basic ideas have to be shared among researchers
a. The individual is important or even a vital element in creation of new value
b. The individual is not a machine reacting automatically to stimuli from the environment
c. Resources can play a facilitating or stimulating role in increasing the number of
entrepreneurs
The goals of the research is to penetrate the “black box” in order
a. To understand/predict the phenomenon of new value creation initiated by individuals
b. To understand/predict their success, failure or performance
A new perspective
Individual (I) -> New Value Creation (NVC)
“First we shape structures, and afterwards they shape us.”
I <-> NVC
,The first difficulty: sometimes value creation originates from a team, not an individual. Those must
be considered as part of the field of entrepreneurship.
The second difficulty: what is value and where does it come from? (the paper takes the stance; value
is expressed through exchange and through price establishment in a market)
Discussion and implications for future research
In the field of entrepreneurship, not only is “Who is an entrepreneur?” the wrong question, but the
entrepreneur taken in isolation is the wrong research object.
The field of entrepreneurship and related fields
The originality of the fields lies in both its objects and its project. This definition is intended to
demonstrate the different focuses. Economist were interested in the relations between the object
created and the economic environment, not the entrepreneur/”black box”.
If there is no agreement on a paradigm/a minimally defined one, the field of entrepreneurship could
disappear. It would become a meeting point (between small business field and the strategic
management field).
Reproduction : chef that goes into business for himself
Imitation: far-reaching changes in know-how, relations, etc.
must be made
Valorization: engineer who develops a new project for
himself in the field he knows well
Venture: radical changes through creation of significant new
value
The less significant, the less likely it is that the dialogic forms
part of the field of entrepreneurship.
Conclusion
It is highly improbable that we will ever be able to construct a mathematical model of the
phenomenon of entrepreneurship. Therefore, we must aim at understanding, not predicting.
The dialog between the individual and the NVC must be taken into account. We must understand the
individual and the project, and then the links between them throughout the whole process (start-up,
survival, development) and finally the influence of the environment.
Positivism = the only way to gather knowledge is from (empirical) science.
Constructivism = people actively construct or make their own knowledge and the reality is
determined by the experience of the learner.
, Paper reading: The Emergence of evidence-based Entrepreneurship
Michael Frese, Denise M. Rousseau & Johan Wiklund
Introduction
EBE pursues the science-informed practice of entrepreneurship.
It is important to establish standards based on the best available evidence.
Dissemination of knowledge is a challenge in entrepreneurship (heterogeneous group, no systems)
Promoting EBE
1. Taking stock of what we know (review literature to identify the important practice questions)
2. Encourage research to generate new knowledge (employing controlled randomized
experiments & longitudinal studies)
Articles included in this special use
6 meta-analyses develop new knowledge in the field of entrepreneurship
1. One that examines the relationship between entrepreneurship education and intentions
a. Finding 1: correlation between business education and intention is smaller than the
one for specific entrepreneurship education
b. Finding 2: in general, the correlations between entrepreneurship and business
education with intentions are lower than most entrepreneurship researchers would
expect.
c. Finding 3: cultural practices influence the size of the correlations significantly.
d. Finding 4: a nonsignificant relationship between entrepreneurial/business education
and the intention to start a business, when prior intentions are controlled for.
2. Cultural and macroeconomic moderators of the relationship between entrepreneurial
orientation and entrepreneurial performance.
a. Finding: there are moderators or the relationship. Cultural (uncertainty avoidance,
power distance and in-group collectivism) & politico-economic (developing country
and political stability).
3. Determinants of entrepreneurial intent
a. Finding: some commonly used variables influence intentions to a large extent and
other only to a small extent to have implications for scholars, entrepreneurs and
educators alike (e.g. it is valuable for owners of a family business to know what
makes their children more or less interested in pursuing entrepreneurship).
4. A qualitative approach to EBE (outlining principles, guidelines and examples for synthesizing
the findings of qualitative research)
a. Finding: the purpose is to generalize findings (which are typically not seeked)
5. Future toward a framework for research synthesis in entrepreneurship
a. Finding: they suggest a research synthesis to take stock of findings of entrepreneurial
research on exploitation of opportunities and results achieved.
6. A marketing approach to improve communication of academic research to entrepreneurs
a. Finding: demonstrates that entrepreneurs can have particular preferences regarding
the presentation of research findings, providing evidence of a preference to receive
research summaries characterized by rich details but minimal use of jargon (together
with author’s academic and industry credentials).
