A wakeup call for the field of entrepreneurship and its evaluators

In this editorial, I seek to inform administrators and members of promotion and tenure committees about significant developments in the field of entrepreneurship. Using both objective and subjective data, I present a case for why entrepreneurship journals should be considered on par with other, premier management journals, which are widely considered to be unequivocal “A” journals used to assess scholarly contribution and productivity. I entertain and address common objections to equal treatment for entrepreneurship journals, and conclude with a call to action for both entrepreneurship scholars and the field's evaluators.     

Rigor and Relevance: On the Development of Entrepreneurship Research in China

This study examines the contributions of Chinese entrepreneurship research to academic knowledge and its practical implications. Specifically, we investigate how Chinese entrepreneurship research meets the standards of rigor and relevance based on a review of 64 papers published in five major scholarly journals in the Chinese mainland. Results show that Chinese entrepreneurship research has paid comparatively little attention to the “rigor” dimension, while focusing more heavily on practical relevance than on academic relevance on the “relevance” dimension. Future directions for China’s entrepreneurship research are also discussed.     

Critical Management Studies and Business Ethics: A Synthesis and Three Research Trajectories for the Coming Decade

We present the findings of a worldwide survey that was administered to business ethic scholars to better understand journal quality within the business ethics academic community. Based upon the data from the survey, we provide a ranking of the top 10 business ethics journals. We then provide a comparison of business ethics journals to other mainstream management journals in terms of journal quality. The results of the study suggest that, within the business ethics academic community, many scholars prefer to publish in the top business ethics academic journals over other mainstream management journals. Furthermore, the results of the study suggest that within the business ethics academic field there are two dominant academic communities: one in Europe and one in North America. Each of these academic communities has its own preferred publication outlets, suggesting a potentially problematic bifurcation of business ethics scholarship.     

The Scientometrics of Social Entrepreneurship and Its Establishment as an Academic Field

This paper provides an overview of the state of art of research on social entrepreneurship and the establishment of this topic in the academic world. It uses scientometric methods in measuring the maturity of social entrepreneurship research. The empirical part reveals the exponentially growing number of papers, the institutionalization of social entrepreneurship in seven dimensions, the emergence of thematic clusters, and methodological issues. The paper makes concrete suggestions on how to overcome methodological challenges. Furthermore, we provide a ranking of the 22 most cited academic contributions in social entrepreneurship. Surprisingly, almost half of the most cited papers have not been published in journals but in books, raising doubts about the current (over‐)rating of journal publications.     

“That’s Interesting!” in Entrepreneurship Research

In order for a work on entrepreneurship to be published and attract attention, it must be interesting. The aims of this study are to understand why entrepreneurship scholars perceive entrepreneurship studies as interesting, what they consider interesting, and how they distinguish themselves from management scholars in their perception of interestingness. The study is based on responses from 915 entrepreneurship scholars. Our results contribute to empirically nuancing the dimensions that scholars perceive as interesting, and also to identifying groups of entrepreneurship scholars that perceive interestingness in different ways, and to demonstrating the similarities and differences between entrepreneurship and management scholars.     

中国零售学术研究现状分析——基于CSSCI(2000-2005)的研究

在中文社会科学引文索引（CSSCI）数据库中，对我国6年来（2000—2005）零售学术论文进行了检索，对检索数据在零售学术期刊构成、论文内容和方法、学者队伍三个方面进行了分析。研究结果表明：刊载零售学术论文的期刊数量百余种，但是还没有专门的零售学术期刊；零售学术论文主题分布于零售战略、国际化、连锁经营、零售业态等15个方面，研究方法以实证定性研究为主；发表两篇以上论文的学者有41人，专业化的零售学者队伍有待形成。     

The influence of people on the performance of IPO firms

Until the mid-1990s, the study of initial public offerings (IPOs) fell mainly under the purview of the finance literature. Within the last 10 years, however, management and entrepreneurship scholars have delved more into this subject area, as well. This article summarizes research examining IPO firms that has appeared in management and entrepreneurship journals, highlighting in particular the influence of individuals (namely executives and boards of directors) on IPO firm outcomes.     

International entrepreneurship research in emerging economies: A critical review and research agenda

This article systematically reviews and critically examines international entrepreneurship research in emerging economies (IEEE research), and articulates its importance, timeliness and relevance in consideration of the growing influence of emerging markets in the global economy. A systematic analysis of eighty-eight journal articles published over the last two decades reveals that IEEE research is a vibrant and rapidly growing stream of the broader international entrepreneurship (IE) domain, and that it is methodologically and topically diverse. Our review also shows that IEEE research has a limited presence in premier journals, is highly skewed in its geographic coverage, and is somewhat fragmented. We therefore inventory and critically evaluate the extant IEEE research with the aim of increasing its quality, coherence, scope, and impact. On the basis of our critique, we develop an ambitious research agenda that addresses a number of emergent global phenomena and raises exciting new questions for scholars in entrepreneurship, international business, and other related disciplines.     

The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship

There is an on-going debate in the entrepreneurship academy about whether we can actually teach students to be entrepreneurs. Its resolution is inextricably connected with our theoretical assumptions because they affect how and what we teach. This article is the first in a set of two contained in this issue that argues that we should develop more refined, cumulative theory and teach it to students in a way that emphasizes learning by doing, which should accelerate student mastery. This first article treats the theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship, whereas the second addresses the pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory.Those who advocate that entrepreneurship can be understood and taught to students assume that researchers will eventually develop a more general theory of entrepreneurship. Theory is an essential part of what we teach because we do not know any other way to help students anticipate the future, which is a key to entrepreneurial success, unless we counsel them to rely on luck or intuition. The limitation of luck and intuition is that we do not know how to teach either of them. If students could accurately anticipate the future, they could allocate their resources in the most productive manner, which would ensure their survival, satisfaction and prosperity. Despite the current limitations of our theorizing, theory still offers the most promise as course content for students.This article sides with Kuhn (1970) who argued that theory is the most practical thing that we can teach to students. Its purpose is to comment on the progress to date in developing entrepreneurship theory. It begins by analyzing the contents of 18 syllabi provided by participants at a retreat for entrepreneurship scholars. It notes a wide divergence in topics, and possible causes for this divergence, which seem to be characteristic of a developing academic discipline. It appeals for more theory in our courses and suggests questions to which entrepreneurship scholars can provide distinctive answers when compared with those offered by scholars from other disciplines.One way to add more theoretical content to entrepreneurship courses is to teach students what they ought to do, which is coded language for theory. In addition, instructors should not merely describe what entrepreneurs do, particularly in light of the observation that most of them fail and accordingly have been described as ill-fated fools. Finally, assuming that scholars can offer a more general theory of entrepreneurship, they would be able to emphasize more deductive approaches as opposed to inductive ones.These appeals for more theoretical content depend on several assumptions, which include: (1) the improbability that students can encounter circumstances that would be similar to anecdotal lessons learned in entrepreneurship school; (2) the existence of a process that can be explained theoretically; (3) studying ideal types can be discouraging to aspiring entrepreneurs if they do not fit a special profile; (4) the high failure rate among entrepreneurs makes suggesting to students that they ought to pattern their activities after them seem illogical; (5) studying average profiles, anecdotal recommendations, rules of thumb or war stories can only lead to average returns, given semi-strong information efficiency; and (6) leveraging the motivational benefits of studying successful entrepreneurs may have detrimental, unintended consequences, among others.This article notes possible causes of non-cumulative theory building and suggests several opportunities to build cumulative theory. Although it acknowledges that the field of entrepreneurship currently lacks cumulative theory, it offers a contingency approach for teaching entrepreneurship, which is actually very similar to the scientific method used by scholars to develop hypotheses about the future.     

Editorial: Enhancing the exploration and communication of quantitative entrepreneurship research

The purpose of this editorial is to discuss ways to enhance exploratory quantitative studies in entrepreneurship. We use examples from entrepreneurship research and other scientific fields to illustrate the advantages of graphical data display for both exploratory purposes and post hoc tests. We provide suggestions for authors, reviewers, and editors on ways to enhance the transparency, accuracy, and pedagogical presentation of quantitative data in papers with the explicit purpose of illuminating emerging and important entrepreneurship phenomena. Our hope is that we spark a conversation among entrepreneurship scholars about the state of our empirical work and the possibilities that lie ahead to enhance exploratory entrepreneurship research.     

A process model of academic entrepreneurship

Innovations stemming from research conducted on university campuses are a growing source for the ideas and core technologies that drive entrepreneurial endeavors. This trend has led to development of the term academic entrepreneurship, which refers to the efforts and activities that universities and their industry partners undertake in hopes of commercializing the outcomes of faculty research. Because it is a relatively new phenomenon, the process of academic entrepreneurship has not been as well articulated as one might hope. As such, the objective of this article is to draw on a range of academic entrepreneurship literature to develop a multi-stage process model of academic entrepreneurship. This model is intended to guide potential stakeholders through the application of academic entrepreneurship, with a focus on improving the odds of success. The advantage of this approach is identification of the activities, actors, and key success factors associated with each stage of the academic entrepreneurship process. We conclude our discussion by highlighting the benefits of engaging in academic entrepreneurship for a variety of potential stakeholders.     

Trends in the market for entrepreneurship faculty, 1989–1998

The last decade has seen a dramatic rise in the number and status of entrepreneurship programs in schools of business and management. The popularity of entrepreneurship courses has increased dramatically among both graduate and undergraduate students. Alumni and external constituencies of schools of business have generally been supportive of the development of entrepreneurship programs, and in fact in many instances it has been the demands of these constituencies that have led to the creation or expansion of entrepreneurship programs within these schools. The growth in entrepreneurship programs has been fostered by an increase in the popularity of entrepreneurship, an increase in the status accorded entrepreneurs, as well as an increase in the recognition by the business press of the importance of entrepreneurship in the larger economy. Despite the increase in popularity within the field, there has also been considerable resistance from within the faculties of many institutions to the expansion of entrepreneurship programs. Faculty outside the field have been, and many remain, very skeptical about the validity of entrepreneurship as an academic field, the quality and rigor of entrepreneurship research and the need to hire academic faculty to teach and research in the field. The last decade has seen the confluence of these opposing forces.This disparity has created the question of whether the external forces supporting entrepreneurship are overcoming the inertia inherent in academic institutions and succeeding in institutionalizing the study of entrepreneurship within schools of business and management. This study hopes to shed some light on which of these forces is winning by addressing the question of whether the field of entrepreneurship is moving toward or has been institutionalized as part of the curriculum and research within schools of business and management. It also examines the institutionalization of the field by analyzing the change in the number and level of entrepreneurship positions, the quality of the recruiting institutions as well as the number, level and training of entrepreneurship candidates during the years 1989–1998. Data was obtained from the Academy of Management Placement Roster and The Chronicle of Higher Education for the years 1989–1998. Previous entrepreneurship education researchers have examined the number of endowed chairs and professorships, conferences, journals, programs and various centers for entrepreneurial education, however sparse research, if any, has been performed on the trends and characteristics of candidates and positions in the field of entrepreneurship.The results of this study are very encouraging. Both the demand for and the supply of entrepreneurship faculty have increased spectacularly during the last nine years. Between 1989/90 and 1997/98 the number of entrepreneurship positions increased 253% while the number of candidates increased by 94%. During this period the number of positions that list entrepreneurship as the primary field has increased ten-fold from 5 to 50 and the number of candidates that list entrepreneurship as their primary field has increased four-fold from 5 to 20. During the same period the number of secondary and tertiary positions have increased 116% and 78%, respectively, and the number of secondary and tertiary candidates have increased by 67% and 53%. The percentage of entrepreneurship positions listing entrepreneurship as the primary field has increased from 19% in 89/90 to 54% in 1997/98. Overall, the growth in the number of primary entrepreneurship positions is very encouraging.In the end, the results of this study are very encouraging. Both the demand and the supply of entrepreneurship faculty have increased spectacularly during the last nine years. The field has clearly made significant progress toward being institutionalized. However, it is still too soon to conclude that the commitment to entrepreneurship by schools of business and management is irreversible. One clear indication of the tenuous status is that, unlike strategy and international business, there has been no mandate from the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business that entrepreneurship be incorporated into the curriculum of all accredited schools. Entrepreneurship remains an elective subject in most schools and therefore depends on student interest. The field has made great strides during the 1990s, but a couple of hurdles remain.     

Breaking the “Bamboo Curtain” and the “Glass Ceiling”: The Experience of Women Entrepreneurs in High-Tech Industries in an Emerging Market

Despite the role women play in job creation, economic growth and society revitalization, especially in economies undergoing fundamental transformations, issues emerging from women in entrepreneurship have not received adequate attention in academic research. As a result, our understanding of women entrepreneurship in emerging markets as well as in nontraditional industries is even more limited. In this study, I attempt to partially fill the gap by comparing entrepreneurial orientations and venture performance between men and women entrepreneurs in electronics industry in Chinese transition economy. I offer insights gained from statistical analyses based on a survey as well as case study. Results reveal that while women are influenced by the same factors that affect decision making among men and exhibit some similarities, they differ from men in their willingness to take more risks and make bolder moves in pursuit of greater returns and future competitive advantage. In addition, women entrepreneurs outperform their male counterparts. I compare these findings with existing literature and offer suggestions for future research. Justin Tan is Professor and the Newmont Chair in Business Strategy in the Schulich School of Business at York University in Canada. He is also a Distinguished Visiting Professor in the Guanghua School of Management at Peking University in China. His research has been appeared in academic journals such as Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies, among others. He serves as editor, associate editor, guest editor, and reviewer for most leading management journals. His research has been supported by Ford Foundation, Fulbright Foundation, among others.     

Advancing societal grand challenge research at the interface of entrepreneurship and international business: A review and research agenda

Societal grand challenges are increasingly attracting the attention of both entrepreneurship and international business scholars. While entrepreneurship focuses on the opportunities that emerge and need for bold and innovative solutions, international business research emphasizes the global reach of the challenges and role of multinational enterprises. Although both conversations are insightful, we argue that examining one without the other gives an incomplete picture on how to address grand challenges. In this paper, we conduct a systematic review of the conversation on grand challenges in the international business and entrepreneurship literature. Upon synthesizing the results, we create an integrated framework and research agenda for viewing grand challenges through an international entrepreneurial lens.     

Meta-analysis selection bias in marketing research

The tendency of meta-analytic authors to select particular studies is called selection bias. Selection bias can affect the strength of the meta-analytic estimate and the attention that scholars devote to the results. This research is, in effect, a meta-analysis of the effect sizes reported or calculated from 94 meta-analysis studies of various topics in marketing research. The analysis reveals that estimates depend on the publication status of the included studies. The greater the percentage of studies that were published in academic journals vs. non-published studies, the greater is the size of the meta-effects, and the more published studies from leading journals the meta-analysis includes, the stronger the effect size. The meta-analytic effect size is a mediator for the influence of both the ratio of unpublished studies and the ratio of studies from leading journals on the probability of a meta-analysis to be published in a leading journal, which increases the number of citations to a meta-analysis. The findings of this study have several implications for meta-analysts, editors, reviewers and the marketing community on how to conduct and read current and future meta-analysis in marketing research.     

对学术论坛中国化的现实批判及愿景展望

学术论坛的价值取向表现在传播、教育、文化三个层次上,其发展趋势表现出全球化、本土化、区域化、校本化特征,其组织特点表现为路径多元化,其内容主要包括知识教育、创新教育、政治教育、人文教育、生活教育等五个维面。目前,学术论坛中国化呈现出三个发展误区：形式摹仿、国际立场与区域性断裂严重、论坛文化构建的无目标性,因此学术论坛中国化的价值取向应由传播层面向教育层面转变,并应积极致力于文化层面的建设,依据各级各类学术论坛文化定位和内容结构选择的异同形成独具文化结构的品格特征。     

Does the Starting Point Matter? The Literature‐Driven and the Phenomenon‐Driven Approaches of Using Corporate Archival Data in Academic Research

Despite recent and perhaps myopic criticisms of archival data with regard to supporting causal theoretical claims, it would be folly to disregard the exploratory and grounded theory development potential that these substantial, rich, and timely archives hold. The question then becomes one of how academics might tap into such archives. This paper considers this issue from a pragmatic perspective, drawing on the experiences of various academics with extensive experience in constructing data‐access relationships with industry. With the support of scholars who published their work using corporate archival data in leading academic journals, we suggest a phenomenon‐driven approach paralleled with the traditional literature‐driven approach in academic studies. This paper highlights best practices, pitfalls, and future opportunities, with the aim of serving as a guide for intrepid scholars interested in capitalizing on contemporary big data initiatives supported at many firms.     

Entrepreneurship and Family Firm Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of An Emerging Field

This work carries out a comprehensive and systematic review of academic research on entrepreneurship in family firms applying bibliometric indicators. We review the literature published on these topics on the database ISI Web of Knowledge's Social Sciences Citation Index. The results provided show that it is a relatively recent field of study, highly interconnected with high co‐citation between authors, which verifies compliance with Lotka's Law, and where the most productive authors and journals do not necessarily coincide with those most cited. Finally, the co‐word analysis has identified research topics classified into widely developed issues and specialized peripheral issues.     

Institutional Antecedents of Partnering for Social Change: How Institutional Logics Shape Cross-Sector Social Partnerships

Using 10 years of publication data (1999–2008) from 10 leading business ethics journals, we examine global patterns of business ethics research and contributing institutions and scholars. Although U.S. academic institutions continue to lead in the contributions toward business ethics research, Asian and European institutions have made significant progress. Our study shows that business ethics research output is closely linked to the missions of the institutions driven by their values or religious belief. An additional analysis of the productivity of each highly ranked institution suggests that business ethics research is highly concentrated in a limited number of eminent scholars within each institution.     

Entrepreneurship as a solution to extreme poverty: A review and future research directions

Entrepreneurship is widely argued to be critical for alleviating extreme poverty. However, research on this topic is characterized by diverging perspectives regarding poverty alleviation and remains fragmented across various research domains. This review examines 77 leading academic journals over the period 1990 to 2017 and identifies over 200 articles on entrepreneurship and poverty alleviation. The analysis of these articles highlights three different underlying perspectives: poverty alleviation through entrepreneurship as remediation (actions that address immediate resource concerns), reform (actions leading to substantive institutional changes), and revolution (actions that change the underlying capitalist-based assumptions of business). The analysis of these articles leads to the development of extensive new insights and opportunities for future research.