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

discourse-objects as discussed in section 2.5.2.15. He does however offer ‘grids of
specification’ which I have taken to refer to ontologies.
2.5.5.08 In this research, there is accordingly less focus on epistemology as a measure of
dubiety. I have commented on the state of epistemology within the discipline, as per Dery
and Toulouse [1996] and McKelvey [2004]. From their work it could be possible to draw a
conclusion that the epistemology used in the discipline may be inappropriate, or may
reflect out-dated formats. However, as discussed above and illustrated by the ‘white
elephant in Chiang Mai’ analogy, epistemology is relative to the stance take n by the
participants in the discipline and may be less than suitable as a standard. A study of
ontology and episteme within the discipline may, possibly, offer a more suitable standard.
2.5.5.09 However the ontologies on entrepreneurship offered earlier in this chapter, such
as from Filion [1997], are considered to be either poorly specified, or their specifications
are influenced by other disciplines, such as the ontologies on entrepreneurship by the
episteme of the Academy of Management’s Entrepreneurship Division or the American
Association of Marketing’s Special Interest Group on Marketing and Entrepreneurship.
The ontological construction of the discipline, while reflecting influences from other
disciplines does also need to present some form of self identity [as per Venkataraman,
cited by Bennett, 2008], otherwise the need for a discipline in that field is redundant.
Within the discipline there also needs to be some perception of ontological gravitas.
Filion’s [1997] ontologies lacks weight, it is a collection of thematic domains, but there is
no sense of relativity between the domains. The questions: ‘Which of these domains are
more significant?’ or ‘Which domains are recognised by which episteme?’ are difficult to
answer.
2.5.5.10 There seems to be currently no ‘apparatus’ available to define the domains of
ontology, relative to others, as part of the grids of specification. By default I suggest that
gravitas is a possible measure.
106