Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 115, Issue 2, pp 767–783 | Cite as

In consideration of entrepreneurship theory

  • Thomas P. Kenworthy
  • W. Edward McMullan
Article

Abstract

This study analyzes more than three decades of theory testing published in leading entrepreneurship journals. It uncovers the amount of theory testing; the extent to which theories are tested multiple times; and, the disciplinary origins of the theories that are tested. The analysis reveals that empirical researchers have increasingly responded to demands for more theory-driven knowledge over time through domestic theory creation and wholesale adoption of theories from other fields. It is observed that the most tested theories are borrowed from other scientific fields. The value of agency theory, the most popular one, is assessed via a foreign theory screening model. The result suggests that researchers cannot be too cautious when considering foreign theory for domestic knowledge development. Ultimately, researchers are strongly encouraged to consider testing the many domestic theories that have been specifically designed to answer the pressing, practical problems of the entrepreneurship discipline.

Keywords

Entrepreneurship Theory testing Empirical Borrow Import Foreign 

References

  1. Ahlstrom, D., & Bruton, G. D. (2006). Venture capital in emerging economies: Networks and institutional change. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(2), 299–320.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2010). Entrepreneurship and epistemology: The philosophical underpinnings of the study of entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 557–583.Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., & Young, S. L. (2010). Debates in entrepreneurship: Opportunity formation and implications for the field of entrepreneurship. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (Vol. 5, pp. 23–45). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Arthurs, J. D., & Busenitz, L. W. (2003). The boundaries and limitations of agency theory and stewardship theory in the venture capitalist/entrepreneur relationship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 28(2), 145–162.Google Scholar
  5. Bagby, D. R. (1988). Editorial: The winds of change. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(1), 5–6.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, G., Jensen, M. C., & Murphy, K. (1988). Compensation and incentives: Practice vs. theory. Journal of Finance, 43, 593–616.Google Scholar
  7. Birkinshaw, J., Healey, M. P., Suddaby, R., & Weber, K. (2014). Debating the future of management research. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 38–55.Google Scholar
  8. Busenitz, L. W., West, G. P., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G. N., & Zacharakis, A. (2003). Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions. Journal of Management, 29(3), 285–308.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology 1 (2nd ed., pp. 39–74). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  10. Carlsson, B., Braunerhjelm, P., McKelvey, M., Olofsson, C., Persson, L., & Ylinenpää, H. (2013). The evolving domain of entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 913–930.Google Scholar
  11. Chia, R. (1996). Teaching paradigm shifting in management education: University business schools and the entrepreneurial imagination. Journal of Management Studies, 33(4), 409–428.Google Scholar
  12. Cochet, O., & Garg, V. (2008). How do franchise contracts evolve? A study of three German SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(1), 134–151.Google Scholar
  13. Combs, J. G., & Ketchen, D. J. (2003). Why do firms use franchising as an entrepreneurial strategy?: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 29(3), 443–465.Google Scholar
  14. Cuevas-Rodríguez, G., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Wiseman, R. M. (2012). Has agency theory run its course?: Making the theory more flexible to inform the management of reward systems. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(6), 526–546.Google Scholar
  15. Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T., & Roengpitya, R. (2003). Meta-analyses of financial performance and equity: fusion or confusion? Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 13–26.Google Scholar
  16. Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. (1998). Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 269–290.Google Scholar
  17. Davidsson, P. (2005). Researching entrepreneurship (1st ed.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re-conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 674–695.Google Scholar
  19. Dean, M. A., Shook, C. L., & Payne, G. T. (2007). The past, present, and future of entrepreneurship research: Data analytic trends and training. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(4), 601–618.Google Scholar
  20. Dos Santos, B. L., Holsapple, C. W., & Ye, Q. (2011). The intellectual influence of entrepreneurship journals: A network analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 735–754.Google Scholar
  21. Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333–349.Google Scholar
  22. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.Google Scholar
  23. Fayolle, A. (2014). Thinking and writing for scholarly publication in entrepreneurship. In A. Fayolle & M. Wright (Eds.), How to get published in the best entrepreneurship journals: A guide to steer your academic career (pp. 1–15). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub. Ltd.Google Scholar
  24. Gartner, W. B. (2007a). Is there an elephant in entrepreneurship? Blind assumptions in theory development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 27–39.Google Scholar
  25. Gartner, W. B. (2007b). Entrepreneurial narrative and a science of the imagination. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(5), 613–627.Google Scholar
  26. Gartner, W. B., Bird, B. J., & Starr, J. A. (1992). Acting as if: Differentiating entrepreneurial from organizational behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(3), 13–31.Google Scholar
  27. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1), 75–91.Google Scholar
  28. Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Wiseman, R. M. (2007). Does agency theory have universal relevance? A reply to Lubatkin, Lane, Collin, and Very. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 28, 81–88.Google Scholar
  29. Grégoire, D. A., Noël, M. X., Déry, R., & Béchard, J.-P. (2006). Is there conceptual convergence in entrepreneurship research? A co-citation analysis of frontiers of entrepreneurship research, 1981–2004. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 333–373.Google Scholar
  30. Hambrick, D. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1346–1352.Google Scholar
  31. Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. M. (1996). Discipline emergence in entrepreneurship: Accumulative fragmentalism or paradigmatic science? Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Change, 5(2), 65–83.Google Scholar
  32. Hlady-Rispal, M., & Jouison-Laffitte, E. (2014). Qualitative research methods and epistemological frameworks: A review of publication trends in entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(4), 594–614.Google Scholar
  33. Hunt, S. D. (1991). Modern marketing theory: Critical issues in the philosophy of marketing science. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.Google Scholar
  34. Hunt, S. D. (2010). Marketing theory: Foundations, controversy, strategy, and resource-advantage theory. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Jensen, M. C., & Murphy, K. J. (1990). Performance pay and top management incentives. Journal of Political Economy, 98(2), 225–264.Google Scholar
  36. Joardar, A., & Wu, S. (2011). Examining the dual forces of individual entrepreneurial orientation and liability of foreignness on international entrepreneurs. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28, 328–340.Google Scholar
  37. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 283–300.Google Scholar
  39. Kaufmann, P. J., & Dant, R. P. (1996). Multi-unit franchising: growth and management issues. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(5), 343–358.Google Scholar
  40. Kenworthy, T. P., & Balakrishnan, J. (2016). Theory usage in empirical operations management research: A review and discussion. Management Decision, 54(10), 2413–2432.Google Scholar
  41. Kenworthy, T. P., & Sparks, J. R. (2016). A scientific realism perspective on scientific progress in marketing: An analysis of theory testing in marketing’s major journals. European Management Journal, 34(5), 466–474.Google Scholar
  42. Kenworthy, T. P., & Verbeke, A. (2015). The future of strategic management research: Assessing the quality of theory borrowing. European Management Journal, 33(3), 179–190.Google Scholar
  43. Kiser, E. (1999). Comparing varieties of agency theory in economics, political science, and sociology: An illustration from state policy implementation. Sociological Theory, 17(2), 46–170.Google Scholar
  44. Korsgaard, S., Berglund, H., Thrane, C., & Blenker, P. (2016). A tale of two Kirzners: Time, uncertainty, and the “nature” of opportunities. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 40(4), 867–889.Google Scholar
  45. Kuratko, D. F., Morris, M. H., & Schindehutte, M. (2015). Understanding the dynamics of entrepreneurship through framework approaches. Small Business Economics, 45(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  46. Landström, H., Harirchi, G., & Åström, F. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1154–1181.Google Scholar
  47. Landström, H., & Persson, O. (2010). Entrepreneurship research: Research communities and knowledge platforms. In H. Landström & F. Lohrke (Eds.), Historical foundations of entrepreneurship research (pp. 46–76). Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  48. Leitch, C. M., Hill, F. M., & Harrison, R. T. (2010). The philosophy and practice of interpretivist research in entrepreneurship. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 67–84.Google Scholar
  49. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory and experiment in social psychology. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  50. Low, M. B. (2001). The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: Specification of purpose. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 17–25.Google Scholar
  51. Lubatkin, M., Lane, P. J., Collin, S., & Very, P. (2007). An embeddedness framing of governance and opportunism: Towards a cross-nationally accommodating theory of agency. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 28, 43–58.Google Scholar
  52. Luor, T., Lu, H.-P., Yu, H., & Chang, K. (2014). Trends in and contributions to entrepreneurship research: A broad review of literature from 1996 to June 2012. Scientometrics, 99(2), 353–369.Google Scholar
  53. Markin, E., Swab, R. G., & Marshall, D. R. (2017). Who is driving the bus? An analysis of author and institution contributions to entrepreneurship research. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 2(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  54. Markóczy, L., & Deeds, D. L. (2009). Theory building at the intersection: Recipe for impact or road to nowhere? Journal of Management Studies, 46(6), 1076–1088.Google Scholar
  55. McDonald, S., Gan, B. C., Fraser, S., Oke, A., & Anderson, A. R. (2015). A review of research methods in entrepreneurship 1985–2013. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 21(3), 291–315.Google Scholar
  56. McKelvey, B. (1997). Quasi-natural organization science. Organization Science, 8(4), 352–380.Google Scholar
  57. Meehl, P. E. (1990). Appraising and amending theories: The strategy of Lakatosian defense and two principles that warrant it. Psychological Inquiry, 1(2), 108–141.Google Scholar
  58. Merton, R. K. (1973). Social conflict over styles of sociological work. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), The sociology of science: The theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 47–69). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  59. Meyer, M., Libaers, D., Thijs, B., Grant, K., Glänzel, W., & Debackere, K. (2014). Origin and emergence of entrepreneurship as a research field. Scientometrics, 98(1), 473–485.Google Scholar
  60. Moldoveanu, M. C., & Baum, J. A. C. (2002). Contemporary debates in organizational epistemology. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), Companion to organizations (pp. 733–751). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  61. Moreno, A. M., & Casillas, J. C. (2007). High-growth SMEs versus non-high growth SMEs: A discriminant analysis. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19(1), 69–88.Google Scholar
  62. Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. (2011). From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the processes of organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 318–337.Google Scholar
  63. Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 35(5), 479–510.Google Scholar
  64. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson & Co., Ltd.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  65. Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2015). A realist perspective of entrepreneurship: Opportunities as propensities. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 410–434.Google Scholar
  66. Rodrigues, R. G., & Raposo, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation, human resources information management, and firm performance in SMEs. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28, 143–153.Google Scholar
  67. Rudner, R. (1966). Philosophy of social science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  68. Ryan, J. (2014). Financial accounting reform: the need for a ‘back to basics’ approach for profit measurement and wealth measurement. International Journal of Economics and Accounting, 5(1), 1–50.Google Scholar
  69. Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  70. Stewart, A., & Cotton, J. (2013). Making sense of entrepreneurship journals: Journal rankings and policy choices. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 19(3), 303–323.Google Scholar
  71. Suchan, J., & Charles, M. (2006). Business communication research: past, present and future. Journal of Business Communication, 43(4), 389–397.Google Scholar
  72. Suddaby, R., Bruton, G. D., & Si, S. X. (2015). Entrepreneurship through a qualitative lens: Insights on the construction and/or discovery of entrepreneurial opportunity. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  73. Teixeira, A. A. C. (2011). Mapping the (in)visible college(s) in the field of entrepreneurship. Scientometrics, 89(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
  74. van Burg, E., & Romme, A. G. L. (2014). Creating the future together: Toward a framework for research synthesis in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(2), 369–397.Google Scholar
  75. van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 486–489.Google Scholar
  76. van Praag, C. M., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351–382.Google Scholar
  77. Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385–390.Google Scholar
  78. Welsch, H. P., & Liao, J. (2003). Strategies for entrepreneurship development: Striking a balance between explorative and exploitative research. In C. Steyaert & D. Hjorth (Eds.), New movements in entrepreneurship (pp. 20–34). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  79. Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Karlsson, C. (2011). The future of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  80. Wirtz, P. (2011). Beyond agency theory: Value creation and the role of cognition in the relationship between entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. In R. Yazdipour (Ed.), Advances in entrepreneurial finance (pp. 31–44). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  81. Zahra, S. A. (2007). Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(3), 443–452.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Windsor Odette School of BusinessWindsorCanada
  2. 2.Haskayne School of Business, The University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations