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

2.4.3.13 The elements of the theory [Atmanspacher and Primas, 2003, p4] of
entrepreneurship alone are daunting as Montayne [2006] points out:
An overarching economic theory of entrepreneurship clearly must do more than
describe the behavior of economic actors within the business enterprise. It must
encompass inno vative behavior in all its significant forms, from technology
development and public administration to clever lawyering and lobbying, begging,
and grifting. It must encompass individual behavior across the full range of privatesector
and public-sector institutions, and it must explain the movement of
entrepreneurs between these venues. It must account for institutional change and
economic evolution, as well as economic growth and development. And it must
explain entrepreneurial reward in all of its many forms: pecuniary and
nonpecuniary, tangible and intangible. Economic theory has resolved many of these
separate issues, as the preceding summary illustrates. However, it has not yet
joined the disparate segments into a single, comprehensive theory of
entrepreneurship [p560].
2.4.3.14 To compare these disparate elements of the theory on one hand with, what could
well be, a complex ontology depicting the domains of reality of entrepreneurship may not
be so easy. However in taking a subjective – relativist epistemological approach, which
may blur the lines of absolute knowing and the margins of mut ual exclus ivity, may be a
solution. It will be applied in the next section where the theoretical discussions to date are
applied to the discipline of entrepreneurship.
79