Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Capturing the Complexity and Ambiguity of Academic Fields: Determining Consensual Definitions for Small Business Research, Entrepreneurship and Their Shared Interface

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Complexity in Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Technology Research

Part of the book series: FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship ((FGFS))

Abstract

Small business management and entrepreneurship are clearly related phenomena but certainly not synonymous. We seek to capture and disentangle this complex relationship between both fields by employing a large-scale survey of small business and entrepreneurship scholars and a content analysis of published research from both areas, from which we derive an implicit consensual definition of each field and the interface between them. Our findings suggest the presence of a relatively strong common bond within the fields that enables researchers to reflect multiple perspectives, while still maintaining each field’s distinctiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, A. R. (2000). Paradox in the periphery: An entrepreneurial reconstruction. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12(2), 91–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies—a comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52(4), 421–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton Committee. (1971). Report of the committee of enquiry into small firms. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bort, S., & Schiller-Merkens, S. (2011). Reducing uncertainty in scholarly publishing: Concepts in the field of organization studies, 1960-2008. Schmalenbach Business Review, 63(4), 337–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruyat, C., & Julien, P. A. (2001). Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., & Carland, J. A. C. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 354–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, S., & Daellenbach, U. (2009). A guide to the future of strategy? The history of long range planning. Long Range Planning, 42(2), 234–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J. B., & Lischeron, J. (1991). Defining entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 29(1), 45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curran, J. (2006). ‘Specificity’ and ‘denaturing’ the small business. International Small Business Journal, 24(2), 205–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curran, J., & Blackburn, R. (2001). Researching the small enterprise. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Amboise, G., & Muldowney, M. (1988). Management theory for small business: Attempts and requirements. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 226–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (2003). The domain of entrepreneurship research: Some suggestions. In J. A. Katz & D. A. Shepherd (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth (pp. 315–372). London: JAL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., & Tonelli, M. (2013). Killing our darling: Why we need to let go of the entrepreneurial opportunity construct. Paper presented at the Australia Centre for Entrepreneurship (ACE) Research Exchange Conference 2013, Queensland University of Technology, Gardens Point, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobusch, L., & Kapeller, J. (2013). Breaking new paths: theory and method in path dependence research. Schmalenbach Business Review, 65(3), 288–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fülbier, R. U., & Weller, M. (2011). A glance at German financial accounting research between 1950 and 2005: A publication and citation analysis. Schmalenbach Business Review, 63(1), 2–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, W. B. (1989). ‘Who is an entrepreneur?’ Is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(1), 47–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, W. B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibb, A. A. (2000). SME policy, academic research and the growth of ignorance, mythical concepts, myths, assumptions, rituals and confusions. International Small Business Journal, 18(3), 13–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, P., & Perren, L. (2002). Small business and entrepreneurial research: Meta-theories, paradigms and prejudices. International Small Business Journal, 20(2), 185–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iturralde, T., Maseda, A., & San-Jose, L. (2010). Empirical evidence of banking relationships for Spanish SMEs. International Small Business Journal, 28(3), 274–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julien, P. A. (1993). Small businesses as a research subject: Some reflections on knowledge of small businesses and its effects on economic theory. Small Business Economics, 5(2), 157–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julien, P. A. (1997). The state of the art in small business and entrepreneurship. Brookfield, MA: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao, R. W. Y. (1993). Defining entrepreneurship: Past, present and? Creativity and Innovation Management, 2(1), 69–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. A. (2008). Fully mature but not fully legitimate: A different perspective on the state of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4), 550–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollmann, T., Kuckertz, A., & Stöckmann, C. (2009). Continuous innovation in entrepreneurial growth companies: Exploring the ambidextrous strategy. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 17(3), 297–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuckertz, A. (2013). Entrepreneurship education—Status quo and prospective developments. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 16, 59–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuckertz, A., Berger, E. S. C., & Allmendinger, M. P. (2015). What drives entrepreneurship? A configurational analysis of the determinants of total entrepreneurial activity in innovation-based economies. Die Betriebswirtschaft—Business Administration Review, 75(4), 273–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuckertz, A., & Wagner, M. (2010). The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions—Investigating the role of business experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 52(5), 524–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBrasseur, R., Zanibbi, L., & Zinger, T. J. (2003). Growth momentum in the early stages of small business start-ups. International Small Business Journal, 21(3), 315–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nag, R., Hambrick, D. C., & Chen, M. J. (2007). What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management Journal, 28(9), 935–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osteryoung, J. S., & Newman, D. (1993). What is a small business? The Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 2(3), 219–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. A., Albaum, G., & Kozmetsky, G. (1986). The public’s definition of small business. Journal of Small Business Management, 24(3), 63–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittaway, L., Rodriguez-Falcon, E., Aiyegbayo, O., & King, A. (2011). The role of entrepreneurship clubs and societies in entrepreneurial learning. International Small Business Journal, 29(1), 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Delivering on the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. A., Wiklund, J., & Haynie, M. J. (2009). Moving forward: Balancing the financial and emotional costs of business failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(2), 134–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Use in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A Paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management [Special issue]. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storey, D. J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmons, J. A. (1997). New venture creation. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrès, O., & Julien, P. A. (2005). Specificity and denaturing of small business. International Small Business Journal, 23(4), 355–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. In J. A. Katz (Ed.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth (pp. 120–138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, C., Ibeh, K., & Dimitratos, P. (2008). UK export performance research: Review and implications. International Small Business Journal, 26(2), 207–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Karlsson, C. (2011). The future of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynarczyk, P., Watson, R., Storey, D. J., Short, H., & Keasey, K. (1993). The managerial labour market in small and medium sized enterprises. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Entrepreneurship as a field of research: Encouraging dialogue and debate. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 8–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Newey, L. R. (2009). Maximizing the impact of organization science: Theory-building at the intersection of disciplines and/or fields. Journal of Management Studies, 46(6), 1059–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hohenheim, Wollgrasweg 49, 70599, Stuttgart, Germany

    Andreas Kuckertz & Christoph Mandl

Authors
  1. Andreas Kuckertz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph Mandl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Kuckertz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany

    Elisabeth S.C. Berger

  2. Inst Marketing & Management, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Andreas Kuckertz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kuckertz, A., Mandl, C. (2016). Capturing the Complexity and Ambiguity of Academic Fields: Determining Consensual Definitions for Small Business Research, Entrepreneurship and Their Shared Interface. In: Berger, E., Kuckertz, A. (eds) Complexity in Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Technology Research. FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27108-8_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation