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

2.5.2.2.06 O’Connor, Cherry and Buckley [2006] go on to suggest, citing Oliver, that
the framework of disciplines is insufficient and that “some complex areas of activity
however, such as biotechnology, are better considered in a postmodern social construction
whereby the area of practice is not framed as cross-disciplinary or even multi-disciplinary
but rather post-disciplinary (Oliver, 2000)” [p1]. Whether entrepreneurship, as a discipline,
is complex enough to be considered post-disciplinary is doubtful. Based on the criticisms
outlined above, the discipline is more akin to a wilful teenager, rather than having attained
the level of sophistication to be considered post disciplinary. In the model I have
developed it is epistemology that differentiates the discipline from the discourse. Being
post-disciplinary therefore suggests going beyond the need for epistemology, whereas, as
suggested by Dery and Toulouse [1996] (discussed further in 2.5.3.10), the discipline has
not even arrived at the stage where its epistemology is fully thought through. Offering the
alternative of post disciplinary status to a discipline that has epistemological issues could
be asking it to run before it can walk.
2.5.2.2.07 Cooke’s [2004] analysis of de velop ments in the biotechnology industry
indicates that “Changes in epistemology in biosciences are generating important spatial
effects” [p1], suggesting that epistemology is still part of the ‘complex’ discipline of
biotechnology, but is approached differently. This difference in approach may be a viable
alternative, to the post disciplinary or post epistemic status, as suggested by Oliver. The
range of paradigms used by the discipline – as in “differences of ontology and
epistemology” [O’Connor, Cherry and Buckley, 2006, p1] - may not be fully, or
appropriately, developed in the emergent discipline of entrepreneurship and this is a
limiting factor on the theories developed within those paradigms.
Fabian (2000) alerts us to the controversy embodied in this sort of debate through
her exa mination of the field of management. Different ways of viewing a field –
whether by design or not – tend to impose different structures to deal with such a
state of affairs. Fabian suggests that the way the representatives of the management
discipline have responded has been to urge one of three options: a unified paradigm
(solidarity); a selected few paradigms (integration); or avoidance of dominant
paradigms (segregation). Fabian points out that there are many who see the debate
as either calling in to question the whole idea of discipline or rejecting it as
88