![]()
The institutionalization of entrepreneurship
Questioning the status quo and re-gaining hope for entrepreneurship research
Alain Fayolle, Hans Landström, William B. Gartner and Karin Berglund
ABSTRACT
In this article, we briefly identify three main challenges/issues that should be taken into consideration in the institutionalization of entrepreneurship research: (1) recognizing the complexity of the phenomenon under study; (2) producing interesting, relevant and useful research results for all stakeholders; and (3) developing a critical posture in research. Following the discussion of these challenges/issues we introduce the five contributions to the Special Issue that, in different ways, problematize and challenge mainstream research and approaches. These articles use âdissensus discoursesâ, apply critical, ideological and paradigmatic stances and in some cases underline the importance of contextual factors.
1. Introduction
Putting this Special Issue in context, we are writing this introduction during Summer 2016. The RENT (Research in Entrepreneurship and Small Business) Conference is 30 years old. It is also the year that the Academy of Management Entrepreneurship Division celebrates its 30-year anniversary. Entrepreneurship as a social and economic phenomenon, has, then, over these past 30 years, become a field of inquiry, and gained significant interest from policy-makers, âpractitionersâ (to be more loosely defined later on this article), and in society more generally (Berglund, Johannisson, and Schwartz 2012). During this period, entrepreneurship research has grown remarkably and is, today, a well-established scholarly field with its own endowed chairs, faculty positions, academic associations, scientific journals and conferences (Aldrich 2012; Fayolle and Riot 2016). In this respect, entrepreneurship research has become more and more institutionalized (Fligstein 1997; Lamont 2012; Scott 2001) and, as such, entrepreneurship research has received greater academic legitimacy.
We can argue that this institutionalization is undeniably a good thing for the members of the research community, as it implies the legitimization of particular research topics and research practices, the emergence of norms for developing and publishing this research, and last but not least, the creation of structures that provide employment opportunities and a conducive environment for pursuing research (Riot and Fayolle 2016). However, we can also question if this institutionalization is such a good thing when it comes to producing critical, innovative, contextualized and complex research or when considered from the point of view of non-academic entrepreneurship stakeholders and society in general (Tedmanson et al. 2012).
Yet, entrepreneurship is also a multidisciplinary field having attracted researchers in, for example, economics, sociology, psychology, history, philosophy and management (Aldrich 2016; Gartner 2004). In line with these multidisciplinary academic interests and in an attempt to address social needs and problems, entrepreneurship has also unfolded in new societal areas. This is discernible by the increasing (and sometimes questionable) use of such prefixes as âsocialâ, âgreenâ, âsustainableâ or suffixes such as entrepreneurial learning, culture, intention, orientation and management. The use of âentrepreneurialâ is thus diffused, but does that mean that entrepreneurial practices also are diffused, in the better way? Is entrepreneurship becoming institutionalized in a society that cherishes and strives for diversity when it comes to the entrepreneurial? Is entrepreneurship scholarship calcifying and âthereby beset by an increasing number of assumptions, even mythsâ (Rehn et al. 2013), while society acts entrepreneurially in different ways with different meanings? Assumptions and myths concern both the focus, i.e. the main research objects/topics, and the ways (theories, methods) we should use to study entrepreneurship as a historical, cultural, social and economic phenomena (Berglund and Johansson 2007). Finally, have societyâs ideas about entrepreneurship also become institutionalized in ways that have made its conception and practice hollow?
All these questions highlight the fact that the institutionalization of entrepreneurship as a field of research and a domain of practices has important consequences at different levels. Discussing the institutionalization of entrepreneurship is something relatively new in a way where researchers are invited to attend workshops and research projects1 which clearly focus on the topic (i.e. Fayolle and Riot 2016; Landstrom et al. 2016).
The objective of this Special Issue of Entrepreneurship & Regional Development is to challenge the main research streams, theories, methods, epistemologies, assumptions and beliefs dominating the field of entrepreneurship. In order to achieve this objective, we have selected five conceptual and empirical papers based on their unorthodox, controversial, inspiring and challenging contributions.
This introduction to the Special Issue is organized as follows. We briefly identify three main challenges/issues that should be taken into consideration in the institutionalization of entrepreneurship research: (1) recognizing the complexity of the phenomenon under study; (2) producing interesting, relevant and useful research results for all stakeholders; and (3) developing a critical posture in research. Following the discussion of these challenges/issues we introduce the five contributions to the Special Issue that, in different ways, problematize and challenge mainstream research and approaches. These articles use âdissensus discoursesâ (Alvesson and Deetz 2000), apply critical ideological and paradigmatic stances and in some cases underline the importance of contextual factors.
2. Three main challenges in entrepreneurship institutionalization
In order to maximize (or at least to try to maximize!) the positive effects of institutionalizing entrepreneurship and in the same time reduce the impact of its negative consequences, we believe that research communities in the entrepreneurship field should think about the better ways to: deal with the complexity of the phenomenon (Bruyat and Julien 2001; Fayolle 2003; Gartner 1985); produce interesting research (Frank and Landström 2016) and, develop a more reflective and critical posture in research activities (Fayolle and Riot 2016; Landstrom et al. 2016).
2.1. Dealing with complexity
Entrepreneurship can be understood as a complex, process-based and multidimensional phenomenon (Bruyat and Julien 2001; Fayolle 2007; Gartner 1985). We could also add that entrepreneurship as a field of research is fragmented (Fayolle 2007) and multidisciplinary (Aldrich 2016). Complexity comes from the diversity/variety of entrepreneurship forms/situations and the context in which they emerge and develop (new venture creation, corporate entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, sustainable entrepreneurship, etc.), the multidimensionality of the phenomenon, itself (i.e. individual, environment, process and organization [Gartner 1985]), and the key roles that temporal and contextual variables play in the process (that is, entrepreneurship is a context-based and dynamic phenomenon). The context of entrepreneurship, then, can be seen and studied in different ways and dimensions: spatial, industry, market, temporal, social and institutional (Welter 2011; Zahra and Wright 2011). As a result, a great number of variables should be taken in consideration to understand how different research streams try to capture, or destabilize, the âtrue essenceâ of the phenomenon. There is today an increasingly widespread recognition that there is a great variety of entrepreneurial situations, new venture creations and profiles of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs and their entrepreneurial projects are different from one another (Gartner 1985, 2016). Complexity also comes from the nature of the phenomenon. For some scholars (e.g. Gartner, Steyaert, Hjorth and Johannisson), entrepreneurship is a matter of emergence and/or becoming. For Gartner (2014), as an example, entrepreneurship can be conceptualized as organizing emergence. By âorganizing emergenceâ, Gartner suggests âa commonality in phenomena (both theorized and studied) that involve situations where something develops from one state to another and that within that development there is a process in which the phenomena becomes more âorganizedââ (2014, 14). Entrepreneurship as âorganizing emergenceâ can be studied and theorized from a wide range of disciplines. These disciplines, such as sociology, psychology philosophy and so on, can bring value to the concept of entrepreneurship, but the opposite is true, entrepreneurship can also add value to other the disciplines which study the phenomena. Thinking in this stream, Gartner offers interesting thoughts to deal with the complexity of the phenomenon notably by looking at the ways disciplines are informed by and informing entrepreneurship. Another example is offered by Johannisson (2014) in that the notion of âentrepreneuringâ seems well appropriated to qualify a phenomenon, entrepreneurship, that is generically associated with movement and process (Steyaert 2007). Johannisson sees âentrepreneurship as a collective phenomenon, as creative organizing â of thoughts, actions and people in projects which accumulate for the individual into an existential endeavour, as an approach to and way of lifeâ (2014, 63). His main goal is to offer âconceptual ideas of entrepreneurship as a phenomenon that is made comprehensive through encounters between theory, art and practiceâ (2014, 64). In this way, he shows that entrepreneuring can be understood as a process of becoming whereby children become natural born entrepreneurs because they live in a world of becoming where they experience new things, learn from mistakes and where failures are essential components of their life. Based on this analogy (which can be seen as way to deal with complexity), a convincing argumentation is offered, highlighting the interrelationships among theory, art and practice (three modes that are suggested to capture entrepreneurship as a phenomenon). For other scholars (Bruyat and Julien 2001; Fayolle 2007), the field of entrepreneurship might be envisaged through the dialogic relation between the individual/entrepreneur (the subject) and the value he or she contributes to create (the object). The dialogic principle means that two or several perspectives are bound into a unity, in a complex way (complementary, concurrent and opposing) without the duality being lost in the unity. The subjectâobject dialogic relationship can be seen as being part of an entrepreneurial system interacting with its environment and engaged in a dynamic of change under the influence of time. So, using system-based approaches, theories, models and metaphors can be seen as a way to deal with the complexity of entrepreneurship phenomenon. Finally, complexity comes from the level of uncertainty and the unpredictableness of entrepreneurial processes or events. In this case, getting knowledge about specific mechanisms of entrepreneurial action like effectuation, causation, bricolage and improvization (Fisher 2012) could be an insightful way to deal with such complexity.
In conclusion, dealing with complexity implies notably adopting holistic and systemic views, combining qualitative and quantitative research methods, designing longitudinal research, doing context-based research and using analogies and metaphors as relevant alternatives to âestablishedâ theories and methods.
2.2. Producing interesting research
In recent decades, the entrepreneurship field has grown significantly with the development of an international community of scholars (Aldrich 2012) who have made extensive advances in our knowledge of entrepreneurship (Landström, Harirchi, and Ă
ström 2012). One explanation for these successes is that entrepreneurship has been regarded as an âinterestingâ field of research (Davis 1971). Interesting contributions have been published that have opened up new research paths and challenged old beliefs that have turned conventional wisdom upside down. Yet, in an increased institutionalization of the field (including, for example, a growing number of highly ranked journals, a stronger focus on journal citations, a reasonable coherent set of research questions and methodologies that favour scientific rigor) there is always a risk that individual scholars will become embedded in a culture and incentive system that makes their contributions less and less interesting.
How do theories that are generally considered âinterestingâ differ from those that are considered ânon-interesting?â When it comes to theoretical work, Murray Davis (1971) suggested that theories that tend to challenge certain assumptions of the audience were more likely to stand out and capture attention. A theory will be regarded as interesting if it challenges accepted truths and questions the taken-for-granted world of the audience. If a theory merely confirms taken-for-granted beliefs the audience will reject its value and the response will be: âOf course!â âThatâs obvious!â or âEverybody knows that!â. On the other hand, if a theory challenges too many of our assumptions, the audience will seldom regard it as interesting, but rather as âabsurdâ. It is in this âin betweenâ space of the obvious (what everyone already knows) and the âabsurdâ (it is too strange and different to be considered plausible) that the âinterestingâ has the possibility of challenging and changing assumptions and beliefs.
When it comes to empirical contributions, the perception of what is regarded as interesting is much more diverse, for example, depending on the characteristics of the research field and the context in which the contribution occurs. In management studies, interesting work seems to be linked to the scientific quality and rigour of the study (Bartunek, Rynes, and Ireland 2006; Das and Long 2010): well-crafted theory, good fit between the data and theory, engaging data analyses, generalizability, and good writing that...
