30.06.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

4.2.1.02 Yet for ‘a rich field <strong>of</strong> study’ <strong>entrepreneurship</strong> appears to lack any recognised<br />

ontological base. Shane and Venkataraman [2000] commented that <strong>the</strong> <strong>discipline</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>entrepreneurship</strong> seemed to lack any ‘conceptual framework.’ It could be asked whe<strong>the</strong>r<br />

<strong>the</strong> <strong>discipline</strong> has actually contributed to a better and more cohesive collection <strong>of</strong><br />

knowledge regarding <strong>entrepreneurship</strong>? Descriptions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>discipline</strong> being an ‘elephant’<br />

[Gartner, 2001] and a ‘heffalump’ [Kilby, 1971] tend to support this query.<br />

4.2.1.03 I believe that an ontological base is significant as per Atmanspacher and Primas<br />

[2003], cited earlier in Part Two. I have taken ‘domains <strong>of</strong> reality’ to refer to ontologies<br />

and such interpretation suggests that <strong>the</strong>ories advanced by <strong>academic</strong>s do need to be placed<br />

in <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> an ontological base. Yet this contextualisation does not seemed to have<br />

happened within <strong>the</strong> <strong>discipline</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>entrepreneurship</strong>.<br />

4.2.1.04 It may be that as per Mulhall [2005] and as discussed in section 2.3.2.02 that<br />

such ontological foundations have not yet been <strong>the</strong>matized because <strong>the</strong> <strong>discipline</strong> has yet to<br />

find itself in a ‘state <strong>of</strong> crisis’. It could be said that <strong>the</strong> <strong>discipline</strong> exists in a state <strong>of</strong><br />

complacency where <strong>the</strong> ‘social relationships’ [Dery and Toulouse, 1996] between<br />

researchers have failed to generate such states <strong>of</strong> crisis.<br />

4.2.1.05 This is not to say that <strong>the</strong>re have not been any suggestions for such ontology.<br />

Following Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel’s [1998] approach to Strategic Management<br />

where <strong>the</strong>y found 10 ‘schools <strong>of</strong> thought’ <strong>of</strong> Strategic Management, I searched for <strong>the</strong> term<br />

"entrepreneurial schoo ls <strong>of</strong> thought " I found a reference to a course conducted at <strong>the</strong><br />

Dakota State University, in which <strong>the</strong> following schoo ls <strong>of</strong> thought were outlined:<br />

Macro View: Environmental School <strong>of</strong> Thought<br />

Financial / Capital Schoo l Thought<br />

Displacement Schoo l <strong>of</strong> Thought<br />

Micro View: Entrepreneurial Trait School <strong>of</strong> Thought (People School)<br />

Venture Opportunity School <strong>of</strong> Thought<br />

Strategy Formulation School <strong>of</strong> Thought<br />

154

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!