More than a decade ago, Low and MacMillan identified three elements indispensable to an understanding of entrepreneurial success: process, context, and outcomes. Since their critique, three important advances include (a) a shift in theoretical emphasis from the characteristics of entrepreneurs as individuals to the consequences of their actions, (b) a deeper understanding of how entrepreneurs use knowledge, networks, and resources to construct firms, and (c) a more sophisticated taxonomy of environmental forces at different levels of analysis (population, community, and society) that affect entrepreneurship. Although our knowledge of entrepreneurial activities has increased dramatically, we still have much to learn about how process and context interact to shape the outcome of entrepreneurial efforts. From an evolutionary approach, process and context (strategy and environment) interact in a recursive continuous process, driving the fate of entrepreneurial efforts. Thus, integrating co...

There is progress in entrepreneurship research. Important works in entrepreneurship increasingly appear in highly respected, mainstream journals (see Busenitz et al., forthcoming; Davidsson, Low, & Wright, 2001). There is conceptual development that attracts attention (e.g. Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) and handbooks are compiled, providing the field with more of a common body of knowledge (Acs & Audretsch, 2003a; Westhead & Wright, 2000; Shane, 2000a). Further, there is evidence of methodological improvements (Chandler & Lyon, 2001) and accumulation of meaningful findings on various levels of analysis (Davidsson & Wiklund, 2001). Moreover, due to time lags in publication the reported improvements are likely to be underestimated. This author’s experience as organizer, reviewer and participant in core entrepreneurship conferences on both sides of the Atlantic (e.g., Babson; RENT) suggests that much of the lower end of the quality distribution has either disappeared from the submissions or is screened out in the review process. Much more than used to be the case a few years back we find among the presented papers research that is truly theory-driven; research on the earliest stages of business development, and research that employs methods suitable for causal inference, i.e., experiments and longitudinal designs. This is not to deny that there is confusion, signs of identity crisis, or widespread frustration among entrepreneurship researchers because of a sense that the field of entrepreneurship research has not come “far enough, fast enough ” (Low, 2001) or that we are “getting more pieces of the puzzle, but no picture is emerging ” (Koppl & Minniti, 2003). The literature is full of definitions of entrepreneurship, which differ along a number of dimensions, i.e., whether entrepreneurship should be defined in terms of dispositions, behavior, or outcomes 1; whether it belongs in the economic-commercial domain or can be exercised also in not-forprofit contexts; whether it belongs only in small and/or owner-managed firms or in any 2 organizational context, and whether purpose, growth, risk, innovation or success are necessary criteria for something to qualify as entrepreneurship (Gartner, 1990; Hébert & Link,

On behalf of:

explanation, prediction, and delight

We thank an anonymous reviewer for exceptionally detailed feedback and Todd Chiles, Richard

p. ii This document is distributed by the International Organisation for Knowledge Economy and Enterprise Development (IKED) IKED is an independent, non-profit association and international organisation focusing on the emerging issues of the knowledge-based economy. IKED specialises in activities linking the primary actors forming the knowledge-based economy: government, industry, academia and civil society. The organisation engages in international networks, arranges policy forums and policy reviews, and works with partners aiming for reforms and concrete actions in support of the development and use of knowledge.

recognition and product innovation in entrepreneurial

PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Twente, op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. W.H.M. Zijm, volgens besluit van het College van Promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 20 januari om 13.15 uur door Marijke van der Veen

Joseph Schumpeter believed that history was essential to the study of entrepreneurship. It is a perspective that has been lost in recent scholarship. This paper shows why this has been detrimental to the field, and explores how the current situation can be improved. We begin by surveying the development of the social scientific literature on entrepreneurship since the field first emerged as an area of academic interest in the 1940s. We show that, despite theoretical agreement on the importance of context in the study of entrepreneurship, empirical research in recent years has ignored historical setting in favor of focusing on entrepreneurial behavior and cognition. The result has been a pre-occupation with high-tech start-ups in the United States, and growing irrelevance from the major issues in the contemporary global economy. The paper outlines ways in which the rediscovery of history can facilitate entrepreneurial studies, using examples from international entrepreneurship. We conclude by arguing that these methods can stimulate the kind of exchanges between the history and theory of entrepreneurship that Schumpeter envisioned.

Abstract not found