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

Part Five: Conclusion
5.1 Reviewing the heffalump
5.2 Can entrepreneurship be considered a dubious discipline?
5.3 Contributions
5.0 In this section I look at the outcome of the hermeneutic analysis of the aliran
developed in Part Four. Firstly I review the discussion of the sub-aliran in light of the
heffalump model and revise the heffalump model according to some of the findings.
Included with this the addition of a 3rd dimension to the heffalump mode l in order to better
appreciate the positioning of the interstices revealed b y the aliran. Secondly I assess, based
upo n the find ings in Part Four, the question of whether entrepreneurship can be considered
to be a dubious discipline. Finally I review the intended contributions of this work and
suggest pos sible avenues of fur ther study.
5.1 Reviewing the heffalump
5.1.00 In this section I review the heffalump model based upo n the hermeneutic
analys is of the aliran developed in section 4.3.
5.1.01 One of the most significant points from the analysis of the sub-aliran as it reflects
back on my heffalump model is the status between organizations and firms. Initially in the
heffalump model I had assumed that these could be treated as the same generic shape and
therefore placed these together under organizations. However from the sub-aliran analysis
it became clear that there was a difference in the way the aliran delineates both entities.
5.1.02 This finding is consistent with the works of Wernerfeldt [1984] (37) who looks at
the resource based theory of the firm along with Bailey and Waldinger [1991] (17) and
Mahoney and Pandian [1992] (14). In particular, Connor [1991] (14) discusses the
evolution of the firm compared to traditional industry organisation (IO) mode ls of
economics. Alvarez and Busenitz [2001] (16) expanded these theories of the firm to
include those self-employed individuals. Coase [1937] (24) originally links the
213