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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

innovation being correlated to a firm. The next section addr esses the ontology of corpor ate entrepreneuring which I believe shows a propensity towards being constructed by those with high gravitas. 4.3.6 Ontological commitment and constructions 4.3.6.1 Corporate entrepreneuring sub-aliran 4.3.6.2 New Ventures and Corporate Venturing sub-aliran 4.3.6.3 Ontological commitment? 4.3.6.00 As discussed in the pr evious sections, the sub-aliran of innovation shows a marked prope nsity towards the small firm and corporation rather than the individual. If looked at from a Schumpetarian perspective, this is probably a logical development. Schumpeter’s [1950] five modes of innovation are: 1. Bringing a new product to market; 2. Introducing a new method of production; 3. Initiating a new market; 4. Opening new sources of supply of raw materials or half-manufactured goods; 5. Creating a new organization of industry. 4.3.6.01 Applying these modes of innovation to a firm or corpor ation is a logical development. However what I find less than logical within the aliran is the construction o f a corporate entrepreneurship sub-aliran. My question addresses: What does the ontology of corporate entrepreneurship do that has not been covered by the previously evolved ontology of corporate innovation, as per Schumpeter’s modes of innovation? The concept of ontological commitment seems to have been misplaced, rather than committing to ontologies that are currently existing within the discipline and expa nding on these, there seems to be a move to create ontologies with new names that replicate existing ontologies. This section looks at this issue in more detail in particular regards to corporate entrepreneuring. 176
4.3.6.1 Corporate entrepreneuring sub-aliran 4.3.6.1.00 The early 1980s marked the emergence of the corporate entrepreneurship ontology in the discipline, initially with two articles by Burgelman, and later championed by Zahra. Burgelman [1983b] (40) [1984] (22), who seemingly morphed from corporate innovation into corporate entrepreneurship, firstly had a high gravitas article with 40 citations on ‘Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management, ‘Insights from a process study’ and secondly a lower gravitas product with ‘Design for corporate entrepreneurship in established firms’. According to Burgelman there was a perceived need, because the Schumpetarian model was no longer considered ‘adequate’, to encourage internal entrepreneurs and risk, within the corporation, particularly at middle management level. 4.3.6.1.01 Corporate entrepreneurship was seen as a way for existing corporations to gain competitive advantage that was seemingly not available under corporate innovation. According to Guth and Ginsberg [1990] (43) ‘Corporate entrepreneurship: Introd uction’ ‘The de novo development of new businesses within established firms reflects the process of corporate entrepreneurship.’ However the question I have is why does a new ontology need to be developed when the Schumpetarian model still seems valid and comprehensive? What part of these ‘new businesses’ is not covered under Schumpeter’s concept of innovation being new markets, new product, new organizations, etc? 4.3.6.1.02 One of the leading figures in this field is Zahra with a collection of gravitas articles in t he aliran as shown in Graphic 4m. 4.3.6.1.03 Corporate entrepreneurship was considered sufficiently significant to the discipline for the editors of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice to run a special issue on corporate entrepreneurship published in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, [1999]. Only the one article by Zahra, from this spe cial edition, made it into the aliran. 177
Page 1:
Mapp ing the aliran of the academic
Page 4 and 5:
2.5.2.1 Adolescent angst and acne 8
Page 6 and 7:
Tables of Graphics Table of Graphic
Page 8 and 9:
Attestation of Authorship I hereby
Page 10 and 11:
Gravitas The concept of gravitas im
Page 12 and 13:
Abstract In this study, I consider
Page 14 and 15:
others), this finding should not be
Page 16 and 17:
ehabilitated version of prejudice.
Page 18 and 19:
1.1.1.03 The discipline’s influen
Page 20 and 21:
The suggestion herein is that merel
Page 22 and 23:
Nietzsche it comes to Foucault’s
Page 24 and 25:
introduced in the next section). I
Page 26 and 27:
1.2.03 This structure of this chapt
Page 28 and 29:
1.2.1.07 In this dissertation I am
Page 30 and 31:
1.2.3.01 Taking a n alternative int
Page 32 and 33:
1.3 Positionality 1.3.00 By conduct
Page 34 and 35:
dominate our world” [Rabinow, 199
Page 36 and 37:
1.4 Structure of this dissertation
Page 38 and 39:
arise if the construction of the di
Page 40 and 41:
without any reference to epistemic
Page 42 and 43:
2.1.1.06 The difference between an
Page 44 and 45:
2.1.1.11 Smith [2003], comments tha
Page 46 and 47:
2.1.2.03 Husserl used the term ‘i
Page 48 and 49:
2.1.2.12 However I believe that it
Page 50 and 51:
truth. ….. My problem is roughly
Page 52 and 53:
The division between true and false
Page 54 and 55:
have become a tool used in the exer
Page 56 and 57:
2.1.4.05 Conformity to form is a in
Page 58 and 59:
ejecting or accepting articles for
Page 60 and 61:
Graphic 2c Foucault’s Triangle -
Page 62 and 63:
[Foucault, 1980, p93]. If for some
Page 64 and 65:
2.2.2.03 External to bot h the disc
Page 66 and 67:
Foucault’s eventual reply to Gros
Page 68 and 69:
Graphic 2d Model B - Depicting four
Page 70 and 71:
In short, there is a problem of the
Page 72 and 73:
Graphic 2e Model B - Including effe
Page 74 and 75:
2.3.2.03 In Model B in Graphic 2e t
Page 76 and 77:
While Foucault [2004] does, in The
Page 78 and 79:
2.3.3.10 Given Leibniz’s ideas on
Page 80 and 81:
2.4 Ontologies 2.4.1 Ontologies as
Page 82 and 83:
ontologies, without such a simplist
Page 84 and 85:
of the epistemology followed, e.g.
Page 86 and 87:
thematic conceptualisation, or as p
Page 88 and 89:
Graphic 2i Model H3 - Showing the l
Page 90 and 91:
does discuss the various failings o
Page 92 and 93:
primary power have, a tertiary powe
Page 94 and 95:
2.5. Analysing the Discipline of En
Page 96 and 97:
• being apparent in the perceived
Page 98 and 99:
mass and it would appear that it wa
Page 100 and 101:
Later in 2001, Low suggested the em
Page 102 and 103:
2.5.2.2.06 O’Connor, Cherry and B
Page 104 and 105:
compared with overall trends struct
Page 106 and 107:
for each has also been dependent up
Page 108 and 109:
of clear segregation or differentia
Page 110 and 111:
2.5.3.08 Sciascia and De Vita [2004
Page 112 and 113:
articles that show a predominance o
Page 114 and 115:
structure to the episteme of manage
Page 116 and 117:
Venkataraman (1997) argues that ...
Page 118 and 119:
is being discussed is epistemically
Page 120 and 121:
discourse-objects as discussed in s
Page 122 and 123:
delimitations. Yet Foucault also of
Page 124 and 125:
3.1 Methodology 3.1.1 Position Stat
Page 126 and 127:
collection process which provided a
Page 128 and 129:
in ‘horses for courses’ or, to
Page 130 and 131:
work. However, it may be that for a
Page 132 and 133:
Philosophy ….. does not consist i
Page 134 and 135:
could be termed cross or inter-disc
Page 136 and 137:
3.2 Data Collection Processes / Met
Page 138 and 139:
3.2.1.05 However, a closer look at
Page 140 and 141: Graphic 3a Bar chart of numbers of
Page 142 and 143: collective 13,000 citations accordi
Page 144 and 145: chronological sequence. This gave a
Page 146 and 147: 3.2.3.02 b. 3.2.3.04 Graphic 3f is
Page 148 and 149: e) Some dual or more articles by on
Page 150 and 151: Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel [1
Page 152 and 153: Part Four: Empirics 4.1 Interpretat
Page 154 and 155: 4.1.1.02 The first interesting prel
Page 156 and 157: number of mis-spellings and errors
Page 158 and 159: Vo lu me: 34 Issue: 1 1956 20. Jour
Page 160 and 161: 4.1.3.02 The top 21 journals listed
Page 162 and 163: various journals in Graphic 4a, whi
Page 164 and 165: 4.1.4.01 One important piece of val
Page 166 and 167: epresentationality of the disciplin
Page 168 and 169: 4.2.1.02 Yet for ‘a rich field of
Page 170 and 171: some one decides in a planned manne
Page 172 and 173: 4.2.3.03 I developed eight expressi
Page 174 and 175: Graphic Eight expressions of what
Page 176 and 177: 4.3 The 87,060 aliran of entreprene
Page 178 and 179: in France in the 18 th and 19 th ce
Page 180 and 181: said that the seeds of genesis for
Page 182 and 183: develop ment of the discipline. Inn
Page 184 and 185: 4.3.4 Behaviouralism and methodolog
Page 186 and 187: 4.3.5 Innovation sub-aliran - a nat
Page 188 and 189: provided by Teece. A slightly diffe
Page 192 and 193: Graphic 4m Zahra’s influence on t
Page 194 and 195: 4.3.6.2 New Ventures and Corporate
Page 196 and 197: Grousbeck VENTURE entrepreneur: TSA
Page 198 and 199: construct a greater corporate orien
Page 200 and 201: 4.3.6.3.01 In section 2.5.1.05 I di
Page 202 and 203: governance of venture capital or ga
Page 204 and 205: limited. Senge’s [1990] (20) text
Page 206 and 207: narrower orientation of the firm or
Page 208 and 209: on learning by ‘the firm’ where
Page 210 and 211: ut also the degree of ‘being entr
Page 212 and 213: Graphic 4s The small business sub-a
Page 214 and 215: Graphic 4t LIGHT 1979 BORJAS 1986 R
Page 216 and 217: 4.3.10 Ethnic / immigrant sub-alira
Page 218 and 219: ZHOU 1992 LIGHT 1995 PORTES 1995 BA
Page 220 and 221: entrepreneurship is not defined by
Page 222 and 223: Barney, 2004; Hitt, Ireland, Camp &
Page 224 and 225: 4.3.11.07 The reason that the strat
Page 226 and 227: individual domains, thus bringing i
Page 228 and 229: entrepreneur to the firm, while Cha
Page 230 and 231: • A greater emphasis between new-
Page 232 and 233: 5.1.09 A fascinating aspect of this
Page 234 and 235: Graphic 5b Three dimensional positi
Page 236 and 237: study (addressing the introverted a
Page 238 and 239: the discipline is indeed dubious ma
Page 240 and 241:
5.3.03 What has fur ther emerged fr
Page 242 and 243:
1995 INNOVATIO N KUHN 1962 - 1996 S
Page 244 and 245:
DEVRIES 1977 J MANAGE STUD, V14 JN
Page 246 and 247:
COHEN Cohen,West, Aiken 1983 BUS RE
Page 248 and 249:
WALDINGER 1986 - 1988 CAPITALIS M E
Page 250 and 251:
DOSI 1988 DUBINI 1988 DUNNE Roberts
Page 252 and 253:
CHANDLER Takashi 1990 COHEN Leventh
Page 254 and 255:
KALLEBERG Leicht 1991 ACAD MANAGE J
Page 256 and 257:
HORNSBY JAFFE Naffziger, Kuratko, M
Page 258 and 259:
PALICH Bagby 1995 J BUS VENTURING ,
Page 260 and 261:
LANE Lyles, Salk 1998 MARKETIN G, V
Page 262 and 263:
References Acs, Z. and Audretsch, D
Page 264 and 265:
from a process study, Management Sc
Page 266 and 267:
Foss, N., Klein, P., Kor, Y. and Ma
Page 268 and 269:
Hisrich, R. and Peters, M. [1998].
Page 270 and 271:
Light, I. [1972]. Ethnic enterprise
Page 272 and 273:
Mulhall, S. [2005]. Routledge philo
Page 274 and 275:
Senge, P. [1990]. The fifth discipl
Page 276:
Inc., Indianapolis. Weber, M. [1992
show all

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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?