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

4.3.6.3.01 In section 2.5.1.05 I discussed the criticism raised on the “content ional
definitional debate in entrepreneurship” [O’Connor, 2006, p1], as members of the
discipline sought to define what is an entrepreneur. According to Gartner [1988 ] there were
in 1988 32 different definitions of what is an entrepreneur. As discussed in this section I
believe that this excess of definitions is further indication of a lack of ontological
commitment from within the discipline. It is questionable whether this excess of
definitions reflects the variety within the discipline, or is simply a means by some
academics to construct their own spheres of influence.
4.3.6.3.02 While on one hand it is commendable to look at expanding the scope and
diversity of the discipline, but I believe that should be done substantively and not through a
process of re-nomination of existing ontologies or attempting to overtly construct
ontologies. As discussed in section 4.3.6.1 above, it would appear that despite there being
an existing corporate innovation ontology, supported by Schumpeter’s model of
innovation, some in the discipline saw a need to create an ontology of corporate
entrepreneuring. I would suggest that, in a similar issue to that experienced by rational
economists, some management academics have a problem fitting the entrepreneur into
mod els or theories of the organization or the corporation. Vesper [1979] (64) solved this
issue by dividing new ventures into personal or corporate ventures. Katz and Gartner
[1988] (36) in the ‘Properties of emerging organizations’, published in the Academy of
Management Review, proposed the term ‘pre-organization’ as a means to better understand
the relationship between entrepreneurship and organizations. It could appear that corporate
entrepreneuring is another attempt to reconcile this issue by introducing the characteristics
of the entrepreneur into the middle management of a corporation, and an attempt to
construct an ontology in t he process. Like the surfeit of definitions, there is also a surfeit of
ontologies, possibly due to a perceived lack of commitment to existing ontologies and a
perceived need by some with high gravitas within the discipline to create spheres of their
own.
4.3.6.3.03 As discussed in section 2.5.3.11, there is the possibility that the gatekeepers
seek to influence future directions of research. They have the ability to set and inf lue nce
186