7/29/2019 Landstorm

1/3

The paper discusses the historical formation of entrepreneurship as an intellectual field.

Systematic entrepreneurship research only began in the 1970s and 80s. Initially research was done

within the disciplines of economics, and social Sciences. However, since the 1980s, entrepreneurship

has evolved toward a field of research in its own right.

After the take off in the 1980s, entrepreneurship as a research field grew significantly in

the 1990s, creating a strong infrastructure for research. From 2000 onwards, a search formaturation within the field could be identified, including

(1) an intense debate on the domain of entrepreneurship research,

(2) the division of the research community into a group of entrepreneurship researchers

and another, rather scattered group of researchers interested in entrepreneurship within

many different disciplines (disciplinary researchers), and

(3) an increased interest in the theoretical development within the field.

Three eras of entrepreneurial thinking entrepreneurship research was anchored in different

theories, initially in economics (18701940), followed by the social sciences (194070) and after

1970 in management studies

The economics era (18701940)

Richard Cantillon gave entrepreneurship a more precise economic meaning. A basic

characteristic of Cantillons analysis was the emphasis on risk and uncertainty, and he related the

function of the entrepreneur to uncertainty entrepreneurship is a matter of foresight and

willingness to assume uncertainty.

Classical Economics - entrepreneur was essentially passive, a prudent, cautious person who

adjusted to circumstances, Entrepreneurship was more or less neglected.

Knight

made a distinction between three types of future uncertainties risk, uncertainty, and

true uncertainty that occurs when the future is not only unknown, but also unknowable withunclassifiable instances and a non- existing distribution of outcomes Knight argued that

opportunities arise out of the uncertainty surrounding change if change is predictable there is no

opportunity for proit and the entrepreneur receives a return for making decisions under

conditions of true uncertainty.

Schumpeter

He noted that some energy existed within the economic system

that created disequilibrium in the market. Schumpeter recognized the role of innovation

in economic growth and understood that innovation had to be implemented by someone

the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur creates imperfections and growth in the market by

introducing innovations.

Kirznerian

Economic changes do not take place in a vacuum but are created by individuals awareness

and understanding of a given situation. This means that the entrepreneur can be considered an

agent ofchange, who transforms resources into useful products and services. It is fundamental for

an entrepreneur to be alert in identifying and dealing with profit making opportunities

(entrepreneurial alertness), i.e. the entrepreneur tries to discover opportunities for profit and helps

to restore equilibrium to the market by acting on them. The entrepreneurial function involves the

coordination of information, which implies identifying the gap between supply and demand, as

well as acting as a broker between supply and demand, making it possible to earn money from

the diference. Thus, the entrepreneur searches for imbalances in the system. In such situations,

there is an asymmetry of information in the market, which means that resources are not

7/29/2019 Landstorm

2/3

coordinated in an efective way. By seeking out these imbalances and by constantly trying to

coordinate the resources in a more efective way, the entrepreneur leads the process toward

equilibrium. Thus, Kirzner regards the entrepreneur as a person, who is alert to imperfections in

the market thanks to information about the needs and resources of the diferent actors and, with

the help of this information, is able to coordinate resources in a more efective way, thereby creating

equilibrium

Social sciences era

The Psychologist and Sociologist Approach

David McClelland

Why do certain societies develop more dynamically than others? He argued that certain

norms and values, particularly with regard to the need for achievement, are of vital importance for

the development of society.

HagenHe claimed that entrepreneurs tend to come from groups that suffered from a withdrawal of

status, i.e. the members of some social groups perceive that their aims and values are not respected

by the groups in society that they respect and whose esteem they value

Entrepreneurship research conducted within the field of sociology can be related to areas such as

Entrepreneurship as deviant behaviour Entrepreneurship and culture Entrepreneurship and networks

One conclusion that can be drawn is that entrepreneurship research never attracted

a large number of researchers within the social sciences the research was mainlyconducted by a couple of individual researchers within the respective discipline, and the

studies were strongly anchored within the discipline.

MANAGEMENT STUDIES ERA

The 1960s and 1970s were characterized by great economic and political changes in

society. It was a period of creative destruction in which new technologies were gaining ground,

changes were taking place in the industrial structure, questions were being raised about the

eiciency of larger companies, attitudes toward entrepreneurship and small businesses were

emerging (small is beautiful became a catch phrase), and there was an increased political debate

supported by politicians such as Ronald Reagan in the USA and Margaret Thatcher in the UK.

The development of entrepreneurship as a research field since the 1980s can be described

as three phases: (i) take-off, (ii) growth, and (iii) a search for maturation.

Take Off

Due to the newness of the field and its lack of identity in terms of concepts, theories and

methods, it was easy for researchers from different fields of management studies to carry out

research on entrepreneurship without experiencing obvious deficits in competence

entrepreneurship was a low entry field in which researchers could rely on concepts and

theories anchored in their home field of research. As a consequence, the research on

entrepreneurship became extremely diversified, and it became a question of discovering this

new phenomenon from many different angles.

7/29/2019 Landstorm

3/3

This period was highly influenced by the early research on entrepreneurship, which was

anchored in economics (e.g. Kirzner, Schumpeter and Knight) as well as the social sciences, i.e.

contributions by economic historians, sociologists and social anthropologists (e.g. Kilby, Chandler

and Cochran) and psychologists who studied the individual characteristics of the entrepreneur

(e.g. McClelland, Collins et al., and Smith).

Growth Phase

During the 1990s migration into the field was extensive, not only from scholars within

management studies but from many different disciplines in the social sciences. Entrepreneurship

research grew more or less exponentially. This growth can be measured in various ways, not least

in terms of the number of researchers, but also by the number of published articles, conferences

and journals focusing on or opening up for entrepreneurship contributions.

Four categories of researchers within the field: (i) ad- hoc transients, i.e. researchers

whose publication within the field of entrepreneurship was a one off event; (ii) influential

transients, i.e. researchers who publish on entrepreneurship only once, but whose work hasbecome important for entrepreneurship research; (iii) craftsmen, i.e. researchers who frequently

publish on entrepreneurship staying within the field for a longer period of time but whose

influence is marginal; and (iv) core group, i.e. researchers who frequently publish on

entrepreneurship and who are often cited by others. During the 1990s the vast majority of

researchers within the field could be regarded as transient researchers researchers who belonged

to some form of mainstream research community and who only temporarily entered the field of

entrepreneurship research, whereas the core group of influential entrepreneurship researchers

was fairly small.

Some characteristics of this search can be identified, such as (i) a deeper discussion of

central concepts and the delimitation of the research ield, (ii) a realization thatentrepreneurship is a complex, heterogeneous and multi- level phenomenon, and (iii) the return

of economics and psychological aspects of entrepreneurship research.

Domain discussion

Development of entrepreneurship into a distinct domain of research, i.e. a domain that

predicts a set of empirical phenomena not explained in other ields of research, for example,

newness, novelty and creationwhat can be termed a domain approach. In this respect, a

narrow domain focus permits scholars to compare and contrast studies but means that the field

becomes less inclusive and the breadth of the topics studied more limited.

Second, we can find arguments that entrepreneurship should integrate with theories

from other fields of research to a greater extent not least with theories in the field of strategy

what can be termed an integrative approach. For a long time, strategy and entrepreneurship

research have overlapped intellectually as well as in social dimensions. Many of the pioneers of

entrepreneurship research also can be regarded as pioneers within the field of strategic

management. The argument is that the research questions addressed by strategic management and

entrepreneurship researchers are inextricably interwoven.

Finally, some researchers are less concerned with the distinctiveness of the domain,

regarding entrepreneurship as a phenomenon out there that can be studied from many different

perspectives, pursuing various research interests such as innovation, nascent entrepreneurship,

family business, venture capital, etc. arguing for what we can call a multiple- research

approach.