Mapping the aliran of the academic discipline of entrepreneurship: A ...

successful entrepreneurs, or the changing nature of economics frameworks or
capitalism (Formaini, 2006) [p13].
Thornton [1999] offers similar criticism:
Along with the increase in entreprene urship has come growth in the numbe r of
endowed chairs in business schools; positions in research institutions, foundations,
professional organizations; and journals in the field of entrepreneurship (Katz 1991,
Robinson & Hayes 1991, Sandberg & Gatewood 1991). Yet in spite of these
developments, entrepreneurship researchers complain that the field lacks a distinct
professional identity, one defined by a unified body of knowledge based on
generally accepted social science theories (Bull & Willard 1993). Surveys describe
the field as organised by camps, where the lack of cross-level and crossdisciplinary
interaction tends to obscure the overall picture of what gives rise to
entrepreneurship (Wortman 1987, Herron et al 1992, Gartner & Shane 1995). Many
commentaries on the field have called for an increase in the quality,
interdisciplinary nature and development of unifying schemes to integrate diverse
pieces of research on entrepreneurship (Bygrave & Hofer 1991) [p19].
As noted earlier Montayne [2006 ] simply sums up such criticism as “The theor y of
entrepreneurship is one of the weakest links in mode rn economics” [Montayne, 2006,
p549].
2.5.2.2.05 However, in the face of such criticism, there are some bullish voices.
Entrepreneurship’s broad base of disciplines attracts researchers who have a
passion for the subject matter itself, rather than for a static paradigm. The
interaction with other academics from such diverse fields as ps ychology and
finance keeps research fresh, relevant, and stimulating [Low, 2001, p4].
O’Connor, C herry and Buckley [2006] suggest that entrepreneurship is a ‘complex domain
of human practice’ for which there maybe ‘few enduring rules or solutions’ and that such
‘complexity defies simple or reductionist framing.’ The issue of complexity is taken
further by Sciascia and De Vita [2004] who suggests “the variety of definitions is due on
one hand to the complex nature of the phenomenon, and on the other ha nd to the fact that
they have been provided by researchers operating in heterogeneous fields (economics,
sociology, finance, history, psychology, anthropology) with divergent terms of reference
and p urpo ses” [p23].
87