Entrepreneurship as a Process: Toward Harmonizing Multiple Perspectives

Entrepreneurship as a Process: Toward Harmonizing Multiple Perspectives
复制标题

DOI:
10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00452.x
复制
发表时间:
2012-07
影响因子:
10.5
通讯作者:
Peter W. Moroz;K. Hindle
Peter W. Moroz;K. Hindle
中科院分区:
管理学2区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Peter W. Moroz;K. Hindle

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

在多样的创业文献中,是否有任何共同的解释,可以作为以系统和全面的方式理解创业过程的基础,对学者和从业人员都有用?本文的目的是发现创业过程,如果有的话,是通用的(所有的过程是“创业”这样做)和独特的(只有创业过程这样做)。我们的方法是评估已发表的创业过程模型,以发现学者们对创业者做什么和如何做(他们使用的过程)的争论,并找出学者们声称与这种现象有关的任何关键共性。不幸的是,该领域的调查表明,在我们的调查时,创业过程的32个现存的模型是高度分散的,在他们的索赔和重点,是不足以建立一个基础设施,综合理解创业过程,是通用的和独特的。在研究中获得的见解导致未来的研究和理论发展的建议,其中最紧迫的是需要开发一个单一的协调模式的创业过程中能够拥抱最好的是什么提供,并增加新的理论论点的领域,实践表明,他们缺乏。
Are there any common denominators within the diversity of entrepreneurship literature that may serve as foundations for understanding the entrepreneurial process in a systematic and comprehensive way that is useful to both scholars and practitioners? The objective of this paper was to discover about the entrepreneurial process what, if anything, is both generic (all processes that are “entrepreneurial” do this) and distinct (only entrepreneurial processes do this). Our approach was to evaluate published models of entrepreneurial process to discover what scholars have argued about what entrepreneurs do and how they do it (the processes they use) and to seek out any key commonalities that scholars claim are associated with the phenomenon. Unfortunately for the field, the investigation demonstrates that, as at the time of our investigation, the 32 extant models of entrepreneurial process are highly fragmented in their claims and emphases and are insufficient for establishing an infrastructure upon which to synthesize an understanding of entrepreneurial process that is both generic and distinct. Insights gained in the study lead to suggestions for future research and theory development of which the most urgent is the need to develop a single harmonized model of entrepreneurial process capable of embracing the best of what is on offer and adding new theoretical arguments in areas where practice shows that they are lacking.