Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Towards Integration: Understanding Entrepreneurship Through Frameworks
Towards Integration: Understanding Entrepreneurship Through Frameworks
understanding entrepreneurship
through frameworks
Michael H. Morris, Donald F. Kuratko and Minet
Schindehutte
The notion of the individual who, often against signifi- The current age of entrepreneurship is defined by
cant odds, develops and implements a unique concept more than an increase in activity. It represents a funda-
for capitalizing on opportunity, is not new. However, mental change in ways of thinking about business, life
entrepreneurship in the twenty-first century has its and the environments in which people and ventures
distinguishing characteristics (Morris, 1998; Small operate. The focus is on individual responsibility and
Business Administration, 1998). There is more entrepre- personal choice, on the microcosm rather than the
neurial activity in general, as the entry barriers to macrocosm, where approaches are bottom-up rather than
entrepreneurship are generally lower today than has top-down, and small units in alliance can outperform
historically been the case. Money is more readily large organizations that rely on scale and control (Miner,
available, resources are more accessible, market oppor- 2000; Morris, 1998; Timmons, 1999). Terms such as
tunities are more plentiful, and downside risks are devolution, downsizing, decentralization and empower-
generally less severe. Today’s entrepreneurs can do far ment attempt to capture this movement away from the
more with less, at least in terms of resources that they concentrated centre to the diversity of the individual.
actually own and control. They are also more able to The pervasive influence of entrepreneurship has
start and grow a business of sizeable proportions in a implications for those starting ventures as well as for
relatively short period of time. managers in established organizations. Thus, in estab-
lished firms, managers find entrepreneurship taking a policy makers, executives, financiers and others. Con-
variety of forms (eg traditional R&D, venture teams, sider some of the trends in the development of the field:
new venture divisions, ‘skunkworks’, internal start-ups,
etc). The evidence suggests organizations that learn how • It is increasingly accepted that the entrepreneurial
to facilitate entrepreneurship in its various forms are and managerial domains are not mutually exclusive,
more competitive and perform better than those that do but that they overlap. The former is more opportu-
not (Zahra and Covin, 1995). On the other hand, execu- nity driven, and the latter is more resource and
tives are increasingly involved in acquiring ‘conservation’ driven (Stewart, et al, 1999).
entrepreneurial firms, losing market share to them, • The availability of venture financing, including
spinning them off, sourcing or licensing from them, venture capital, angel financing, microfinance and
creating them through agreements with former employ- various innovative financing techniques, emerged at
ees, and participating in them through joint ventures. an unprecedented level during the 1990s. This avail-
Accordingly, it is important that managers of all types ability fuelled both significant new venture activity
understand how and why the phenomenon of entrepre- and extensive academic research (Amit, Brander and
neurship occurs. Zott, 1998; Fried, Burton and Hisrich, 1998).
Although entrepreneurship is not a new phenomenon, • Intrapreneurship, or entrepreneurship within large
attempts to study it in a systematic manner are fairly organizations, and the need for entrepreneurial
recent. Thus, while the term ‘entrepreneurship’ has been cultures have gained much attention during the past
in use for close to three hundred years, as a discipline few years (Busenitz and Barney, 1997; Kuratko and
entrepreneurship remains in its infancy. Scholars Hornsby, 1996; Zahra and Covin, 1995).
continue to debate such fundamental issues as the • Entrepreneurial entry strategies have been identified
definition of ‘entrepreneurship’, the nature of the that show some important common denominators,
entrepreneur, the relevant unit of analysis when studying issues and trade-offs (Ireland and Hitt, 1999).
entrepreneurship, the purpose of such research, the • The great variety among types of entrepreneurs and
environmental conditions that give rise to the methods they have used to achieve success have
entepreneurship, and much more (Amit, Glosten and motivated research on psychological aspects that
Muller, 1993). The volume of research in the area has can predict future success (Baron, 1998).
increased significantly in the past decade, but many • The risks and trade-offs of an entrepreneurial career,
continue to note a lack of theory development, limited particularly its demanding and stressful nature, have
development of useful conceptual frameworks, an been a subject of keen research interest relevant to
absence of rigour in much of the available research, and would-be and practising entrepreneurs alike
an inability to draw generalizations from the empirical (McGrath, MacMillan and Scheinberg, 1992).
work that is conducted (eg Ratnatunga and Romano, • Women and minority entrepreneurs have emerged in
1997; Shane, 2000). In fact, much of what constitutes unprecedented numbers. They appear to face
the study of entrepreneurship today is borrowed or obstacles and difficulties different from those faced
adapted from other disciplines. by other entrepreneurs (Shim and Eastlick, 1998).
The purpose of this paper is to present a series of • The entrepreneurial spirit is universal, judging by
frameworks that explain entrepreneurship as it manifests the enormous growth of interest in entrepreneurship
itself in the twenty-first century. The need for an around the world in the past few years (Caruana,
integrative perspective is discussed, together with Morris and Vella, 1998).
background on the value of conceptual frameworks. • The economic and social contributions of entrepre-
Integration is provided through a proposed ‘framework neurs and new companies have been shown to make
of frameworks’, which ties together 11 other frame- immensely disproportionate contributions to job
works, each of which explores a particular aspect of the creation, innovation and economic renewal, com-
overall phenomenon of entrepreneurship. The value of pared with the contributions made by the 500 or so
these frameworks in explaining and predicting entrepre- largest companies (Dennis, 1993).
neurial activity in a diverse range of contexts is • Entrepreneurial education represents the fastest
examined. growth area in business and engineering schools.
The number of schools teaching a new-venture or
similar course, has now grown from as few as two
Progress in entrepreneurship studies dozen 20 years ago to more than 700, with many of
Recognition of the importance of entrepreneurship over these now offering a full curriculum in entrepreneur-
the past two decades is reflected in an unprecedented ship (Plaschka and Welsch, 1990; Vesper and
amount of attention from scholars, educators, public Gartner, 1997; Gartner and Vesper, 1999).
Despite such trends, or perhaps because of them, the identify the relevant variables or components that
field of entrepreneurship is evolving in a rather dis- constitute some subject area of interest, while also
jointed and random manner. For instance, Ratnatunga bringing order or structure to these components in terms
and Romano (1997) conducted an analysis of 725 of the ways in which they relate to one another. A
articles and 16,720 citations in six leading entrepreneur- framework provides the manager with a ‘blueprint’ that
ship journals. Although able to identify the main topical converts abstraction into order, allows prioritization of
areas of research, they characterized the entrepreneur- variables or issues, and helps identify relationships. It
ship field in terms of a ‘garbage can model’, in which provides the scholar with the foundation upon which to
these topical areas reflect a loose collection of ideas hypothesize, develop models and build and test theory.
rather than a coherent structure with a shared intellectual Frameworks can be explanatory or predictive; they
paradigm. Little of what is published is positioned can be descriptive or normative. At their best, they have
within a particular theoretical paradigm; nor does most implications for important organizational outcomes
published work attempt to formulate any sort of theoreti- (Miller, 1996; Sanchez, 1993). They are conceptual in
cal advancement. We appear to have isolated facts, but nature, although it is possible to treat a framework as a
few principles or generalizations (MacMillan and Katz, theory provided that it is subsequently subjected to
1993). Entrepreneurship has developed as a business rigorous empirical testing (Doty and Glick, 1994). They
discipline by borrowing, building upon and adapting can be developed a priori, or in response to empirical
theoretical and conceptual work from such fields as evidence. Once developed, they may suggest new
sociology, psychology, anthropology, marketing, subclasses of the phenomenon of interest.
management, finance, organizational behaviour and Virtually all fields of intellectual endeavour contain
engineering. frameworks. As an example, consider the discipline of
If entrepreneurial studies are to achieve the results marketing. To the extent that marketing might be defined
that have been attained in other sciences, the field must as the set of activities that facilitates transactions, the
begin to develop its own cohesive theories or frame- question becomes one of identifying those activities. Of
works. Shane (2000) recently noted that: course, the set of activities that could conceivably cause
a transaction to happen are limitless, constrained only by
rather than explaining and predicting a unique set of empirical
phenomenon entrepreneurship has become a broad label under the marketer’s creativity. The problem is to find a way to
which a hodgepodge of research is housed. What appears to organize all these possibilities in a managerially (and it
constitute entrepreneurship research today is some aspect of is hoped, theoretically) meaningful way. Thus, the
the setting (eg small businesses or new firms), rather than a marketing mix, or the so-called 4 Ps of product, price,
unique conceptual domain. As a result, many people have had promotion and place, have been promulgated as a logical
trouble identifying any distinctive contribution of the field to framework for categorizing the range of possibilities.
the broader domain of business studies, undermining the field’s In taking stock of what is known about the field of
legitimacy. entrepreneurship, a number of frameworks have been
The author went on to suggest: produced, some of which have achieved fairly wide-
spread acceptance. Most notable is the variety of
For a field of social science to have usefulness, it must have a frameworks or typologies used to distinguish between
conceptual framework that explains and predicts a set of
different types of entrepreneurs (Bird, 1989; Gartner,
empirical phenomena not explained or predicted by conceptual
1985; Gartner, Mitchell and Vesper, 1989; Woo, Cooper
frameworks already in existence in other fields.
and Dunkelberg, 1991). As a case in point, Miner (2000)
Yet, it would appear that the volume of work attempting distinguishes between types of people who make
to describe, explain and predict aspects of entrepreneur- effective entrepreneurs using a four-way psychological
ship has grown to a point at which we can begin to framework. He has found that the typology can be
develop a more complete and integrated picture. This extended to include the venture initiation phase in
paper attempts to identify 12 key frameworks that have addition to firm growth and performance. Furthermore,
been used in entrepreneurship research and to construct his framework is useful in predicting measures of
a comprehensive framework that offers some organiza- entrepreneurial propensities and skill in business plan
tion to the field. preparation. As such, his research provides support for
the basic theory of entrepreneurial personality.
Framework and knowledge development In this paper, we propose an integrative framework for
understanding the phenomenon of entrepreneurship, and
Merriam-Webster (1999) defines a framework as ‘a attempt to demonstrate how this comprehensive perspec-
basic conceptual structure (as of ideas)’. It is a logical tive incorporates a number of the other frameworks
and systematic way to organize phenomena. It serves to currently available in the field. We believe that this
represents an important step towards the ultimate potential resides in most individuals. The environment
objective of establishing a comprehensive typology that within which the entrepreneur operates includes macro
is theoretically solid and that underpins further efforts to forces that both facilitate (eg well developed infrastruc-
build theories and irrefutable laws of entrepreneurship. ture, availability of venture capital, bankruptcy
The proposed framework has been developed by protection) and constrain (eg monopolistic conditions,
building on existing knowledge in the field. Its main high inflation and interest rates, onerous regulation and
purpose, therefore, is not to expand theory, but to taxation) entrepreneurial behaviour in general. It
develop a systematic overview of the critical elements provides what Baumol (1990) refers to as the ‘rules of
that serve to explain and predict entrepreneurial activity. the game’ that determine how the entrepreneurial
A sizeable body of research has developed that supports impulse of individuals is channelled. The environment
individual elements of the framework as well as positive also provides the specific set of conditions that create
relationships across other elements. Our contribution to the opportunity for a particular entrepreneurial concept.
knowledge in the field of entrepreneurship is the integra- The business concept represents a unique combination
tion of previously disparate aspects of entrepreneurship. of resources that result in a new or improved product,
We seek to enhance the understanding of the field by service or process, a new organizational form, or the
defining the domain of entrepreneurship and its consti- penetration of a new market. The concept represents a
tuting elements. total value package. Accordingly, elements such as the
entrepreneur’s pricing approach or the distribution
method can be core elements of a successful concept.
Entrepreneurship and frameworks The ability to match a concept to an opportunity is
While others exist, we have attempted to identify 12 key influenced by the resources the entrepreneur is able to
frameworks that capture the pattern, pace and timing of muster. While financial resources tend to receive the
entrepreneurship as it occurs in a variety of contexts and most attention, the abilities to identify and acquire the
conditions. Importantly, each framework addresses an appropriate human resources, distribution channels,
aspect without which entrepreneurship cannot occur. supply relationships, technologies, physical locations
The collective set captures the overall phenomenon of and other types of resources are often more critical in
entrepreneurship, and the elements are internally explaining entrepreneurial outcomes. Finally, entrepre-
consistent. Each has broad applicability and is time- neurship requires some sort of organizational context,
tested. Let us begin with a ‘framework of frameworks’. and this context often has implications for the type and
timing of entrepreneurial activity. Examples of such
An integrative framework contexts include the individual licensing inventions from
Entrepreneurship is the result of the interactions among his/her garage, the home-based business, the franchise,
a number of variables. Framework 1 represents an the partnership operating out of an incubator, the limited
attempt to capture the six key variables: the process, the liability company with dedicated premises, and the
entrepreneur, the environment, the business concept, the corporate research laboratory or new venture division.
resources and the organizational context. Figure 1 shows The reader will note that in Figure 1, the numbers 2–
an integrative framework. 11 have been placed in proximity to the six key
At the centre of this is the process of entrepreneur- variables. Each of these numbers represents an addi-
ship, which is elaborated upon further in Framework 2. tional framework that is critical for explaining one of the
It is generally accepted among scholars that entrepre- variables that make up the overall framework, and shall
neurship entails a process, and specifically, the process be discussed below. In this manner, the integrative
of creating value by putting together a unique package perspective represents a ‘framework of frameworks’.
of resources to exploit an opportunity (Stevenson, et al,
1992). Pursuit of this process requires an entrepreneur The entrepreneurial process
or champion. This person may or may not have origi- Conceptualizing entrepreneurship as a process repre-
nated the idea or concept, but he/she is the one who sents a major advance. Entrepreneurial events are easier
perseveres in adapting and implementing it and realizing to understand, and likely to achieve better results when
some level of success or failure. Considerable work has approached as a process. The benefits of a process
been done in attempting to identify sociological and approach are many. The first, and most obvious, is that
psychological characteristics of these individuals (Bird, the entrepreneurial effort can be broken down into
1989; McClelland, 1987). The evidence suggests there specific stages, or steps. Although these stages will tend
are different types of entrepreneurs, that entrepreneurs to overlap, and one may periodically have to revisit an
are not necessarily born or genetically predisposed to earlier stage, they tend to evolve in a logical progres-
entrepreneurship, and that some level of entrepreneurial sion. Further, approached as a process, entrepreneurship
is not some chance event pursued only by a selected few, subsequent stages that often require the most innovative
but becomes a manageable event that can be pursued by and risk-taking behaviours on the part of the entrepre-
anyone. In addition, the entrepreneurial process can be neur.
applied in any organizational context, from the start-up Figure 2 also provides examples of key decision
venture to the established corporation to the public variables or alternatives that come into play at each
enterprise. Moreover, processes are sustainable, meaning stage in the process. Thus, opportunities can derive from
that entrepreneurship can be ongoing or continuous at changing demographics or process needs, among other
the individual or organizational levels. sources, while harvesting might involve a licensing
The entrepreneurial process is illustrated in Figure 2. agreement, the decision to go public, or any number of
This framework consists of six stages. The first two, other means of extracting oneself and one’s returns from
opportunity identification and business concept develop- the venture.
ment, represent the ideation phase of the process. The
entrepreneur is attempting to identify patterns or forces Types of entrepreneurs
in the environment that represent profit potential, and to The third framework is concerned with the entrepreneur.
develop a creative means of capitalizing on that poten- The question, ‘who is the entrepreneur?’ has been
tial. The remaining stages are concerned with researched more than any other in the field of entrepre-
implementation. Thus, the entrepreneur assesses and neurship. While there is some evidence to suggest that
acquires the necessary resources, implements the entrepreneurs tend to have certain characteristics in
concept, manages the business, and eventually harvests common, such as higher levels of achievement motiva-
the venture. While creativity is perhaps most associated tion, an internal locus of control, and a tolerance of
with the beginning of the process, and especially with ambiguity, there does not appear to be a single prototype
the development of the concept, in practice it is the of the entrepreneur (Bird, 1989). Rather, it may be more
Source: Adapted from Timmons, Jeffrey (1999), New Venture Creation, 5 ed, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
pay, would be very attractive. Multiple combinations are Karl Vesper (1990) has coined the term ‘competitive
possible, and the entrepreneur can use the framework to entry wedge’ to describe such mechanisms. The four
determine how a concept would have to be adjusted to primary methods of entering markets are to start a new
make it viable. business around a truly new product or service, to mimic
a competitor’s offering, to obtain a franchise, or to
Market entry strategy acquire a going concern. However, supplemental
Related to the business concept is the mechanism relied methods also exist. For example, the entrepreneur may
upon by the entrepreneur to get into the marketplace. come across a concept on his/her travels and opt to
Source: Vesper, Karl (1990), New Venture Strategy, Prentice Hall, Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ.
Resource strategies
Internal (DIY)
Ham ’n egg
Outsource
Sell equity
Purchase
Contract
License
Borrow
Barter
Lease
Share
Rent
Resource type
Physical
Relational
Organizational
Financial
Technological
opportunity and concept can lead to a more realistic perspective. Hence, with corporate entrepreneurship, the
assessment of venture viability. organizational context now plays a much more critical
Each of the individual frameworks can be instrumen- role, the entrepreneur may be more buffered from
tal, especially when combined, in explaining outcomes environmental developments, the resource acquisition
of entrepreneurial efforts, such as the form entrepreneur- strategy is likely to differ, and the role of the individual
ship takes, the degree of innovativeness demonstrated, versus the team changes.
and the rate of growth of a venture. For instance, assume
that a venture is started by an ‘expert idea generator’,
relies on new products (new to the world and market) as
Summary and conclusions
its entry wedge, employs a speculative model of the More than ever, there is a pressing need to develop a
venture, is highly leveraged in terms of resources, and is comprehensive understanding of how and why entrepre-
a moderate volume/low operating leverage/high margin neurial activity occurs, the forms it takes, and the
business. This combination of inputs from the various outcomes that derive from its occurrence. This paper has
frameworks might be expected to produce a rapid proposed a frameworks perspective for achieving such
growth venture that is highly innovative and is acquired understanding. Further, we believe that this perspective
within three years of start-up. represents an important step towards the development of
These frameworks can also assist in addressing the substantive theories that help explain and predict
‘why’ issues surrounding an entrepreneurial venture. entrepreneurial activity.
The reasons why the entrepreneur finances the venture The ‘framework of frameworks’ was presented as a
in a particular manner, outsources certain key functions, way to organize the many factors that come into play as
or refrains from adding a given service to his/her line, an entrepreneurial event unfolds. Within each of the six
are likely to be linked to the type of model of the components that constitute this overall framework lie a
venture they employ, the type of entrepreneur they are, large number of issues and questions, with each compo-
the way in which they define the business concept, and nent representing a major focal point for continued
the environmental conditions in which they operate. research and theory building. For instance, within the
In addition, the frameworks perspective allows for the area of the business concept lie questions about types of
dynamic nature of entrepreneurship. The entrepreneurial business concepts, underlying components of a concept,
process itself is not static, but instead can be sustaining the requisite characteristics or success factors associated
and recurrent over time. The two frameworks of types of with a good concept, and ways in which concepts evolve
ventures and of venture life-cycle stages suggest an over time. Additional frameworks were presented that
evolutionary perspective in terms of an entire array of are associated with each of these six components. Thus,
issues and decisions that arise over time. The framework again in the area of the business concept, we have
on types of innovation can be relevant in guiding the looked at types of innovation within the concept, the
evolving product/market strategy of the entrepreneurial economics of the concept, and entry strategies. While
firm. the frameworks presented are believed to be some of the
Finally, entrepreneurship assumes different patterns most significant and relevant, others are available that
depending on the context within which it occurs. An provide insights in each of these areas.
added benefit of the frameworks perspective is its Entrepreneurship is a meaningful concept at the
applicability in a variety of contexts. The overall individual, organizational and societal levels, and the
framework and each of the individual ones are equally frameworks perspective is applicable at each of these
applicable to a new or growing business in the informal levels. Individual-level entrepreneurship has been the
sector of a developing economy, the purchase of re- focus of much of the discussion in this paper. However,
gional franchise rights of a promising new venture in entrepreneurship within an established organization is a
Europe, the start-up of a high-tech venture in a research function of the same factors emphasized in the frame-
park setting, entrepreneurial developments within the works. Companies that are more entrepreneurial are
new venture division of a large company, and entrepre- often driven to be so by the nature of their environments.
neurship within the mainstream operations of a public They require champions and teams, resources, a con-
sector organization. Thus, if we consider the incidence cept, and management of the process. The organizational
of entrepreneurship within a well established company, context poses unique challenges. At the level of the
the six variables in the overall framework remain the society, the frameworks perspective is valuable in
relevant ones for explaining the phenomenon. The explaining why certain societies are more entrepre-
individual variables may differ in their relative impor- neurial than others. It can also be helpful from a public
tance, or in the ways in which they are impact outcomes, policy vantage point, in terms of identifying where
but this flexibility is an attribute of the frameworks efforts to encourage entrepreneurship should be focused.
At this level, environmental variables, such as the entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: biases
and heuristics in strategic decision-making’, Journal of
political, legal, logistical, institutional, economic and Business Venturing, Vol 12, No 1, pp 9–30.
financial infrastructure, become especially pertinent. Caruana, Albert, Morris, Michael H., and Vella, Anthony J.
However, the other factors in the framework, such as the (1998), ‘The effect of centralization and formalization on
entrepreneurship in export firms’, Journal of Small Business
availability of types of resources, the presence of Management, Vol 36, No 1, pp 16–29.
motivated and trained entrepreneurs, and business Churchill, Neil C., and Lewis, Virginia L. (1983), ‘The five stages
concepts that centre around particular clusters, also of small business growth’, Harvard Business Review, Vol 6,
No 3, pp 30–50.
determine levels of entrepreneurial activity within a Dennis, William J. (1993), A Small Business Primer, NFIB
society. Foundation, Washington, DC.
The frameworks perspective can be of value in Doty, D. H., and Glick, W. H. (1994), ‘Typologies as a unique form
of theory building: toward improving understanding and
teaching, research and managerial practice. When modeling’, Academy of Management Review, Vol 19, No 2, pp
teaching entrepreneurship, the frameworks approach 230–251.
captures the content of entrepreneurship better than Fried, Vance H., Burton, Garry D., and Hisrich, Robert D. (1998),
‘Strategy and the board of directors in venture capital-backed
cases, business plans and other experiential exercises. In firms’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 13, No 6, pp 493–
fact, an entrepreneurship course can be structured 504.
around these frameworks. With regard to research, the Gartner, William B. (1985), ‘A conceptual framework for describ-
ing the phenomenon of new venture creation’, Academy of
frameworks offer a potential taxonomy for grouping and Management Review, Vol 10, No 4, pp 696–706.
prioritizing research issues. They represent an invitation Gartner, William, B., Mitchell, Terrence R., and Vesper, Karl H.
for the development of hypotheses and the formulation (1989), ‘A taxonomy of new business ventures’, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol 4, pp 169–186.
of theory regarding the roles and interactions between Gartner, William B., and Vesper, Karl H. (1999), University
the variables and sub-variables represented in the Entrepreneurship Programs, Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepre-
frameworks. Entrepreneurs and managers can find that neurial Studies, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, CA.
the frameworks represent a very pragmatic set of tools to Ireland, R. Duane, and Hitt, Michael A. (1999), ‘Achieving and
guide the creation, management and harvesting of maintaining strategic competitiveness in the twenty first
ventures in a wide variety of contexts. century: the role of strategic leadership’, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol 13, No 1, pp 43–57.
It is hoped that this work represents a modest step Kuratko, Donald F., and Hodgetts, Richard M. (2001), Entrepre-
towards the development of a comprehensive theory of neurship: A Contemporary Approach, 5 ed, Harcourt College
entrepreneurship. The immediate need is to develop Publishers, Fort Worth, TX.
Kuratko, Donald F., and Hornsby, Jeffrey S. (1996), ‘Developing
additional frameworks to explain further each of the six entrepreneurial leadership in contemporary organizations’,
components of the integrative framework. Moreover, Journal of Management Systems, Vol 8, No 1–4, pp 17–27.
there is room to improve and refine the existing sub- MacMillan, Ian C., and Katz, Jerome A. (1993), ‘Idiosyncratic
milieus of entrepreneurship research: the need for compre-
frameworks. Progress in this regard will help establish a hensive theories’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 7, No 1,
unique discipline of entrepreneurship. pp 1–8.
McClelland, David (1987), ‘Characteristics of successful
entrepreneurs’, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol 21, No 2, pp
References 219–233.
McGrath, Rita G., MacMillan, Ian C., and Scheinberg, S. (1992),
Adizes, Ishak (1988), Corporate Lifecycles: How and Why ‘Elitists, risk takers and rugged individualists? An exploratory
Corporations Grow and Die, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, analysis of cultural differences between entrepreneurs and
NJ. non-entrepreneurs’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 7, No
Amit, Raphael, Brander, James, and Zott, Christoph (1998), 2, pp 115–136.
‘Why do venture capital firms exist? Theory and Canadian Merriam-Webster (1999), Collegiate Dictionary, 10 ed, Merriam-
evidence’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 13, No 6, pp Webster Incorporated, Boston, MA.
441–466. Miller, Danny (1996), ‘Configurations revisited’, Strategic
Amit, Raphael, Glosten, Lawrence, and Muller, Eitan (1993), Management Journal, Vol 17, No 4, pp 505–512.
‘Challenges to theory development in entrepreneurial Miner, John B. (2000), ‘Testing a psychological typology of
research’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol 30, No 5, pp entrepreneurship using business founders’, Journal of Applied
275–294. Behavioral Science, Vol 36, No 1, pp 43–70.
Baron, Robert A. (1998), ‘Cognitive mechanisms in entrepre- Morris, Michael (1998), Entrepreneurial Intensity, Quorum
neurship: why and when entrepreneurs think differently than Books, Westport, CT.
other people’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 13, No 4, pp Plaschka, Gerhard R., and Welsch, Harold P. (1990), ‘Emerging
275–294. structures in entrepreneurship education: curricular designs
Baumol, William J. (1990), ‘Entrepreneurship: productive, and strategies’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
unproductive and destructive’, Journal of Political Economy, spring, pp 55–71.
Vol 98, No 5, pp 893–921. Ratnatunga, Janek, and Romano, Claudio (1997), ‘A citation
Bird, Barbara (1989), Entrepreneurial Behaviour, Scott classics analysis of articles in contemporary small enterprise
Foresman, London. research’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 12, No 3, pp
Bull, Ivan, and Willard, Gary E. (1993), ‘Towards a theory of 197–212.
entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 8, No 3, Sanchez, J. C. (1993), ‘The long and thorny way to an organiza-
pp 183–195. tional taxonomy’, Organization Studies, Vol 14, No 1, pp
Busenitz, L., and Barney, J. (1997), ‘Differences between 73–92.