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

corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management’ and may have been the intent
behind Burgelman’s [1983] (40) initial article on corporate entrepreneurship ‘Corporate
entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process study’.
4.3.11.06 I have commented that I do not believe that the construction of the sub-
aliran of corporate entrepreneurship was successful. Yet as pointed out by Hitt, Ireland,
Camp, and Sexton [2001], there are a number of domains where there is a natural fit
between entrepreneurship and strategy.
Hitt et al identify a number of domains in which the integration between
entrepreneurship and strategic management occur naturally. These domains include
external networks, resources and organizational learning, innovation and
internationalization [p480].
I have discussed three of these domains already in this dissertation, namely organizational
learning, innovation and internationalization (as in corporate internationalization). This
natural fit between the two disciplines is through the interstices between the respective
domains in which both disciplines have some commonality. The corporate
entrepreneurship sub-aliran seemed to fail because it seemingly ignor ed such natural fit
with other interstices and disciplines. It’s proponents attempted to create something that
ignored these interstices and attempted some overt construction of their own. Maybe, as
suggested in section 4.3.11.03, there was internal opposition to entrepreneurship being
connected to another discipline as academics sought to ‘protect their patch’. In section
4.2.2.03 I commented that the two disciplines of entrepreneurship and strategy could be
positioned as being perpendicular to each other, with an overlap. It is possible that such
overlap provides the domain for strategic entrepreneurship. In reference to Graphic 4r I
suggest that the positioning of strategic entrepreneurship is more likely to be in the right
side of the 2 x 2 matrix, in both upper and lower quadrants. In section 4.3.11.05 above I
suggested that positioning it in the upper right hand quadrant would make it akin to
corporate entrepreneurship, however I believe it is better to position it on the right half to
avoid any suggestion that it belongs only in the corporate realm. There is not hing to
suggest that small businesses cannot also engage in strategic entrepreneurship as part of
being an entrepreneurial firm.
209