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

characteristic of the individual entrepreneur, nor of the generic organization. Seemingly, as
far as the lack of an interstice with the individual is concerned, innovation does not relate
to original new-ness, but some form of incremental new-ness. In my ‘heffalump’ mode l I
have an interstice be tween inno vation and organizations. This needs to be amended to
firstly indicate a difference between firms and or ganisations, and secondly the interstice
between innovation and firm needs to be more heavily weighted, with no weight attributed
to interstice between innovation and the individual, unless in connection to a small firm.
There would also appear to be some connection to the cognitive process of innovation
within organizations but no real direct link between organizations and innovation. As
discussed in section 2.5.4.06 there was a perceived difference in the episteme of the
Academy of Management’s Entrepreneurship Division and the American Marketing
Association’s Special Interest Group on Marke ting and Entrepreneurship, with innovation
not being perceived as being part of the Academy’s Entrepreneurship Division episteme. It
is possible that the organization sub-aliran reflects this Academy of Management prejudice
on innovation, which has placed innovation unde r the Technology and Innovation
Management Division.
4.3.5.09 The other interesting features of this ontology is firstly the collectivist
approach to innovative nations or national systems of innovation, seemingly bordering on
ethnic / national traits that are inherent within the national corporations (discussed further
in Part 5). There also seems to be a low weight of interstice between inno vation and new
ventures, but a definite link to technology. Innovations are not perceived to be linked to
events, suggesting instead a planned approach. While it could be expected that innovation
is linked to research and development that interstice has not been highly apparent in this
analysis to date, except by Drucker [1984] (108) and Cohen and Levanthal [1990] (68).
4.3.5.10 This section has looked at the sub-aliran of innovation and how this has
ontologically become part of the discipline. I believe that it is a natural development
(although probably more political at the level of the Academy of Management) even
though the results from the aliran show little correlation with an inno vating individual,
which is something that I would have expected, but instead showing a focus towards
175