The Diana Project: pioneering women studying pioneering women

The 2007 winner of the International Award for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research is the Diana Project team (Candida Brush, Nancy Carter, Elizabeth Gatewood, Patricia Greene and Myra Hart). The Diana Project builds on the vast experience of the team in the field of entrepreneurship in general and women entrepreneurship, business growth and venture capital in particular. The Diana Project has investigated the supply and demand side of growth capital for women entrepreneurs. The research contributes to entrepreneurship theory as well as to practice, filling a void in knowledge on growth-oriented women entrepreneurship. In this article we present and discuss the research contribution of the Diana Project, in the areas of entrepreneurship, women entrepreneurship and venture capital. We specifically discuss the value of researching a specific group of women entrepreneurs, those who want to grow their businesses, that very clearly demonstrates the positive potential of female entrepreneurship. The Diana Project has also moved research on women’s entrepreneurship forward since its framework does not treat women entrepreneurs as “other,” i.e., the project does not presuppose that women’s entrepreneurship is similar to or different from men’s entrepreneurship. It assumes that women’s entrepreneurship is entrepreneurship and studies it from that point of view. Carin Holmquist is professor at Stockholm School of Economics and member of the Prize Committee for The International Award for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research. Sara Carter is professor at University of Strathclyde. Both have written extensively in several of the areas covered by the Diana Project. The prize is awarded by the Swedish Foundation for Small Business Research (FSF) and the Swedish Board of Industrial and Technical Development (NUTEK). An important aim with this prize is to attract broader attention to this research field. A precondition for choosing the winner of the award is that the research for which the award has been granted is a significant contribution to the theory and empirical understanding of entrepreneurship and the importance of entrepreneurship, new firm formation and small businesses in economic development. Besides the honor, the prize consists of SEK 0.5 million (roughly USD 80,000). It has been awarded annually since 1996. More information about the prize and previous winners is available at .     

Building new roads for entrepreneurship research to travel by: on the work of William B. Gartner

This article takes the awarding of William B. Gartner as a winner of the FSF-Nutek Award (in 2005) as a reason to engage more thoroughly with his production. From the perspective of a European School of Entrepreneurship, we focus in particular on the hermeneutic/phenomenological side of Gartner’s research output and seek to operate as inspired readers of this work as we identify its central tendencies (presence of organization theory and literary inspiration). The aim is thus to situate Gartner’s influence on the entrepreneurship research community based on the lead provided by these tendencies and from there to provide a vision of a future of entrepreneurship research. Bengt Johannisson was a member of the Prize Committee for The International Award for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research when the prize was awarded to William B. Gartner. The prize is awarded by the Swedish Foundation for Small Business Research (FSF) and the Swedish Board of Industrial and Technical Development (NUTEK). An important aim with this prize is to attract broader attention to this research field. A precondition for choosing the winner of the award is that his/her research is a significant contribution to the theory and empirical understanding of entrepreneurship and the importance of entrepreneurship, new firm formation and small businesses in economic development. Besides the honor, the prize consists of SEK 0.5 million. It has been awarded annually since 1996. More information about the prize and previous winners is available at .     

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.     

Facing the future through entrepreneurship theory: A prospective inquiry framework

In this paper, we address a thorny challenge: how can entrepreneurship scholarship enhance its impact without compromising the pursuit of conceptual rigor and theoretical novelty? We propose a prospective inquiry framework for entrepreneurship. It aims to align the scholarly pursuit of theoretical novelty with the entrepreneurs' focus on the future, in a shared aspiration to make a difference in the world. By expanding the focus of theoretical work toward the future, scholarship can focus on the formulation, exploration, and evaluation of alternatives to the present, as theories for desired futures. Prospective inquiry retains the primacy of theorizing while expanding its purpose, value, and use in entrepreneurship research, unleashing its generative power. It opens new spaces for theoretical excellence, dissolves the research-practice gap, and allows researchers and practitioners to theorize and enact their aspirations for the future.     

The role of family ownership in international entrepreneurship: exploring nonlinear effects

Empirical research on international entrepreneurship is growing, but results on the role of family ownership in this phenomenon are inconsistent. We believe these inconsistencies owe to prior researchers having not yet investigated nonlinear relationships. Drawing on opposing perspectives of stewardship and stagnation, we explore potential benefits and drawbacks of family ownership for international entrepreneurship and explore nonlinear relationships among these two variables. Using a sample of 1,035 US family businesses and applying ordinal regression analysis, we find an inverted U-shaped relationship between family ownership and international entrepreneurship: International entrepreneurship is maximized when family ownership stands at moderate levels. We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and practice and indicate avenues for future research.     

A tale of two life stages: The imprinting effect of macroeconomic contractions on later life entrepreneurship

Studies argue that macroeconomic contractions create immediate incentives for individuals to pursue entrepreneurship. However, research has not addressed whether past macroeconomic contractions imprint on individuals and influence their future entrepreneurship. Integrating literature on the business cycle and imprinting with insights from lifespan psychology, we develop and test competing theoretical arguments aligned to two distinct life stages about when a macroeconomic contraction will imprint on individuals to influence their future entrepreneurship, and how such effects are imprinted. Our findings show that only contractions experienced during early adulthood influence entrepreneurship and this effect is transmitted culturally via country-level preferences for time discounting.     

Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research

Theory development and testing are central to the advancement of entrepreneurship as a scholarly field. For nearly three decades now, researchers have borrowed popular theories from other disciplines and adapted them to the study of diverse entrepreneurship phenomena. This has enhanced the rigor of research findings. Future studies can achieve greater rigor and relevance by paying more attention to the context of their investigations. Understanding the nature, dynamics, uniqueness and limitations of this context can enrich future studies. This article describes common problems revealed in recent entrepreneurship research when applying existing and new theories to well known vs. emerging and novel phenomena. The article also suggests strategies to enrich creative and constructive theory building.     

The Improvisational Entrepreneur: Improvisation Training in Entrepreneurship Education

Entrepreneurs constantly face unexpected and unanticipated situations; those that thrive are ones that are identified by the literature as “improvisational.” Yet extant entrepreneurship research has not distinguished what improvisation is from how to do it. I propose training in the principles developed from the theory of performing improvisation promotes the entrepreneurship mindset through pedagogy. Qualitative studies reveal entrepreneurial self‐efficacy themes related to interpersonal/team considerations for entrepreneurs, and introduce “improvisational alertness” as a critical entrepreneurship consideration. Entrepreneurs can learn to keenly pay attention to interpersonal conditions of the present and the future in order to adapt potential limitations for venture success.     

Enacting entrepreneurship research in a pioneering,provocative and participative way: on the work of Bengt Johannisson

Bengt Johannisson received the International Award for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research in 2008. In this essay we present and evaluate his work over the last four decades in three of its dimensions: pioneering, provocative and participative. While his research interests and themes range widely, early on he resisted the individualization of entrepreneurship studies and instead emphasized that entrepreneurship is a social practice that must be contextualized, localized and situated. In so doing, he uses such concepts as networks, industrial districts, regions and local communities. Making interpretive studies possible in a European context, his conceptual and methodological approach documents how future studies of entrepreneurship can be enacted as a reflexive, participative practice where methods of research, intervention and debate become blurred.     

Technological Resource Leveraging and the Internationalisation of New Ventures

A growing body of research on international entrepreneurship suggests that new ventures have succeeded in entering international markets by creatively exploiting their tangible and intangible technological resources. Using the resource-based view of the firm, this paper explores the impact of leveraging selected tangible and intangible technological resources on the speed and degree of sales internationalisation among US software new ventures. Even though R&D investments are not significant predictors of the speed or degree of sales internationalisation, technological networks and technological reputations are. The interactions of networks and reputation with R&D spending are also positively and significantly associated with higher sales internationalisation. Technological networks also interact positively with R&D spending to expedite sales internationalisation, but the interaction of these investments with technological reputations is not significant. The results show that intangible technological resources play an important role in the internationalisation of software new ventures' sales. The implications of the findings for future international entrepreneurship research are discussed.     

Innovations, Stakeholders & Entrepreneurship

In modern societies entrepreneurship and innovation are widely seen as key sources of economic growth and welfare increases. Yet entrepreneurial innovation has also meant losses and hardships for some members of society: it is destructive of some stakeholders’ wellbeing even as it creates new wellbeing among other stakeholders. Both the positive benefits and negative externalities of innovation are problematic because entrepreneurs initiate new ventures before their private profitability and/or social costs can be fully recognized. In this paper we consider three analytical frameworks within which these issues might be examined: pre-commitments, contractarianism, and an entrepreneurial framework. We conclude that the intersection of stakeholder theory and entrepreneurial innovation is a potentially rich arena for research. Nicholas Dew, Ph.D. is an assistant professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. He teaches strategic management in private and public sector organizations. His research interests include entrepreneurship, strategy and innovation. He has published in several scholarly journals, including Strategic Management Journal, the Journal of Business Venturing, Industrial and Corporate Change and the Journal of Evolutionary Economics. Saras D. Sarasvathy, Ph.D. is an associate professor at the Darden Graduate School of Business Administration. She teaches courses in entrepreneurship and ethics in Darden's MBA and doctoral programs. Her research focuses on the cognitive basis for high-performance entrepreneurship. She has published in various scholarly journals, including the Academy of Management Review, Strategic Management Journal, the Journal of Businesss Venturing and the Journal of Evolutionary Economics. Her first book Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise was recently published by Edward Elgar.     

Entrepreneurship in Emerging Markets: New Insights and Directions for Future Research

In recent years, the entrepreneurship and emerging markets research streams have intersected. Emerging markets provide an opportunity to examine entrepreneurship in different contexts and forms. This article discusses the current literature that interconnects both research streams in general, comments on the contributions of the articles published in the special issue on entrepreneurship and emerging markets in particular, and sketches out future avenues for research. These contributions span several theoretical lenses, including institutional theory, internationalization theory, transaction cost economics, and the resource‐based view, as well as multiple geographic regions, including China as the largest emerging economy and other countries in East Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Middle East. We weave a discussion of the extant literature and these contributions inside three key themes: Emerging Markets and China's Uniqueness, Entrepreneurship in Emerging Markets, and Future Research on Emerging Markets Entrepreneurship. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Paul D. Reynolds: Entrepreneurship Research Innovator,Coordinator, and Disseminator

Paul Davidson Reynolds is the 2004 winner of the International Award for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research. In this article Professor Reynolds’ contributions are summarized in terms of four sets of triplets. The first is as innovator, coordinator and disseminator of novel and important empirical research studies. The second triplet concerns the main areas of his contributions: regional variations in entrepreneurial activity, nascent entrepreneurship and firms in gestation and international comparisons of the prevalence of entrepreneurial activity. The third set of triplets concerns what aspects of the research process he has contributed to: development of new empirical methods to research entrepreneurship; coining of new concepts that now permeate this field of research, and provision of important empirical results. The final set of triplets concerns the audiences to which Reynolds’ research appeal: researchers, policy-makers and business practitioners. It is concluded that although his contributions are many and of different kinds, the single most important one is that his research has made it increasingly unreasonable to theorize and design research as if the economy essentially consisted of a relatively stable core of large, established firms and entry and exit of new firms were relatively infrequent, marginal and insignificant.     

Moving on from nascent entrepreneurship: measuring cross-national differences in the transition to new business ownership

Nascent entrepreneurship and new business ownership are subsequent stages in the entrepreneurial process. We illustrate how information from the largest internationally harmonized database on entrepreneurship, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor project, can be used to approximate the entrepreneurial process. We make a methodological contribution by computing the ratio of new business ownership to nascent entrepreneurship in a way that reflects the transition from nascent to new business ownership and provides cross-nationally comparable information on the efficiency of the entrepreneurial process for 48 countries. We report evidence for the validity of the transition ratio by benchmarking it against transition rates obtained from longitudinal studies and by correlating it with commonly used entrepreneurship indicators and macro-level economic indices. The transition ratio enables future cross-national research on the entrepreneurial process by providing a reliable and valid indicator for one key transition in this process.     

Entrepreneurial fear of failure: Scale development and validation

Fear of failure is an important part of the experience of entrepreneurship. Yet past research has mainly investigated fear of failure in entrepreneurship among non entrepreneurs or nascent entrepreneurs and has done so by asking for reactions to hypothetical future failure. This approach to operationalizing the construct limits our capacity for understanding how entrepreneurs actually experience fear of failure while practicing entrepreneurship. In this paper, we conceptualize entrepreneurial fear of failure as a negative affective reaction based in cognitive appraisals of the potential for failure in the uncertain and ambiguous context of entrepreneurship. We use multiple samples to develop and validate a multidimensional, formative measure to assess entrepreneurial fear of failure as a state that is both cognitive and affective in nature. In addition to evidence of the psychometric properties of the new scale across multiple studies, we present a nomological network analysis with respect to measures of theoretically derived psychological outcomes and perceived behavioral tendencies of entrepreneurial fear of failure. We then discuss the theoretical, methodological, and empirical implications of this new measure of entrepreneurial fear of failure with an eye towards use of this scale in future research.     

William J. Baumol: An Entrepreneurial Economist on the Economics of Entrepreneurship

William J. Baumol is the 2003 winner of the International Award for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research. Throughout his career Baumol has urged the profession to pay attention to the instrumental role of entrepreneurship in economic renewal and growth. At the same time he has insisted that economists continue to use their usual tool box when the purview of analysis is extended to entrepreneurship. Hence, Baumol can be characterized as a revolutionary from within. In this article we present and discuss Baumol's research contribution in the areas of entrepreneurship and small business economics, notably from a growth perspective. In addition to placing his work in these areas into the wider context of his full contribution, we emphasize Baumol's findings that growth cannot be explained by the accumulation of various factors of production per se; human creativity and productive entrepreneurship are needed to combine the inputs in profitable ways. As a result, an institutional environment that encourages productive entrepreneurship and human experimentation becomes the ultimate determinant of economic growth.     

Conceptualizing knowledge-based entrepreneurship networks: perspectives from the literature

Efforts to promote and support knowledge-based entrepreneurship as a vehicle for economic development are increasingly focused on the importance of networks to entrepreneurial success. This article reviews the extant empirical literature and finds a striking consensus among multiple disciplinary perspectives: not only are networks important, network characteristics also mediate resources important to entrepreneurial performance. Unfortunately, current conceptual frameworks do not adequately account for the unique nature of knowledge spillovers and their role in innovation and economic dynamism. The article suggests that scholars embrace the nascent knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship to guide future empirical research on entrepreneurship networks and focus intently on their impact on entrepreneurial performance—and therefore economic growth.     

Individualism,collectivism, and entrepreneurship: A framework for international comparative research

This article presents a theoretical framework and seven related propositions linking national culture—specifically individualist and collectivist orientations—to entrepreneurship. The framework identifies how both orientations affect the functions of entrepreneurship. This perspective casts new light on cross-cultural research that, while generally confirming individualism-entrepreneurship ties, has had less success accounting for the entrepreneurial vitality of largely “collectivist” nations—especially Japan.There are two main streams of research on the effects of individualism and collectivism on entrepreneurship. The micro-level stream finds that those who generate variety—founders and corporate entrepreneurs—tend to be individualistic. This work does not identify proclivities for the other entrepreneurial function, leveraging resources. The macro-stream associates both individualism and collectivism with national levels of economic growth and innovation.The framework comprises two dimensions depicting (1) levels of individualism and collectivism, and (2) the entrepreneurial functions. I conceive of individualism and collectivism as two characteristic orientations distributed in varying proportions within and between cultures and individuals. These characteristic are not polar ends of a continuum, as commonly described. The second dimension recognizes that entrepreneurship requires two activities: generating variety through innovation or new ventures, and leveraging resources internally or by establishing external ties.This paper's main contribution comes from the recognition that two entrepreneurial functions are very different processes. Variety generation requires mostly individual creativity and initiative; resource leverage depends on efficient relationships that thrive under collectivism, but can be induced contractually between individualists. These differences reveal that individualism and collectivism neither categorically encourage nor discourage entrepreneurship; rather they influence how its functions are accomplished.The propositions outlined in this paper can sharpen future research on individualism, collectivism, and entrepreneurship. In short, the paper claims individualists produce breakthroughs that collectivists implement and improve. Individualists show proclivities for new venture formation and making major innovations. They tend to leverage their resources through contract-based relations. For example, resources are stretched internally using contingent, performance-based incentives, and outside funds can be acquired through venture-capital agreements. In contrast, collectivists generate variety through group-based, incremental improvements and changes. Collectivists leverage their own resources by harnessing “clanlike” affiliations, and securing the use of the resources of other firms by building close relational ties, like keiretsu. Theory acknowledging that individualism and collectivism are not negatively related allows us to recognize that both orientations can contribute to entrepreneurship.The framework has key implications for entrepreneur/managers and policymakers. Recognizing that individualism and collectivism both contribute to entrepreneurship can guide decision-makers to examine the inventory of these orientations in their firms or regions, and implement policies to address shortfalls. For example, Americans can concentrate more on building close network ties while Japanese can focus on encouraging individual innovations.     

Entrepreneurship: The Role of Clusters Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Evidence from Germany

This paper is about the impact of clusters on entrepreneurship at the regional level. Defining entrepreneurship as the creation of new organisations and clusters as a geographically proximate group of interconnected firms and associated institutions in related industries, this paper aims to answer three research questions : first, do clusters matter to entrepreneurship at the regional level? Second, if clusters are associated with different levels of entrepreneurship, what explains those differences? Third, what do the answers to the previous questions imply for academics and policy makers? To answer these questions, this paper distinguishes between clusters and industrial agglomerations and advances a theoretical model and empirical research to explain the impact of clusters on entrepreneurship at the regional level. This paper uses the 97 German planning regions as units of analysis to test the hypotheses. Using hypotheses testing and OLS fixed-effects model, this paper finds that clusters do have an impact on entrepreneurship at the regional level, but industrial agglomerations do not. Implications for academics and policy makers and suggestions for future research are given in the concluding section.     

Machines augmenting entrepreneurs: Opportunities (and threats) at the Nexus of artificial intelligence and entrepreneurship

Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to machines that are trained to perform tasks associated with human intelligence, interpret external data, learn from that external data, and use that learning to flexibly adapt to tasks to achieve specific outcomes. This paper briefly explains AI and looks into the future to highlight some of AI's broader and longer-term societal implications. We propose that AI can be combined with entrepreneurship to represent a super tool. Scholars can research the nexus of AI and entrepreneurship to explore the possibilities of this potential AI-entrepreneurship super tool and hopefully direct its use to productive processes and outcomes. We focus on specific entrepreneurship topics that benefit from AI's augmentation potential and acknowledge implications for entrepreneurship's dark side. We hope this paper stimulates future research at the AI-entrepreneurship nexus.Executive summaryArtificial intelligence (AI) refers to machines that are trained to perform tasks associated with human intelligence, interpret external data, learn from that external data, and use that learning to flexibly adapt to tasks to achieve specific outcomes. Machine learning is the most common form of AI and largely relies on supervised learning—when the machine (i.e., AI) is trained with labels applied by humans. Deep learning and adversarial learning involve training on unlabeled data, or when the machine (via its algorithms) clusters data to reveal underlying patterns.AI is simply a tool. Entrepreneurship is also simply a tool. How they are combined and used will determine their impact on humanity. While researchers have independently developed a greater understanding of entrepreneurship and AI, these two streams of research have primarily run in parallel. To indicate the scope of current and future AI, we provide examples of AI (at different levels of development) for four sectors—customer service, financial, healthcare, and tertiary education. Indeed, experts from industry research and consulting firms suggest many AI-related business opportunities for entrepreneurs to pursue.Further, we elaborate on several of these opportunities, including opportunities to (1) capitalize on the “feeling economy,” (2) redistribute occupational skills in the economy, (3) develop and use new governance mechanisms, (4) keep humans in the loop (i.e., humans as part of the decision making process), (5) expand the role of humans in developing AI systems, and (6) expand the purposes of AI as a tool. After discussing the range of business opportunities that experts suggest will prevail in the economy with AI, we discuss how entrepreneurs can use AI as a tool to help them increase their chances of entrepreneurial success. We focus on four up-and-coming areas for entrepreneurship research: a more interaction-based perspective of (potential) entrepreneurial opportunities, a more activities-based micro-foundation approach to entrepreneurial action, a more cognitively hot perspective of entrepreneurial decision making and action, and a more compassionate and prosocial role of entrepreneurial action. As we discuss each topic, we also suggest opportunities to design an AI system (i.e., entrepreneurs as potential AI designers) to help entrepreneurs (i.e., entrepreneurs as AI users).AI is an exciting development in the technology world. How it transforms markets and societies depends in large part on entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs can use AI to augment their decisions and actions in pursuing potential opportunities for productive gains. Thus, we discuss entrepreneurs' most critical tasks in developing and managing AI and explore some of the dark-side aspects of AI. Scholars also have a role to play in how entrepreneurs use AI, but this role requires the hard work of theory building, theory elaboration, theory testing, and empirical theorizing. We offer some AI topics that we hope future entrepreneurship research will explore. We hope this paper encourages scholars to consider research at the nexus of AI and entrepreneurship.