Jump Start Phd Research

8/12/2019 Jump Start Phd Research

1/15

HOW TO JUMP START PHD THESIS IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP

RESEARCH: A PRACTICAL HEURISTIC FOR PHD

INSTRUCTORS AND STUDENTS.

Sean Patrick Sassmannshausen: Schumpeter School Of Business And Economics,Wuppertal, Germany

Stefan Gladbach: Schumpeter School Of Business And Economics, Wuppertal,Germany

Contact: Sean Patrick Sassmannshausen, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics,University of Wuppertal, Gaussstrasse 20, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany, (T) 00492024393904,

(F) 00492024392464, Email: [email protected]

This paper reflects status of work in progress! Proof reading will be completed before the conference.

PhD programs that allow students to combine research trainingwith working on their own research agendas

from the beginning of their doctoral studies(as is generally the case in Australia, Canada, and Europe)

might have an advantage over programs that require students tocomplete years of course work prior to embarking on their own research.

(Nancy J. Adler & Anne-Wil Harzing 2009)

ABSTRACT

In this paper we define a Ten Step Heuristic that can help to systematically define research projects

in Entrepreneurship. We particularly address PhD students and their instructors, but our road map

might also be found useful by other scholars in the distinct field of entrepreneurship research. Thepaper is a good practice report based on our personal experience from ten years in PhD programs.

Many partners have found the approachespecially the order of the various stepscontra intuitive at

first sight, but our heuristic proofed to be advantageous whenever it was implemented. PhD studentswho follow our approach will not only create competitive research designs, but will also gain a deeper

understanding of Entrepreneurship as a scholarly field of research.

1. INTRODUCTION

At many universities in the beginning of doctoral studies, PhD students face the challenge of

identifying a promising research topic. They do not only need to be able to work on that topic but also

want to emotionally commit to it. To our experience in ten years of Entrepreneurship Education,

freshmen in PhD-Programs find it difficult to define a research question that at the same time has apromising potential in terms of scientific outcomes, is manageable in terms of research process, and is

appealing to the candidate. Over the years, we have developed a set of ten questions which PhD

students should answer in the early stage of their program. Step by step, students address these

questions in weekly workshops. Between each workshop, there is time to reflect and to consult existing

literature.

The benefit of this approach lays in systematically exploring the full range of Entrepreneurship in a

first phase, then narrowing down the field, identifying research gaps, and being guided by the state ofthe art in Entrepreneurship Research. Instead of following a solely practical decision making process

(which often starts from students questions like is there data that I could easily access?), students

can follow a heuristic. The heuristic is designed to foster good scholarship: Find interesting topics first

and care for practical problems (like data gathering) thereafter. In addition, the guideline saves time

compared to random search for a research topic and provides solid insides in Entrepreneurship

Research and research methods within only a few weeks.

x x x

1 1 3 1


2/15

After some remarks on method and existing literature (chapter 2) we will introduce each of the ten

steps (chapter 3). We will address how this relates to the rigor and relevance-paradigm in chapter 4,

where we will point out how young PhD students can learn to gain relevance in their research. In the

final chapter 5 some closing remarks and conclusions are derived from the Ten Step Heuristic. These

remarks link our Ten Step Heuristic with the development of Entrepreneurship as an independent

field of research and with some considerations in the philosophy of science.

2. Motivation, Method, and Literature Review

The paper is a report on good practice. Therefore, it might not be regarded as rocket science, but

rather a useful application in the field of Entrepreneurship Education, especially for those who run (or

contribute to) or participate in PhD Programs in Entrepreneurship. The Ten Step Heuristic has

proven to be useful at our school and might be considered helpful in other places, too. For this reason,

we would like to share this practice.

The paper contributes to the rare literature on (or for) PhD programs in Entrepreneurship (e.g. Brush et

al. 2003). Since structured reviews addressing the special needs of PhD students are so limited innumber, we advise PhD students to read through a group of influential articles (reaching from A like

in Aldrich & Baker 1997, Aldrich & Fiol 1994, or in Aldrich & Martinez 2001 to Z like in Zahra &

Dess 2001) and to get their noses in some books, including for instance Schumpeter 1934, Casson

1988, Davidsson 2005, Davidsson (ed.) 2008, Landstrm 2005, and the Blackwell Handbook of

Entrepreneurship (by Sexton & Landstrm (ed.) 2000).

The Ten Step Heuristic is not just an extension of the six research specifications introduced by

Low & MacMillan (1988). There might be some similarities and interrelations, but after more than 20

years of Entrepreneurship Research have passed since Lows & MacMillans constitutive contribution,it seems to be important to go beyond their six dimensions framework (see Davidson et al. 2001). Our

road map is designed to guide researchers who have yet not defined their research interest and have

little or no experience in Entrepreneurship Research. So this paper is complementary to the six

research specifications (Low & MacMillan 1988) as well as to the twelve topics to be covered by all

good research introduced by Hofer & Bygrave (1992). In fact, the checklist provided by Hofer &

Bygrave (1992) is a reliable instrument to measure ones personal success after working through theTen Step Heuristic. Readers will find our contribution rather useful if they are facing the invaluable

challenge of academic freedom. In contrast, PhD students will not benefit from this paper if they are inprograms which dictate decisions about research topics, questions and methods for PhD theses.

In our opinion, the challenge of identifying and properly defining a research question is a challenge

that should not be taken away from PhD students. Academic freedom seems to be something we have

to fight for. Contemporary evaluating criteria for academics and therewith pressure to publish journal

papers of limited length create a tendency towards solely quantitative, positivistic and fragmentedresearch (see Wicks 2004, Nkomo 2009, p. 108). Unfortunately, to some extend this is also true for

Entrepreneurship Research (Gartner 1995, p. 68; see Gartner 2001, Harrison & Leitch 1996). Under

these conditions, it seems more important than ever for scholars to develop a holistic view on

epistemology and the subject they study (Rebernik & Mulej 2000 address the need of a holistic view

on entrepreneurship, see Hindle 2004, p. 583, who argues that entrepreneurship may be insolubly

holistic in nature). PhD Programs offer this opportunity for candidates to first see the full picture ofEntrepreneurship before narrowing it down to a well-defined thesis in a second step. Knowing about

epistemology and the full picture of Entrepreneurship is a precondition for a productive and creativeuse of academic freedom as well as for the mass production of successful journal papers during a

later stage of academic career. Therefore, we think it is important that scholars learn how to define

ones own research program in Entrepreneurship from scratch (but of course building on existing

literature). We accept as true that dictating research topics and methods can save time and directresources to core areas of an institutions interest (e.g. entrepreneurial finance). But at the same time

dictating research topics and methods is putting at risk the quality of PhD education and the ability to

make best use of academic freedom.

The Ten Step Heuristic might not only be useful for PhD candidates, but also more generally help

various researchers who are in the process of identifying new research challenges or are facing a

temporary lack of creativity. In the next chapter with each of the ten steps, some exemplary details will

be provided together with some references to the existing literature. To some of these contributions we

refer to as mile stones in Entrepreneurship Research. Epistemological considerations are notaddressed in this paper as part of the Ten Step Heuristic because most universities run special PhD

seminars on that topic.

x x x

1 1 3 2


3/15

3 Results and Implications: The Ten Step Heuristic

Like the elders of any tribe,

academic elders pass on the wisdom and tricks of the culture

to the next generation. (Adler & Harzing 2009, p. 87)

It is important to note that the ten questions should be asked and answered in the given order. It isimportant not to change the list to its reverse order. This would put the advantages of the heuristic at

risk. To each question, we conduct a workshop where we brainstorm input on potential answers. Since

we discuss approximately two questions per workshop, the whole process takes about four to five days

within just a couple of weeks. Step 1 to 5 are opening up the field of Entrepreneurship Research. From

Step 6 on, the process is changing to decision of personal addiction or technical requirements. After

making each set of questions as broad as possible in the group, each student is asked to narrow down

his or her answer individually according to his or her personal preferences, prior knowledge and future

interests. Some literature is provided before sessions start to support preparation and to develop skills

in reading critically; some literature is provided after the according sessions to support a phase of

reflection on every decision question. In face-to-face meetings with the PhD instructors, PhD students

discuss the outcome from personal reflection. The ten questions a PhD student (or other researchers in

the need to identify and define research projects) should systematically address are summarized in the

following figure and will be addressed in more detail in the subsequent chapters 3.1 to 3.10.

Figure 1: The Ten Step Heuristic to jump-start PhD-theses and other research in the field of Entrepreneurship

3.1) Step 1, Entrepreneurship Phenomenon: What phenomenon in the field of Entrepreneurshipdo you want to address?

The phenomenon of Entrepreneurship still has no clear borders. The academic debate on the nature ofEntrepreneurship still continues. Therefore, students should narrow down what kind of phenomenon

they are going to refer to: e.g. the entrepreneur, new venture creation, rapid growth of newly founded

businesses, corporate entrepreneurship, family business, franchising to name a few. (Readings: Rocha

& Birkinshaw 2007, Davidsson 2003 Davidsson 2005, chapter 1 and 2, Davidson & Wiklund 2000,

Gartner 1985, Carland et al. 1984, Gartner 1988, Carland et al. 1988, Low & MacMillan 1988,

Venkataraman 1997, Low 2001, Shane & Venkataraman 2000 and 2001, Gartner 2008).

At this stage, instructors need to ensure that PhD students understand the difference between a

phenomenon and a theoretically grounded definition. A definition of entrepreneurshipfor instance

when defined as the discovery (or creation), evaluation and exploitation of commercial opportunities

(Venkataraman 1997, Shane & Venkataraman 2000, 2001)could apply to various kinds of realworld phenomenons in Entrepreneurship, such like starting a company, corporate entrepreneurship, or

Start

1) Chosing anEntrepreneurship

Phenomenon

2) Identifying relevantLevel of Analysis inseveral dimensions

3) Reflecting on theEntrepreneurial Life

Cycle

4) Reflecting onSubsequent Fields in

EntrepreneurshipResearch

8) In-Depth LiteraturReview, Identifying

Research Gaps,Research Question

7) Reflecting onPersonal Motivation

and Goals

6) Selecting anEmpirical Object

5) Reflecting onEntrepreneurship

Theory

9) Chosing fromQualitative and

Quantitative Methods

10) AddressingOrganizational Tasks

End(start thesis!)

x x x

1 1 3 3


4/15

even becoming a franchisee. Even a person running a Mom and Pop corner store might be regarded

as someone who still exploits a sustainable opportunity that he once discovered many years ago (see

Bygrave 1995, who objects that those businesses should not be part of what Entrepreneurship Research

examines). However, in contrast you might also find start-ups which are not based on an opportunity,

but rather on necessity. Therefore, two elements of the same entrepreneurial phenomenon (starting a

business) may not be applicable to a single definition of entrepreneurship (utilizing an opportunity),

but a single definition can be applicable to a broad variety of phenomenons. In general, a phenomenonis built on a group of elements who are somehow similar in their empirical attributes. A theoretical

definition can sometimes be applicable for a much broader set of elements than a just a single

phenomenon, but at the same time not for each and every single element within a phenomenon.

3.2)Step 2, Level of Analysis: What level of analysis are you interested in?At least two dimensions are under consideration here, later we can even add more dimensions. First,

the phenomenon of Entrepreneurship can affect elementsof certain levels on a hierarchical scale, e.g.

the personal level, organizational (often i.e. firm) level, regional level, industry level, environmental

level, national economical level, and international economical level. In a second dimension, levels arenot reflecting hierarchies of elements but of dynamic processes, reflecting initial conditions, processes,

context, and outcomes (Aldrich & Martinez 2001). Students should reflect what level they want to

address and instructors should advise them to consider multi level analysis, combining at least two orthree levels in both dimensions. A study that would not cover a wide span of levels but only a single

level (for instance only initial conditions) and not relating its findings with other levels (for instance

processes and outcomes) will remain descriptive or explorative in nature at its best. The same holdstrue for studies examining only outcomes without relating them to any of the previous levels.

(Readings: Low & MacMillan 1988, p.151f., Davidsson & Wiklund 2001, Busenitz et al 2003, p.

278f., West 2003, Aldrich & Martinez 2003 and as just one example of a multi-level/multi-

dimensional study Groen 2005).

Exemplary Hierarchical Levels of anorganizational scale:

international economic level

national economic level

regional economic level

local economic level

industry level

organizational/firm level

Entrepreneurial team level

Entrepreneur at individual level Exemplarylevels of

research intoentrepreneurial

dynamics

Level of

initialconditions

Processes

Level

Level of

surroundingconditions

Level of

outcomes(results)

Figure 2: Exemplary two dimensional matrix to organize and combine levels of analysis when starting out

dynamic entrepreneurship research.

More dimensions can be added to this model. For instance, it might be suitable to add a disciplinary

dimension (see e.g. Herron et al. 1991 and 1992 or Wortman 1987). Research on Entrepreneurship can

be undertaken from a solely economical, psychological, sociological, anthropological, or political

perspective. It could also reflect merely managerial research. Within each dimension, there are againmore levels, for instance the economic approach consist of Neoclassical, Austrian, Institutional,

Up to 32 (8x4) research quadrants

which could be combined (all of

them or more likely in part) in

multi-level analyses

x x x

1 1 3 4


5/15

Evolutionary reasoning and so forth. A multi-level approach would combine different perspectives:

For instance a study on a managerial level combined with an economic approach on an institutional

level (Ordnungskonomik, to be precise), and some elements from the level of political analysis

could help to understand rent seeking processes in start-up support programs. Such a multi-level

approach would be sufficient to examine all three parties involved: Entrepreneurs, politicians, and

agents of start-up support agencies.

3.3) Step 3, Life Cycle:What phases in the entrepreneurial life cycle do you want to examine?

In Entrepreneurship Research, different phases of the entrepreneurial process can be under

examination, from idea generation, business planning, launching, establishing and growing a new

venture to exist or sustaining a business or the succession of a family business. Before selecting a

phase of interest, researchers should answer the question to what life cycle concept they refer to? Some

life cycle models distinguish early stage phenomenons like idea creation and business planning,

prototype development, the stages of legally starting the venture, market entry, and the later stages of

growth and exiting (or retaining) the business. Others refer to the model of opportunity recognition (or

creation), development, evaluation and exploitation, others are based on technological life cycles or

market cycles. Students should know the different models and take a decision on the stages they areinterested in. Models can also be recombined.

Life cycle models can help to identify certain tasks which are characteristic of (or critical to) certain

stages of entrepreneurial processes. Distinctive measurements for entrepreneurial processes and

outcomes apply for various stages, as pointed out by Wilkinson & Hindle at the AGSE International

Entrepreneurship Research Exchange 2006 (see figure 3). (Readings: E.g. Churchill & Lewis 1983,Scott & Bruce 1987, Scott 1990, Carter et al. 1996, Kaiser & Glser 1999, Ferrary 2003, Wilkinson &

Hindle 2006, andas just one example of a study referring to a life cycle modelHite & Hesterly

1999 and 2001).

Instructors should point out that researching thetransitionfrom one stage to another can be extremely

rewarding (e.g. like executed by Delmar & Shane 2004 and Delmar & Shane 2004a). For instance it

could be examined why so many participants in business plan completion never enter the start-up

stage, thus never walking the walk after talking the talk, while other entrepreneurs still do. By the way:A longitudinal research design that tries to follow businesses from early stage to exit might be of great

academic value, butfor reasons of durationmight not be applicable for PhD students.

Figure 3: Life cycle model identifying typical activities, measurements and decisions that are characteristic ofcertain stages in the entrepreneurial process (figure taken from Wilkinson & Hindle 2006).

x x x

1 1 3 5


6/15

3.4) Step 4, Research Topic: Which topic / subsequent field in entrepreneurship research are you

interested in?

Entrepreneurship research often combines common research fields with the phenomenon ofentrepreneurship. Titles of articles published in the field of entrepreneurship often reflect this

recombination of Entrepreneurship Research with existing fields of research by combining the word

entrepreneurship with a second research topic in a way that indicates a certain research context like

in: entrepreneurship and finance, entrepreneurship and venture capital, entrepreneurship and networks,

entrepreneurship and social capital, entrepreneurship and strategic alliances, strategic entrepreneurship,

international entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education, social entrepreneurship, entrepreneurialpsychology, entrepreneurship and economics, and so forth. Step 4 is interrelated with the disciplinary

dimension in the previous step. PhD students should build on their existing knowledge and consider

their future (academic) career options when narrowing down potential areas. Writing a thesis that is at

the interface of entrepreneurship and a second field of your choice might increase your academic

employability. A PhD student who for instance is publishing a thesis on entrepreneurship and

marketing might later on apply for academic positions in entrepreneurship as well as for positions in

marketing.

However, if Entrepreneurship is to be regarded as a distinctive field of research (Low 2001, p. 17,

see Venkataraman 1997, Shane & Venkataraman 2001) we will need at least some scholars who take

courage to focus on the core of Entrepreneurship (whatever this might be in your eyes) withoutadding a justifying little phrase and something behind the term Entrepreneurship. Dealing with

the framework of opportunity recognition or creation, evaluation and exploitation (see Sarasvathy et al.2005 for a review) can be one way to write a thesis at the very core of our field. Three more examples

will be provided by the next step (see Landstrm & Sexton 2000 for some more suggestions on further

research in entrepreneurship).

3.5) Step 5, Entrepreneurship Theory: What entrepreneurship theory or construct do you want to

contribute to?

A single Entrepreneurship Theory in terms of a normal science paradigm (Kuhn 1962) does not exist

(see Harrison & Leitch 1996 for discussion), yet not even a unifying definition has occurred. (Even

though Shanes & Venkataramans (2001) definition gains much attention, there still is criticism and

conceptual extension, e.g by Kumar (2006)). This situation continues since many decades, even sosome leading scholars in the field have called for such a unifying framework. Bygrave & Hofer (1991,

p. 16) have put forward the search for a deterministic Entrepreneurship Theory, following the rolemodel of theories in physics: With that kind of predictive power, we would have the key to economic

growth! Need we say more!! Entrepreneurship would be the giant of the business sciences, perhaps of

all the social science!! (Bygrave 1995, pp. 258f., see Bygrave 1989, Bygrave 1993, Bygrave & Hofer

1991, Fallgatter 2004, and Aldrich & Baker 1997 for a reflection).

It can be doubt that such a single Entrepreneurship Paradigm will ever emerge, due to several reasons.

Entrepreneurship is an interdisciplinary field; from which discipline should our framework origin

(Fallgatter 2004)? However this decision would be taken, wouldnt such a decision exclude other

disciplines with their fruitful contributions? Would the establishment of a dominant paradigm therefore

support or hinder the future development of the field? Entrepreneurship deals with unforeseeable

creativity, unpredictable novelty and unanticipated innovation. Could a deterministic theory ever applyto such an ambiguous context? Can deterministic theories altogether apply to social science? AsLandstrm (2005, p. 21, see Landstm 2000) pointed out: Entrepreneurship is an inherently

complicated and ambiguous phenomenon, and the content of the concept changes over time. Because

the phenomenon in itself is complicated, ambiguous and tends to vary, it is reasonable to expect that

our definitions of the concept will also be ambiguous and changeable. Gartner (2001, p. 34) argues

that [t]here is no theory of entrepreneurship that can account for the diversity of topics that are

currently pursued by entrepreneurship scholars. And last but not least, would a paradigmatic theory of

entrepreneurship foster or hinder entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurship itself (the

phenomenon called entrepreneurship, which exists out there in the field)? We know from other

context, that sometimes our well-intended, sophisticated theories can destroy good managerial practice

(Ghoshal 2005). PhD students should reflect arguments for and against a normal science paradigm in

Entrepreneurship Theory. For example, they can outline the contrary positions of Bygrave and Gartner

in a group work and then debate in the class room on the pros and cons of the two contrary positions,one group representing Bygraves position, the other one taking a stand for Gartner.

x x x

1 1 3 6


7/15

Entrepreneurship is still a young field of science (Low 2001). Most leading researchers have entered

from other fields (e.g. Aldrich from social science, Audretsch, Davidsson, and Turik from economics,

Bygrave from physics, Freese from psychology, Gartner from business administration, Hisrich from

marketing, Reynolds from engineering, just to name a few). (See Landstrm (2005) for a refelction on

the phenomenon of academic mobility in the case of Entrepreneurship Research.) Based on

biblionmetric analyses in a special issue of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Gartner et al.

(2006) have noted: [] we have observed: entrepreneurship researchers borrow heavily from theirhome disciplines and retain their academic loyalties to these disciplines. Therefor again, a single

dominant normal science paradigm is yet not expected to get established because of the heterogeneous

body of entrepreneurship faculty. Even Bygrave (1995) acknowledged: We do not want to erect a

wall around our field with notice that trespasser should keep out. Rather, we need a fuzzy boundary

around the field that posted with welcome signs for scholars who share our beliefs and want to join us

and labor in the field of entrepreneurship.

We agree and we believe that at this stage scientific pluralism (Feyerabend 1975) is much more

productive than a normal science status with a strong paradigm (Kuhn (1963) never called for such a

paradigm, his work was not meant to be normative but rather solely descriptive). Scientific pluralism

can hinder the establishment of normal science status and still boost advances in Entrepreneurship

Research. As Gartner (2001, p. 34) mentioned: The conundrum, as I see it, is that the totality of

current academic research does not espouse (nor can it espouse) an entrepreneurship theory, per se;

rather entrepreneurship research espouses a diverse range of theories applied to various kinds of

phenomena. There is no theory of entrepreneurship that can account for the diversity of topics that are

currently pursued by entrepreneurship scholars. [] I do not see a way for scholars to generate a

theory of entrepreneurship based on so many different research topics that seem to constitute the field

of entrepreneurship. All of the disparate findings that compose our field are unlikely to be connected

into a coherent whole.

However, under the aegis of scientific pluralism scientist need to take responsible decisions on

research design. Anything goes (Feyerabend 1993, p. 93), but anything does not go at the same time

in the same paper or thesis. For Feyerabend, the notion of anything goes only addresses pluralism in

choiceof method and framework. It is a misinterpretation that this notion would be directed against

methodological rigorness once someone has chosen or developed a method or has selected or created a

framework (Feyerabend 1993 pp. 93f). Hence, decisions need to be taken regarding the framework and

the methods. PhD students could either develop their own framework in terms of a newEntrepreneurship Theory, or they could contribute by researching within a given framework,

contributing to its validity, reliability, and extension. We suggest the latter: Leave the development of

new theories and concepts to the more senior researchers and thereby stick to your last, gain a deep

understanding of the existing literature and the structure of the field, demonstrate your ability to

contribute to an existing stream of research, achieve solid research results, and save time and reduce

risk of failure. The same opinion applies to methods: PhD students may either choose from the broadvariety of existing methods (qualitative or quantitative orpreferreda mix of both e.g. developing

a questionnaire for empirical research based on previous in depth qualitative research) or develop new

methods. We suggest leaving the development of methods to the most senior researchers. In a PhD

thesis, it is by all means sufficient enough to demonstrate the ability to make best use of existing

methods. (We will not address the matter of methods here, see below Step 7. PhD candidates are

advised to consult the existing literature on methodological issues and to participate in course work.)

A number of conceptual frameworks in Entrepreneurship have emerged during the last decades. A

dominant Entrepreneurship theory does still not exist. But as a result of academic pluralism, we own a

considerable amount of non-exclusive Entrepreneurship Theories. This demonstrates how hard cores

in science (Lakatos 1970) can emerge from years of pluralistic approaches to science. Theoretical

frameworks in Entrepreneurship include for instance the constructs of Entrepreneurial Orientation(Covin & Selvin 1986, 1988, 1991, 1993), Entrepreneurial Management (Stevenson 1983/2006,

Stevenson & Gumpert 1985, Stevenson & Jarillo 1990, Brown et al. 2001) and Entrepreneurial

Effectuation (Sarasvathy 2001, Sarasvathy 2004, Sarasvathy & Dew 2008), just to name three

examples. This is a different story than those theoretical frameworks provided under Step 4, where we

have considered frameworks and research topics which do not originate from the field of

Entrepreneurship Research, but rather have been imported from other fields for combination with

Entrepreneurship (e.g. social science in the case of Entrepreneurship and social capital, or strategic

management in the case of Entrepreneurship and strategic alliances). Frameworks considered underStep 4 have usuallybefore they had been adopted to Entrepreneurship Researchbeen out there for

x x x

1 1 3 7


8/15

many years, and have been tested and improved over and over again, like for example in the case of

network theory (Kilduff et al. 2006).

By contrast, theoretical constructs which have just emerged from Entrepreneurship need differentscientific treatment. For instance they need to be tested for validity and reliability of scales. Some

measurement instruments still need to be improved or tested under different cultural or circumstantial

influences. Some constructs (like entrepreneurial management) need to be linked with more levels of

analyses, e.g. linking the measurement scale of entrepreneurial management with firm performance or

outcomes on an industry level or a regional economic level (for example see Kuhn et al. 2010). Our

field needs what we call creative replicationof previous research (see Davidsson 2005, chapter 9).

In addition, it might be a fruitful approach to combine external frameworks with Entrepreneurship

Theories. Combining considerations from Step 4 with those from Step 5i.e. combining theoretical

frameworks from other fields with constructs that emerged within the field of entrepreneurshipcould

lead to promising PhD-theses which for instance would examine the role of networks in

entrepreneurial management, the influence of strategic alliances on entrepreneurial orientation, or

the challenge of entrepreneurial finance within an effectuational approach to entrepreneurship.

Taking into account the current status of reviews and textbooks on Entrepreneurship Theory (not on

Entrepreneurship in general) it might be quite difficult to systematically identify all the current

constructs in Entrepreneurship theory, especially for new PhD students. Here, we have limited our

exemplary sample to three constructs (entrepreneurial orientation, management, and effectuation).

Only very few publications address the need of a broad systematic review (e.g. Low & MacMillan

1988, Brush et al. 2003, Acs & Audretsch (ed.) 2005, Landstrm 2005, and a series of journal papers

with a clear focus on reviewing the field called Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, edited

by Acs & Audretsch (2005-2010). Therefore it currently remains an individual challenge for PhD

instructors to clearly and systematically communicate the distinctive constructs which already exist in

Entrepreneurship Research.

3.6) Step 6, Empirical Objects: What real world objects/matter do you want to examine?

After all those theoretical considerations, it is time to take a break, take a deep breath and then take on

the next big challenge. Contemporary research needs to combine theoretical reasoning with empirical

analyses. Within the five previous steps, PhD students have defined their research interest. It maysurprise some readers that the process didnt start with an empirical observation. Often, the starting

point for defining a research interest is such an observation: Students read about venture capital, or

some social enterprise, or the biography of an entrepreneur. Thereby they get interested in this

particular topic (e.g. VC, social entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial personality etc.). Students try to craft

a research design around that particular interest. We believe that students who follow this simple

evolutionary approach are victims to mere chance. They might end up lucky, but they might also get

hit by contretemps, unable to complete research. And they may miss opportunities for promising

research just because they werent aware of the full range of chances for developing meaningful

research which existed in the first place.

In case the previous steps have directed towards a study on the phenomenon of new venture creation

(step 1) and the transition from the phase of planning the venture to entering the market (step 3), a real

world object that would combine individual and firm level (step 2) could for instance mean:

Entrepreneurs who are in the process of launching their first venture. However, this definition of anobject is much too broad. It is important to narrow down this phenomenon. For instance, research

could be limited to entrepreneurs who are scientists at non-private universities in a certain state of

Germany (or the US, or Australia, or any other country), and who are spinning off technology based

ventures in the year 2009, whereby the construct of technology based venture is indicated by the use

of patents. Now the sample under examination is much more well-defined. The thread of heterogeneity

in your data is significantly reduced (Davidsson 2008, Davidsson 2005, chapter 5) and the outer

conditions at the macroeconomic and the institutional levels are standardized. The likelihood thatempirical variance in entrepreneurial outcomes has been influenced by variables under examination

and not by uncontrolled randomnesshas increased (see Gartner 1995, p. 71). This also means that the

precise definition of the research object will allow formulating preciseand thus testablehypotheses

in the further progress of a PhD study.

x x x

1 1 3 8


9/15

3.7) Step 7, Motivation: What is your personal philosophy about you doing research?

Instead of socializing doctoral students into the current chase for A-listed journal publications,why not attempt to fuel their natural desire to make a difference? (Adler & Harzing 2009, p. 88).

Most researchers have their personal motivation for conducting research. For instance, some want to

provide results with strong practical implications; others care more about theory development. Most

are primarily interested in the object they study. To them, methods are nothing more than means to anend; others again love to face the challenge of methodological development. Some get their motivation

from the object they study (a trend recently surveyed in social entrepreneurship) or from the theory oftheir belief (a trend recently surveyed in effectuation). Both situations (being obsessed by the object of

study or the theory of belief) can lead to a lack of critical thinking. A reflection on the personal

motivation can help avoiding this human weakness. Some researchers are motivated by the end of the

mean: to obtain a doctoral degree. This can lead to brisk progress, but also a lack of thoroughness.

Whatever a students philosophy is, he or she should make it explicit. Personal goals and motivations

should influence the research design in a positive way while consciously avoiding possible negative

consequences.

A research design that is not aligned with the personal motivation can be a pain; a pain that will

probably stick to the PhD students neck for many years. Not to mention that the experience of

academic freedom is hardly to be made if someone works on a research project he or she cant

identify with. We know that some PhD instructors argue that life isnt fair and that they cant executetheir obligations from third party funding if they leave such decisions to their PhD students. Not the

personal motivationthey arguebut rather the imperatives of the research institution determine

research designs (see Wicks 2004, Rynes 2007 (Editor-in-ChiefAcademy of Management Journal) and

Nkomo 2009 for discussion). Such thinking may apply for professional research associates in post PhD

positions. They earn their money by executing research of all kind, its their job. PhD students in

contrast should be encouraged to follow a more idealistic road, since most of us take their PhD only

once and feel emotionally committed to this process.

3.8) Step 8, Literature Review:Do you really know the literature in your field of interest?

Students are asked to read through the existing literature according to their interests as indicated by

answers to question 1 to 7. Reading in science means to first generate economies of overview and

then to critically read and interpret the literature in order to identify weak spots and research gaps. A

first step is to realize how much contributions already exist and to find technics to deal with theamount of existing literature. Besides searching online data bases like Ebsco Host, PhD students

should physically go to the library and spend some time on a discovery journey. The literature can be

brought to a certain order to gain maximum insights in minimum time. Therefore, students start to read

publications on the development of the field (including articles on theory development and

methodological challenges) and review articles, starting with the older contributions working their way

to the present. In a second step, meta-analyses are under consideration. In a third step, the vast majorityof remaining articles are screened. In many cases, the number of available publications is so big that it

is just impossible to read them all. For instance, approx. 1,500 articles have been published on

entrepreneurship and networks (Sassmannshausen 2010). Students can identify the most cited

publications using Google Scholar. All other articles can be screened by the abstract. If the article

seems to be an important contribution, the introduction and conclusion should be read. Then it can be

decided whether or not to read the full paper.

Reading needs guidance and support of experienced instructors who know the literature. To train

students abilities in the art of critical readings, instructors should discuss some of the readings with

their scholars in small group settings. Only thereafter students should spell out and write down their

research question. Just writing it down can already be an iterative process of several hours spend on

narrowing down, making it precise, fighting with heterogeneity, taking into account literature that has

not been evaluated earlier etc. And still, a research question will not be finalized in just a few hours.

Instead, the formulation will be revisited several times during weeks of the research process.

3.9) Step 9, Methodological Choices: What methods are applicable to address the issue you have

chosen?

The aim of a study should determine the use of research methodsand not the other way around. Wewill not go into detail here. We have already referred to methodological literature and course work. (A

x x x

1 1 3 9


10/15

very useful textbook is Blumberg et al. 2008: It comes with a CD thatamongst other content

contains decision trees which help to select adequate quantitative methods.) The number of methods is

almost without limits. Some debate over qualitative or quantitative research. We argue that this is not

an either/or-option. Scholars could rather start out conducting qualitative research to gain an

understanding of the empirical object under examination (including the identification of a set of

influential variables) and to explore the boundaries of the phenomenon. Thereafter well-grounded

quantitative research can produce insights especially about how the various variableswhich havebeen identified by the qualitative approachinteract in total. PhD students should use the opportunity

to demonstrate their skills in both approaches. To show that a candidate really understands the methods

seems to be more important than questions of sample size and other common methodological issues.

Good qualitative studies are in no means inferior to quantitative work. However, it is sometimes harder

to get them published, especially by so called leading journals.

Besides the common general literature and text books on methods, there are some articles and books

that especially address methodological challenges in Entrepreneurship Research. Typical challenges

are such like: the definition of statistical groups (e.g. who isan entrepreneur?), problems with official

statistics on the number of start-ups (over- and under-coverage, i.e. the establishment of the legal body

of companies are registered, but not every company that is registered really is starting operations), the

challenge to find and measure appropriate variables of entrepreneurial success, the special need for

case study research in Entrepreneurship or the problems that occur when using methods that are based

on a statistical average (not saying that such research shouldnt be done, but it should be execute with

care, and its limitations should be well reflected) and so forth. We recommend paying attention to

those publications. (Readings: e.g. Van de Ven & Ferry 1980, Carland et al. 1984, Bygrave 1989,

Gartner 1989, Hofer & Bygrave 1992, Chrisman 1994, Johannisson 1995, Davidsson & Wiklund 2000,

Chandler & Lyon 2001, Gartner & Birley 2001 and the subsequent articles in their JBVspecial issue

on qualitative research, Storey 2002, Hindle 2004, Davidsson 2005, Wilkinson & Hindle 2006, Gartner

2007, Davidsson (ed.) 2008).

3.10) Addressing Organizational Tasks:Asking practical questions!

Only now, after working through all the previous questions, students should address two groups of

practical question: (1) urgent technical and (2) important strategic questions. The first group consists of

questions such like: Where to get data from (make or buy-decision)? How much time and resources tospend? How to fund and execute empirical research? Sometimes, entrepreneurial spirit (e.g. the ability

to work around bottle necks) is needed to find convenient answers to such questions. Practical issues

have been real obstacles only in sporadic cases. Thus the need to redefine a project will hardly ever

occur since in most cases small adjustments of the research question will already allow to continue

with the PhD research process. (Curran & Blackburn 2001 provide valuable recommendations on how

to address practical problems in research on Entrepreneurship and SME.)

The second group of questions addresses some more important strategic considerations: Who will

benefit from (or be interested in) the results? What publication strategy could work well with thethesis? Which journals would care? In how many subsequent articles can the research be divided for

multiple journal publication? Students will notice that those strategic questions can be easily answered

after following the Ten Step Heuristic. If not, then it is likely that something went wrong on your

way. In this rare event, especially Step 1 to 6 need to be revisited. In general, students have worked

successfully through the Ten Step Heuristic, if they can provide answers to all twelve areas that areincluded in a checklist for good research practice provided by Hofer & Bygrave (1992), p. 92.

4. STEP ZERO ADDING A SECOND LOOP TO MATTER MORE

much academic research is rigorous but irrelevant(Adler & Harzing 2009, p. 80)

The Ten Step Heuristic is not a replacement for other guidelines. Its complementary to existing

conventions. We especially agree with the notation that scholarly research should in the best case

be rigor andrelevant (Vermeulen 2005, Tushmann & OReilly III 2007). The scholarly contributions

of doctoral students do not need to remain insignificant (Vermeulen 2007, p. 754). Our systematic

approach to defining research questions can help to add significant impact to the findings of a PhD-

thesis. Davidsson (2002) has described how Entrepreneurship Research can gain relevance and impact.

x x x

1 1 4 0


11/15

For the purposes of relevance and impact, in some cases a Step Zero needs to be implemented before

taking on with the following ten steps: PhD students who have no entrepreneurial family background,

have never been entrepreneurs, have never met and talked with real entrepreneurs, or worked inside

a start-up or VC company, should add a second loop to matter more (Vermeulen 2007, p. 754). This

loop consists by making hands-on contact talking with entrepreneurs and/or hands-on experience

working with (or for) entrepreneurs/start-ups.

We all have witnessed rare cases of young researchers presenting self-humiliating papers at

conferences, stating totally unrealistic assumptions about (and implications for) the reality of

Entrepreneurship. They build their holistic picture solely upon statistical measurements from justone single (but somehow significant) sample. (Not to mention a missing methodological consciousness

for a typical lack of normal distribution in our samples). But locked inside their ivory tower (locked by

well-intended instructors who want them to rapidly produce positivistic papers), they have never met,

spoken or worked with a real entrepreneur in person. And the empirical results and their

interpretation of data seem somewhat wrong-headed to those who know Entrepreneurship from

firsthand. In such situations, we have always felt both sorry and angry. Sorry for the candidate and

angry because obviously no instructor took care of correcting specified misperceptions.

Entrepreneurship is about exceptional actions. Thus, Entrepreneurship should not be defined by a

statistical average; indeed, the average start-up and the average entrepreneur maybe are the least

interesting ones. Much more can be learned from the actions outliers took, than from the practice of the

average. We recall Gartners notation (1995, p. 75): there is no average in entrepreneurship! (See

e.g. Bruyat & Julien (2000) for a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of both, positivism or

constructivism, in the field of entrepreneurship research.)

We therefore strongly recommend ensuring that young researchers get into contact with entrepreneurs,

learn about their spirits and fears, share their workload etc. In a word: send them to the field!

Participating in consulting / coaching entrepreneurs together with a senior consultant and/or writing a

case study (conducting the interviews, joining entrepreneurs in meetings inside and outside their start-

up, observing them while they execute tasks, structuring the case etc.) together with a senior researcher

are two valuable approaches to provide firsthand real world experience. It takes no more than one to

three month to gain deep personal insights, but it adds a lot of understanding, esp. in those research

students who never have been in contact with Entrepreneurship before joining the academic career path

(see Bjerke 2007 for an extensive discussion on understanding entrepreneurship). Vermeulen

(2007)in his paper on rigor and relevance in the Academy of Management Journalcalled thisapproach of close exchange with practitioners the second loop to matter more.

To sum it up: In general, in our opinion, all PhD students should at least make some little experience in

qualitative research before moving on with quantitative research designs. They should also gain

firsthand insights into entrepreneurial activities. Assisting in consulting, coaching or in case study

projects, or conducting semi structured interviews (for the purpose of their own research) are just a few

promising approaches which only consume little time at the beginning of a PhD process.

5. CLOSING REMARKS AND CONCLUSION

We would like to address a number of issues in a closing remark: First, we have found this Ten Step

Heuristic a useful road map. It was successfully tested at our school. It helps not to miss important

decisions early on and not to act unaware of the structure of the field. This heuristic assists innarrowing down research interests and provides structural guidance. Applied in various places and

programs, it would help to establish some common mental constructs that might be referred to as hard

cores of research in terms of Lakatos (1970) and therefore add to the academic viability of

Entrepreneurship Research (see Fallgatter 2004). However, it is not designed to take away the need (or

burden) of individual decision making from doctoral students. Its rather designed to train youngscholars in making best use of the freedom of academic decisions and to encourage instructors not to

further reduce academic freedom, but to pass it on to the next generation of bright scholars.

Accordingly, reading through this article, some may have noticed with surprise that we didntdiscuss

theoretical sound definitions of Entrepreneurship, and how PhD students can select the right

definition. Shouldnt students define what is meant by the term Entrepreneurship as used by theirtheses? Yes, clearly they should. However, we do not intend to predetermine PhD students decisions

on what entrepreneurship definition is the best for their purpose. After working through each of the ten

steps, the question should be easily answered either by selecting an applicable definition from those

hundreds of entrepreneurship definitions that are already out there, orin case none of these

x x x

1 1 4 1


12/15

definitions suites wellby creating a new definition. Consequently there is no single step that suggests

how to make a decision on choices of theoretical entrepreneurship definitions. (Step 5 was on testable

constructs and theories in entrepreneurship, not on definitions!) The preference for a certain definition

is usually resulting from the whole process of the Ten Step Heuristic. Or like Gartner et al. (2006, p.

327) have coined it: Entrepreneurship scholarship is what entrepreneurship scholars pay attention to.

Second, if one reads through the list of references, he or she will notice that most of the literature

literature that might be regarded as mile stones defining the aim and scope of the fieldwas not

published in our leading journals of entrepreneurship research (such like Journal of Business

Venturing) but rather in other leading management journals like Academy of Management Review,Academy of Management Journal and Journal of Management. On one hand side, it is notable that

Entrepreneurship as a distinctivefield of research gains so much attention by leading management

journals (see Busenitz et al. 2003). On the other hand, it is a challenge to our dedicated

entrepreneurship journals: Shouldnt they contribute more to the theoretical foundations and

development of our field? (This seems to be true especially for the Journal of Business Venturing,

were asEntrepreneurship Theory & Practice has made some more fundamental contributions to theory

development).

Third, this paper has some limitations. It does not refer to all literature that might be regarded mile

stones in Entrepreneurship Research. PhD instructors may feel free to extent the list (Brush et al. 2003

suggest some lists of literature for course work in PhD programs; the lists are organized bydisciplines). PhD instructors may also feel free to change the order of some of the ten steps (but not to

the reverse order of the whole process!) or to add additional steps. As reported earlier, this contributionreflects experience from a good practice, and a good practice might not be mistaken for (the one and

only) best practice. It is a heuristic that can (and often will) lead to good results, but it is not a logical

determinism that will always and under all circumstances produces best results.

Fourth, this road map is designed to help PhD students, not to rule them. Students may take detours or

decide for a different route. We allow for detours and different routes, because we believe that this willhelp to achieve a critical mess (Gartner 2004, p. 199, see Gartner 2006a and 2006b) in

Entrepreneurship Research. In his work and much to our surprise, Gartner does not quote Paul

Feyerabend. However we do so, believing that scientific pluralism improves the critical power of

science (Feyerabend 1975, 1979, 1984, 1999). In our opinion, scientific pluralism does so especially in

a multi-faceted area of interest like entrepreneurship, which involves entrepreneurs rule breakingbehavior (Knyphausen-Aufse et al. 2006) and which might only be tackled down successfully byinterdisciplinary efforts (Herron et al. 1991 and 1992, see Harrison & Leitch 1996). It might surprise

some readers that we agree with Lakatos andFeyerabend in the Conclusion of the same paper, but we

assume that there is some truth in both points of view. (Maybe this is the reason why Feyerabend and

Lakatos battled each other so hard (see Feyerabend 1999).)

So, where ever the journey of researching entrepreneurship will take you: Have fun and enjoy while

being productive in either way, following Lakatos or Feyerabend!

REFERENCES

Acs. ZJ, Audretsch, DB (ed.) (2005): Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and

Introduction.Bosten MA etc.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Acs, ZJ, Audretsch, DB (ed.) (2005-2010): Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship. Hanover MA, Delft NL: now

Publishers.

Adler, NJ, Harzing, A-W (2009): When Knowledge Wins: Transcending the Sense and Nonsense of Academic

Rankings.Academy of Management Education & Learning, Vol. 8(1): 72-95.

Aldrich, HE, Baker, TB (1997): Blinded by Cites? Has there been Progress in Entrepreneurship Research? In: Sexton,

DL, Smilor, RW (ed.):Entrepreneurship 2000.Chicago: Upstart, pp. 377-400.

Aldrich, HE, Fiol, CM (1994): Fools Rush in? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation.Academy of Management

Review, Vol. 19, 645-670.

Aldrich, HE, Martinez, M (2001): Many are Called, but Few are Chosen: An Evolutionary Perspective for the Study of

Entrepreneurship.Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 26 (Sommer): 41-56.

Aldrich, HE, Martinez, M (2003): Entrepreneurship as Social Construction: A Multi-level Evolutionary Approach. In:Acs, ZJ, Audretsch, DB (ed.): Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers,

pp. 359-399.

Bartunek, J (2003): 2002 Presidential Address: A Dream for the Academy. Academy of Management Review,28: pp.

198203.Bjerke, B (2007): Understanding Entrepreneurship.Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Blumberg, B et al. (2008):Business Research Methods. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.

x x x

1 1 4 2


13/15

Brown, TE et al. (2001): An Operationalization of Stevensons Conceptualization of Entrepreneurship as Opportunity-

Based Firm Behavior. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22: 953-968.

Brush, CG. et al. (2003): Doctoral Education in the Field of Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, Vol. 29(3):309-331.

Busenitz, LW (2003): Entrepreneurship Research in Emergence: Past Trends and Future Directions. Journal ofManagement, Vol. 29(3): 285-308.

Bruyat, C, Julien, PA (2000): Defining the Field of Research in Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.

16(2): 165-180.Bygrave, WD (1989): The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (I): A Philosophical Look at its Research Methodologies.

Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 14: 7-26.

Bygrave, WD (1993): Theory Building in the Entrepreneurship Paradigm.Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8: 255-

280.

Bygrave, WD (1995): Mom-and-Pops, High Potential Start-ups, and Entrepreneurship: Are they Part of the same

Entrepreneurship Paradigm? In: Katz, JA, Brockhaus, RH (ed.): Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence

and Growth.Vol. 2, Greenwich CO, London UK: Elsevier / JAI Press, pp. 1-19.

Bygrave, WD / Hofer, CW (1991): Theorizing about Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 16:

13-22.

Carland, JW et al. (1984): Differentiating Entrepreneurs from Small Business Owners: A Conceptualization. Academy

of Management Journal, Vol. 9(2): 354-359.

Carland, JW (1988): Who is an Entrepreneur? Is a Question Worth Asking. American Journal of Small Business,

Vol. 12(4): 33-39.

Carter, NM et al. (1996): Exploring Start-up Event Sequences.Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 11: 151-166.

Casson, M (1982): The Entrepreneur.Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble Books.

Chandler, GN, Lyon, DW (2001): Issues of Research Design and Construct Measurement in Entrepreneurship Research:The Past Decade.Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 25(4): 101-113.

Chrisman, JJ (1994): Editorial: Writing Cases for Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Entrepreneurship Theory &

Practice, Vol. 18 (Winter): 89-95.

Churchill, NC, Lewis, VL (1983): The Five Stages of Business Growth.Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61(3): 30-50.

Covin, JG, Slevin, DP (1986): The Development and Testing of an Organizational-Level Entrepreneurship Scale. In:

Ronstad, R. et al. (ed.):Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research.Wellesley, MA: Babson College, pp. 628-639.

Covin, JG, Slevin, DP (1988): The Influence of Organization Structure on the Utility of an Entrepreneurial Top

Management Style. The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 25(3): 217-234.

Covin, JG, Slevin, DP (1991): A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior.Entrepreneurship Theory &

Practice, Vol. 16(1): 7-20.

Covin, JG, Slevin, DP (1993): A Response to Zahra's 'Critique and Extension' of Entrepreneurship Model.

Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 17(4): 23.

Curran, J, Blackburn, RA (2001):Researching the Small Enterprise.Thousand Oaks etc.: Sage.

Davidsson, P (2002): What Entrepreneurship Research Can Do for Business and Policy Practice.International Journal

of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1(1): 5-24.

Davidsson, P (2003): The Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: Some Suggestions. In: Katz, J, Shepherd, S (ed.):

Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Vol. 6, Oxford, UK: Elsevier / JAI Press, pp. 315-372.

Davidsson, P (2005):Researching Entrepreneurship. 1. Paperback-ed., New York etc.: Springer.

Davidsson, P (2008): Strategies for Dealing with Heterogeneity in Entrepreneurship Research. In: Davidsson, P (ed.)(2008): The Entrepreneurship Research Challenge.Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 103-124.

Davidsson, P (ed.) (2008): The Entrepreneurship Research Challenge. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward

Elgar.

Davidsson P et al. (2001): Editors Introduction: Low and MacMillan Ten Years On: Achievements and Future

Directions for Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 25 (Summer): 5-15.

Davidsson, P, Wiklund, J (2000): Conceptual and Empirical Challenges in the Study of Firm Growth. In: Sexton, DL /

Landstrm, H (ed.): The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship.Oxford (UK), Malden MA: Blackwell, pp. 26-44.Davidsson, P, Wiklund, J (2001): Levels of Analysis in Entrepreneurship Research: Current Research Practice and

Suggestions for the Future.Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 25(4): 89-99.

Delmar, F, Shane, S (2004): Legitimating First: Organizing Activities and the Survival of New Ventures. Journal of

Business Venturing, 19(3): 385-410.

Delmar, F, Shane, S (2004a): Planning for the Market: Business Planning before Marketing and the Continuation of

Organizing EffortsJournal of Business Venturing, 19(6), 767-785.

Fallgatter, Michael J. (2004): Entrepreneurship: Konturen einer jungen Disziplin. Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift frbetriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (ZfbF), Vol. 56: 23-44.

Ferrary, M 2003: Managing the Disruptive Technologies Life Cycle by Externalising the Research: Social Networks

and Corporate Venturing in the Silicon Valley.International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 25(1/2): 165-

180.

Feyerabend, P (1975):Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge.

Feyerabend, P (1979): Wider dem Methodenzwang. Skizze einer anarchischen Erkenntnistheorie.Frankfurt am Main:

Suhrkamp.

Feyerabend, P (1984): Wissenschaft als Kunst.Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

x x x

1 1 4 3


14/15

Feyerabend, P (1993): Wider dem Methodenzwang.4. ed., Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Feyerabend, P (1999): For and Against Method: Including Lakatos's Lectures on Scientific Method and the Lakatos-

Feyerabend Correspondence with Imre Lakatos

Gartner, WB (1985): A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation.Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 10(4): 696-706.

Gartner, WB (1988): Who is an Entrepreneur? Is the Wrong Question. American Journal of Small Business, Vol.

12(4): 11-32.

Gartner, WB (1989): Some Suggestions for Research on Entrepreneurial Traits and Characteristics. EntrepreneurshipTheory & Practice, Vol. 13(Fall): 27-37.

Gartner, WB (1995): Aspects of Organizational Emergence. In: Bull, J et al. (ed.): Entrepreneurship: Perspectives on

Theory Building.Oxford UK etc., S. 67-86.

Gartner, WB (2001): Is there an Elephant in Entrepreneurship? Blind Assumptions in Theory Development.

Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 25(4): 27-39.

Gartner, WB (2004): Achieving Critical Mess in Entrepreneurship Scholarship. In: Katz, JA, Shepherd, D (ed.):Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth.Vol. 7, Greenwich CT: JAI Press, pp. 199-216.

Gartner, WB (2006a): A Critical Mess Approach to Entrepreneurship Scholarship. In: Lundstrom, A, Halvarsson, S

(ed.):Entrepreneurship Research: Past Perspectives and Future Prospects, Vol. 2(3), Hannover MA: Now Publishers.

Gartner, WB (2006b): Entrepreneurship, Psychology and the Critical Mess. In: Baum, JR, et al. (ed.): The

Psychology of Entrepreneurship.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., pp. 325-334.

Gartner, WB (2007): Entrepreneurial Narrative and a Science of the Imagination. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.

22: 613-627.

Gartner, WB (2008): EntreprenneurshipHop.Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 32: 361-368.

Gartner, WB, Birley, S (2002): Introduction to the Special Issue on Qualitative Methods in Entrepreneurship Research.Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 17: 387-395.

Gartner, WB. et al. (2006): Are You Talking to Me? The Nature of Community in Entrepreneurship Scholarship.

Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, May, S. 321-331.

Ghoshal, S (2005): Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practices.Academy of Management

Learning & Education, 4(1): 7591.Groen, AJ (2005): Knowledge Intensive Entrepreneurship in Networks: Towards a Multi-Level/Multi-Dimensional

Approach.Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 13(1): 69-88.

Herron, L et al. (1991): Entrepreneurship Theory from an Interdisciplinary Perspective: Volume I. Entrepreneurship

Theory& Practice, Vol. 15(4): 7-12.

Herron, L et al. (1992): Entrepreneurship Theory from an Interdisciplinary Perspective: Volume II. EntrepreneurshipTheory& Practice, Vol. 16(3): S. 5-11.

Hambrick, DC (1994): Presidential Address: What if the Academy Really Mattered?Academy of Management Review,

Vol. 19(1): 1116.Harrison, RT, Leitch, CM 1996: Discipline Emergence in Entrepreneurship: Accumulative Fragmentalism or

Paradigmatic Science.Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Change, 5(2): 6583.Hindle, K (2004): Choosing Qualitative Methods for Entrepreneurial Cognition Research: A Canonical Development

Approach.Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 28(Winter): 575-607.

Hite, JM, Hesterly, WS (1999): The Influence of Firm Life Cycle on the Evolution of Entrepreneurial Dyadic Network

Ties. Paper presented at the Strategic Management Journal Special Issue Conference on Strategic Networks.

Hite, JM, Hesterly, WS (2001): The Evolution of Firm Networks: From Emergence to Early Growth of the Firm.

Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22: 275-286.

Hofer, CW, Bygrave, WD (1992): Researching Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.

16(Spring): 91-100.

Johannisson, B (1995): Paradigms and Entrepreneurial Networks: Some Methodological Challenges.Entrepreneurship

and Regional Development, Vol. 7: 215-231.Kaiser, L, Glser, J (1999): Entwicklungsphasen neugegrndeter Unternehmen. Trier: Trierer Arbeitspapiere zur

Mittelstandskonomie.

Kilduff, M et al. (2006): A Paradigm too far? Stability Reconsideration of the Social Network Research Program.Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31(4): 1031-1048.

Knyphausen-Aufse, D zu et al. (2006): Understanding and Breaking the Rules of Business: Toward a Systematic Four-Step Process.Business Horizon, Vol. 49: 369-377.

Kuhn, B et al. (2010): Entrepreneurial Management as a Strategic Choice in Firm Behavior: Linking it with

Performance. In: Groen, Aard et al. (ed.):Proceedings of the High technology Small Firms Conference (HTSF)

2010, University of Twente, NL.

Kuhn, T (1962): The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Chicago.

Kumar, M (2006): Fundamentals of Entrepreneurship. In: Gillin, L. Muray (ed.): Regional Frontiers of

Entrepreneurship Research. Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship Research Report Series, Vol. 3(1),

Melbourne: Swinburne University of Technology.

Lakatos, I (1970): Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs. In: Lakatos, I, Musgrave, A

(ed.): Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.New York etc.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91-132.

Landstrm, H (2000):Entreprenrskapets rtter. Lund: Studentlitteratur, Lund University School of Economics.

Landstrm, H (2005):Pioneers in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research.New York NY etc.: Springer.

Landstrm, H, Sexton DL (2000): Remaining Issues and Suggestions for Further Research. In: Sexton, DL /Landstrm, H (ed.) (2000): The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship.Oxford (UK), Malden MA: Blackwell,

pp. 435-443.

x x x

1 1 4 4


15/15

Low, MB (2001): The Adolescence of Entrepreneurship Research: Specification of Purpose.Entrepreneurship Theory

& Practice, Vol. 25(4): 17-25.

Low, MB, MacMillan, IC (1988): Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future Challenges. Journal of Management,Vol. 14: 139-161.

Nkomo, SM (2009): The Seductive Power of Academic Journal Rankings: Challenges of Searching for the Otherwise.Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 8(1), 106112.

Rebernik, M, Mulej M (2000): Requisite Holism, Isolating Mechanisms and Entrepreneurship. Kybernetes, Vol. 29:

1126-1140.Rocha, H, Birkinshaw, J (2007): Entrepreneurship Safari: A Phenomenon-Driven Search for Meaning. Foundations

and Trends in Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3(3), Boston, Delft: now Publishers.

Rynes, SL (2007): Editors Foreword: Carrying Sumantra Ghoshals Torch: Creating More Positive, Relevant, and

Ecologically Valid Research. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50(4): 745-747.

Sarasvathy, SD (2001): Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to

Entrepreneurial Contingency.Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26(2): 243-263.

Sarasvathy, SD (2004): Making it Happen: Beyond Theories of the Firm to Theories of Firm Design. Entrepreneurship

Theory & Practice,Winter: 519-531.

Sarasvathy, SD et al. (2005): Three Views of Entrepreneurial Opportunity. In: Acs. ZJ, Audretsch, DB (ed.):

Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction.Bosten MA etc.: KluwerAcademic Publishers, pp. 141-160.

Sarasvathy, SD, Dew, N (2008): Effectuation and Over-Trust: Debating Goel and Karri. Entrepreneurship Theory &

Practice, July: 727-737.Sassmannshausen, SP (2010): Publish or Perish: An Examination of Scholarly Research Behavior in Entrepreneurship

Research. In: Gillin, LM (ed.) (2010): Regional Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, (AGSE ConferenceProceedings) Melbourne, AUS.

Schumpeter, JA (1934): The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit Interest and the

Business Cycle.London: Oxford Press.

Scott, M, Bruce, R (1987): Five Stages of Growth in Small Business.Long Range Planning, Vol. 20(3): 45-52.

Scott, M (1990): Entrepreneurial life cycles. Paper presented at the RENT IV Research Conference in

Entrepreneurship, Cologne, Germany.

Sexton, DL / Landstrm, H (ed.) (2000): The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship.Oxford (UK), Malden MA:

Blackwell.Shane, S, Venkataraman, S (2000): The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of Management

Review, Vol. 25, 217-226.

Shane, S, Venkataraman, S (2001): Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research: A Response to Zahra and Dess, Singh and

Erikson.Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26(1): 13-16.

Stevenson, HH (1983/2006): A Perspective on Entrepreneurship. Harvard Business School Publishing, Working PaperNo. 9-384-131 (rev. Apr. 2006), Boston MA.

Stevenson, HH, Gumpert, E (1985): The Heart of Entrepreneurship.Harvard Business Review, March-April: 85-94.

Stevenson, HH, Jarillo, JC (1990): A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management. StrategicManagement Journal, Vol. 11(1): 17-27.

Storey, David J. (2002): Methods of Evaluating the Impact of Public Policies to Support Small Businesses: The Six

Steps to Heaven.International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1(2): 181-202.

Tushman, M, OReilly III, C (2007): Research and Relevance: Implications of Pasteurs Quadrant for DoctoralPrograms and Faculty Development.Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50(4): 769774.

Van De Ven, AH / Ferry, DL (1980):Measuring and Assessing Organizations. New York et al: Wiley.

Van de Ven, AH, Johnson, P (2006): Knowledge for Theory and Practice. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31:

802821.

Venkataraman, S (1997): The Destinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research. In: Katz, J, Brockhaus, J (ed.):

Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 119-138.

Vermeulen, F (2005): On Rigor and Relevance: Fostering Dialectic Progress in Management Research. Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 48: 978982.Vermeulen, F (2007): I Shall not Remain Insignificant: Adding a Second Loop to Matter More. Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 50(4): 754761.

West, GP III (2003): Connecting Levels of Analysis in Entrepreneurship Research: A Focus on Information Processing,Asymmetric Knowledge and Networks. In: Steyaert, C, Hjorth, D (ed.): New Movements in Entrepreneurship.

Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 51-72.Wicks, D (2004): The Institution of Tenure: Freedom or Discipline.Management Decision, 42(5): 619627.

Wilkinson, A, Hindle, K (2006): Defining, Measuring and Assessing Entrepreneurial Capacity: A Review of Selected

Literatures. In: Gillin, M (ed.):Regional Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research(AGSE Conference Proceedings),

Melbourne, Australia.

Wortman, MS Jr (1987): Entrepreneurship: An Integrating Typology and Evaluation of the Empirical Research in the

Field.Journal of Management, Vol. 13(2): 259-279.

Zahra, S, Dess, GG (2001): Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research: Encouraging Dialogue and Debate. Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 26(1): 8-10.

x x x

Documents

Jump Start Phd Research