The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2554.htm
IJEBR
19,2
130
Received 20 June 2011
Revised 5 October 2011
Accepted 12 January 2012
International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research
Vol. 19 No. 2, 2013
pp. 130-148
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1355-2554
DOI 10.1108/13552551311310347
It’s really out there: a review
of the critique of the discovery
view of opportunities
Steffen Korsgaard
Department of Business Administration, Aarhus University,
Aarhus, Denmark
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review the recent critique of the discovery view of
opportunities and by implication the current state of the so-called creation view of opportunities.
Design/methodology/approach – A systematic review of articles published from 2000-2010 which
feature a critique of the discovery view of opportunities. The review uses an open coding approach to
identify central themes in the critique. Four central themes are identified, and from within-theme
patterns three distinct groups within the literature are identified.
Findings – The four themes suggest that the discovery view is incomplete, that social and relational
interactions are more pervading and important than the discovery view suggests, that opportunities
are created and that the role of individuality and subjectivity needs to be emphasized more. Three
distinct groups within the literature are identified, each presenting different critiques of the discovery
view, theoretical foci and implications for method and practice. Furthermore, the discussion suggests
that the opportunity concept is a focal point for important debates in the entrepreneurship field, that
the creation view is diverse and should not be referred to in the singular and that seeking reconciliation
between the discovery and creation views is a problematic strategy. Finally, it is suggested that a
continued dialog exploring differences both between the discovery and creation views as well as
between the creation views is a fruitful strategy for the development of the field.
Originality/value – The article presents a review of both the critique of the discovery view and
the so-called creation view, thereby supplementing and advancing from existing reviews of the
opportunity concept in entrepreneurship. This furthers our understanding of the role of opportunities
in entrepreneurial processes.
Keywords Opportunity, Opportunity creation, Discovery, Entrepreneurship,
Entrepreneurial processes, Entrepreneurialism, Entrepreneurs
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss the recent critique of the discovery
view of opportunities. As such, it addresses the increasing interest in the opportunity
concept within the entrepreneurship field as well as the recent surge of critique that has
addressed shortcomings in the dominant view of opportunities as presented in, e.g. the
nexus perspective of entrepreneurship (Shane and Venkataraman, 2001). The paper
supplements and extends recent reviews of the opportunity concept (Alvarez and Barney,
2007; Short et al., 2010) by including emerging theorizing on opportunity creation as an
alternative to the discovery view. In doing so it also raises fundamental questions
concerning the nature of entrepreneurship, opportunities and entrepreneurial agency.
Opportunity is a central concept in entrepreneurship research (Busenitz et al., 2003).
While there is some disagreement as to the meaning, role and nature of opportunities,
entrepreneurship is often defined as an opportunity-directed activity. Examples
include Stevenson and Jarillo (1990, p. 23) defining entrepreneurship as “a process by
which individuals – either on their own or inside organizations – pursue opportunities
without regard to the resources they currently control”; and Shane and Venkataraman It’s really
(2000, p. 218) defining the field of entrepreneurship as “the scholarly examination of out there
how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create future goods and services
are discovered, evaluated, and exploited.”
While the concept of opportunity has been a central part of entrepreneurship research
for decades, as exemplified in the debate concerning alertness or search (Busenitz, 1996;
Gaglio and Katz, 2001; Kaish and Gilad, 1991), there has recently been an increased 131
attention devoted to the concept (Busenitz et al., 2003). One reason for this is that the
entrepreneurship field is expanding the focus from the individual entrepreneur to include
aspects that relate to the context and conditions for entrepreneurial activity (Eckhardt
and Shane, 2003; Short et al., 2010), and here the concept of opportunity is used
to signify relevant aspects of the external environment of the entrepreneurial activity
(Gartner et al., 2003). Central in this recent surge of interest in opportunities stands the
nexus perspective of entrepreneurship (Eckhardt and Shane, 2003; Shane, 2000, 2003;
Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Venkataraman, 1997). Here, entrepreneurship is seen
as the nexus of individual and opportunity. The nexus perspective incorporates
a discovery view of opportunities which is strongly inspired by the work of Kirzner
(1973). The discovery view of opportunities argues that opportunities exist prior to the
entrepreneurial process and are discovered by alert individuals (Eckhardt and Shane,
2003; Kirzner, 1997; Shane, 2003). The view has been met with considerable critique,
especially since the turn of the century. The critics see the notion of discovery as too
simple a conceptualization of the relation between entrepreneur and opportunity.
Consequently, they argue that accounts of entrepreneurial processes using this simplified
concept are insufficient. The critics have therefore attempted to conceptualize the
relation in more complex ways, introducing concepts such as creativity (Dimov, 2007a),
enactment (Fletcher, 2006), production (Wood and McKinley, 2010) and effectuation
(Sarasvathy, 2001) to describe the relation. These critics have sometimes been labeled
the creation view, making the opposition of discovery vs creation the pivotal point in
the debate on the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities (Alvarez and Barney,
2007; Berglund, 2007).
While the discovery view can be perceived as a mature perspective and has
dominated research on the concept of opportunities for some time, the so-called
creation view is still emerging as a critique of and alternative to the discovery view
(Alvarez and Barney, 2007). Existing reviews of the debate on opportunities have taken
a somewhat limited stock of the critique of the discovery view and the alternatives
proposed. There are two reasons for this. First, the reviews have been concerned with
comparing the two views and treated the discovery and creation views as (logical)
alternatives. Therefore, the views have been seen as complementary (Chiasson and
Saunders, 2005; Sarasvathy et al., 2002; Short et al., 2010) or even building on some
shared fundamental assumptions such as a teleological understanding of human action
(Alvarez and Barney, 2007). Second, the existing reviews have not taken into account
some of the recent contributions to the critique of the discovery view from within the
entrepreneurship field, often empirical and of European origin. Examples of these
contributions include Berglund et al. (2007), Gaddefors (2005, 2007), Berglund (2007)
and Hjorth (2007). Many of these contributions represent not only an alternative but
also a thoroughgoing critique of the discovery view, raising fundamental ontological
and methodological questions which seriously question the adequacy of the discovery
view. The representation of the creation view in the existing reviews is therefore
somewhat narrow. For this reason the present review explores first and foremost the
IJEBR critique of the discovery view, yet, for many purposes this critique is identical with
19,2 what may develop into a creation view.
The aim of this paper is therefore to provide a thorough review of the recent critique of
the discovery view. This is done by first identifying the central critique points of the
discovery view, and second by identifying patterns in the critique, tracing the theoretical
developments in formulating new understandings of opportunities. The paper thereby
132 contributes to the understanding of the role of opportunities in entrepreneurship as well
as in laying a more solid foundation for alternative creation views of opportunities.
The paper proceeds with a short presentation of the discovery view of opportunities
before laying out the method used in the review of the recent critique of the discovery
view. Then follows an overview of the literature reviewed and an elaboration of the
central themes in this literature. The paper concludes with discussion and implications.

2. The discovery view

The discovery view[1] has its roots in Austrian economics (Hayek, 1945; Kirzner, 1997)
and has most recently been promoted by scholars such as Shane and Venkataraman
(Eckhardt and Shane, 2003; Shane, 2000, 2003; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000;
Venkataraman, 1997). In the inaugural paper for this new wave of the discovery
view, Venkataraman (1997) formulated the individual-opportunity nexus as a new
framework for entrepreneurship. Essentially, entrepreneurship is that which happens
when an enterprising individual meets a lucrative opportunity. Accordingly, entrepreneurship
has been defined as the discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities
(Eckhardt and Shane, 2003; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). This definition makes
opportunities an important issue in entrepreneurship research.
Opportunities are defined as “situations in which new goods, services, raw materials,
markets and organizing methods can be introduced through the formation of new means,
ends, or means-ends relationships” (Eckhardt and Shane, 2003, p. 336), or as “opportunities
to bring into existence new goods, services, raw materials, and organizing methods that
allow outputs to be sold at more than their cost of production” (Shane, 2000, p. 451).
Opportunities originate in the ideas formed by people about the value of resources, but this
does not mean that opportunities are subjective. Despite their origin in subjective ideas,
opportunities have objective existence. “I will argue [y] that opportunities have an
objective component that does not exist solely in the minds of entrepreneurs” (Shane, 2003,
p. 6). Or as phrased by Shane and Venkataraman (2000, p. 220):
Although recognition of entrepreneurial opportunities is a subjective process, the opportunities
themselves are objective phenomena that are not known to all parties at all times. For example,
the discovery of the telephone created new opportunities for communication, whether or not
people discovered those opportunities.
The nexus perspective has a number of advantages. By introducing opportunities into
the frame, the nexus perspective moves away from equilibrium theories of the market,
which left no room for entrepreneurship studies (Eckhardt and Shane, 2003), as well as
from psychological theories of the nature of the entrepreneur, which showed little
promise (Gartner, 1989). These advantages are accepted by the critics, although they
are critical of the specific interpretation of the individual-opportunity nexus.

Method
The purpose of this paper is to review the recent critique of the discovery view of
opportunities. The discovery view of opportunities dominates the field, and the vast
majority of the conceptual and empirical contributions relating to entrepreneurial It’s really
opportunities work from the assumption that opportunities are discovered, and that out there
opportunity discovery is an essential aspect of entrepreneurial activity (Alvarez and
Barney, 2007). As suggested above, a review of the critique, however, is both needed
and timely.
Searching systematically for papers which feature a critical perspective of a
dominant view represents a particular challenge. Most search tools available aim to 133
give you the most central papers related to the topic, often those published in highly
ranked journals and/or with a high citation count. Emerging voices often do not appear
in such searches. Using the traditional approaches to systematic literature search will
certainly give a number of relevant papers, but the result is likely to be meager. The
search conducted in this paper thus takes its starting point in Short et al.’s (2010)
finding that the discussion on the concept of opportunity is primarily pursued in the
dedicated entrepreneurship journals. For the purpose of identifying emerging
perspectives, a wider range of entrepreneurship journals than those of Short et al.
(2010) are searched. Searching the Scopus and SSCI databases, a list of 23
entrepreneurship journals was compiled. The list of journals is included in list below.
Within each of these journals a search was made in title and abstract using
“entrepreneur*” and “opportunit*” to identify papers dealing with entrepreneurial
opportunities. The search was limited to papers published between 2000 and 2010 in
order to explore the recent trends that have emanated from the introduction of the
nexus perspective in Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000) seminal paper. This search
yielded a total of 549 papers. The abstracts of these papers were read and divided into
three categories. Those that clearly did not incorporate a critical view of the discovery
view of opportunities, those that clearly did and finally those that might. The latter
group was read in full length to determine whether they did in fact contribute to the
critique of the discovery view. From this search, a total of 33 papers were selected.
List of journals searched:
. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development (ERD)
. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP)
. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal (IEMJ)
. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research (IJEBR)
. International Journal of Entrepreneurship
. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management
. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business
. International Small Business Journal
. Journal of Business Venturing ( JBV)
. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship
. Journal of Enterprising Communities ( JECom)
. Journal of Enterprising Culture ( JECul)
. Journal of Entrepreneurship
. Journal of International Entrepreneurship ( JIE)
IJEBR . Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship
19,2 . Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
. Journal of Small Business Management
. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship
. Small Business Economics (SBE)
134 . Small Enterprise Development: An International Journal
. Small Enterprise Research: The Journal of SEAANZ
. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (SEJ)
To supplement this, a second search was conducted using the reference lists of the
papers identified in the first search (see Short et al., 2010 for a similar approach) to seek
out other papers – not featured in entrepreneurship journals – that incorporate a
critical view of the discovery view of opportunities. This search yielded a further three
papers. The full list of papers reviewed is included in Table I.
Having identified the papers, these were read and coded. The coding of the papers
followed an open coding approach (Strauss and Corbin, 1990) in order to identify the
central themes of the papers. The coding was done using the NVivo 8 software. Four
rounds of open coding were conducted. The first identified key passages and sections
in the papers, and these were imported into the NVivo 8 software. Here, the next two
rounds of coding aimed to identify central themes in the papers, leading to an initial
32 codes or themes. From this, the most central themes were selected based on the
frequency of their appearance in the reviewed papers. Five themes occurred in more
than half of the papers and were further explored. One of these turned out to be a kind
of meta-theme containing discussions of the relationship between the creation and
discovery view and for clarity of presentation was subsumed under the remaining four.
Following the selection of key themes, a fourth coding round was conducted to identify
similarities and differences within the central themes. The fourth round of coding
showed that the differences within the central themes were patterned into three groups.
Overview of the literature
Before going into depth with the central themes and groupings within the literature,
I will give a short overview of the literature. In total, 36 papers were reviewed. As
expected (cf. Short et al., 2010), the main bulk of these were published in dedicated
entrepreneurship journals (33 of 36), while the remaining were published in journals
with a more general focus on management and organization (Administrative Science
Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal and Research Policy). Of the dedicated
entrepreneurship journals, the main outlets were JBV (ten), Entrepreneurship: Theory
and Practice (six), SEJ (six) and IJEBR (four). It is worthwhile noting that SEJ is a fairly
new journal, publishing its first volume in 2007. Indeed, it seems that the publication of
Alvarez and Barney’s (2007) paper on the discovery and creation views of
entrepreneurship has set a genuine agenda within this journal. Also worth noticing
is that the IJEBR to some extent appears to be a central outlet for non-US scholars
engaging in a critique of the discovery view of opportunities (notably the papers by
Jack and Anderson and Hjorth in US-based JBV were published in special issues
dealing with qualitative research and narratives, respectively).
The years immediately preceding the publication of Shane and Venkataraman’s
(2000) seminal paper did not see a significant number of critics of the discovery view,
References Journals Type of papers
It’s really
out there
Alvarez and Barney (2007) Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal Conceptual
Ardichvili et al. (2003) Journal of Business Venturing Conceptual
Baker and Nelson (2005) Administrative Science Quarterly Qualitative
Berglund (2007) Journal of Enterprising Culture Qualitative
Berglund et al. (2007) Journal of Enterprising Communities Qualitative
Buenstorf (2007) Small Business Economics Conceptual
135
Chiasson and Saunders (2005) Journal of Business Venturing Conceptual
Companys and McMullen (2007) Small Business Economics Conceptual
Dimov (2007a) Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Conceptual
Dimov (2007b) Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Quantitative
Dutta and Crossan (2005) Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Conceptual
Endres and Woods (2007) International Journal of Entrepreneurial Conceptual
Behaviour & Research
Fletcher (2006) Entrepreneurship and Regional Development Conceptual
Gaddefors (2005) Journal of Enterprising Culture Qualitative
Gaddefors (2007) International Journal of Entrepreneurial Qualitative
Behaviour & Research
Garud and Karnøe (2003) Research Policy Qualitative
Goss (2007) International Journal of Entrepreneurial Qualitative
Behaviour & Research
Hjorth (2007) Journal of Business Venturing Conceptual
Hmieleski and Baron (2008) Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal Quantitative
Jack and Anderson (2002) Journal of Business Venturing Qualitative
Klein (2008) Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal Conceptual
Krueger (2000) Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Conceptual
Luksha (2008) Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal Conceptual
Lumpkin and Lichtenstein (2005) Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Conceptual
Miller (2007) Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal Conceptual
Mønsted (2007) International Entrepreneurship Qualitative
and Management Journal
Pacheco et al. (2010) Journal of Business Venturing Conceptual
Read et al. (2009) Journal of Business Venturing Quantitative
Sanz-Velasco (2006) International Journal of Entrepreneurial Qualitative
Behaviour & Research
Sarason et al. (2006) Journal of Business Venturing Conceptual
Sarason et al. (2010) Journal of Business Venturing Conceptual
Sarasvathy (2001) Academy of Management Review Conceptual
Schindehutte and Morris (2009) Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Conceptual
Seymour (2006) Journal of International Entrepreneurship Conceptual
Vaghely and Julien (2010) Journal of Business Venturing Qualitative Table I.
Wood and McKinley (2010) Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal Conceptual List of papers reviewed

yet, from 2005 onwards, the number increased, peaking in 2007 with the publication
of 13 papers.
The selected papers have a significant representation of conceptual contributions
(23) and qualitative studies (11), while only three papers include a form of
quantitative research. The literature review thus differs from the dominant trend in the
entrepreneurship field, which is quantitative research rooted in a realist paradigm
(Grant and Perren, 2002; Lindgren and Packendorff, 2009). This may be a result of the
particular nature of the discussion concerning opportunities. The discussion involves
ontological and philosophical elements which do not readily translate into empirical
IJEBR explorations. Indeed, some argue that the discussion has no empirical content
19,2 and therefore cannot be resolved through the use of empirical methods (Alvarez
and Barney, 2007).

Central themes
The discovery view as incomplete. Not surprisingly, one of the most prominent themes
136 in the reviewed literature is a critique of the discovery view, which basically sums
up to the claim that the discovery view is incomplete, and that it does not deliver
on the promise of being a general theory of entrepreneurship (cf. Shane, 2003; Shane
and Venkataraman, 2000). The different critics make this claim for various reasons, but
there seems to be four overall arguments being made against the discovery view.
First, some papers simply suggest that the discovery view is inadequate to explain
the empirical phenomena they encounter (Baker and Nelson, 2005; Berglund et al., 2007;
Gaddefors, 2005; Garud and Karnøe, 2003; Sarasvathy, 2001). Notably, these studies all
employ a qualitative single or multiple case-study approach. Also, the arguments
appear mainly in contributions published in the first half of the decade.
Second, and perhaps inspired by the claim that the discovery view is inadequate to
explain some empirical phenomena, a range of scholars argue that the discovery view is
severely limited in its ability to yield sufficiently complex and nuanced descriptions of
entrepreneurial processes (Fletcher, 2006; Hjorth, 2007; Klein, 2008; Sarason et al., 2006,
2010; Schindehutte and Morris, 2009; Seymour, 2006). As proposed by Sarason et al. (2010,
p. 241), “[we] continue to hold that this focus [structuration theory] allows for a more
subtle and nuanced understanding of the entrepreneur and opportunities.” For most of
these scholars, this entails a more or less complete abandonment of the discovery view in
favor of an alternative, often rooted in a non-realist ontology such as structuration theory
(Chiasson and Saunders, 2005; Jack and Anderson, 2002; Sarason et al., 2006, 2010), social
constructionism (Fletcher, 2006) or post-structuralism (Hjorth, 2007).
Third, a moderate version of the above argument is the contention that the
discovery view needs to be supplemented in order to obtain a more adequate or general
understanding of entrepreneurship as a phenomenon. As an example of this, Alvarez
and Barney (2007) suggest that the discovery view does not exhaust the concept
of opportunity and that the general explanatory force of entrepreneurship theory is
enhanced through a complementary understanding and use of a discovery and creation
view of opportunities. Each view brings out different important elements and may be
more appropriate when analyzing different types of situations, e.g. risky vs uncertain
(see also Alvarez and Barney, 2005; Hmieleski and Baron, 2008). A second version
of this argument is made by the scholars taking an evolutionary view (Buenstorf,
2007; Luksha, 2008). Here it is suggested that opportunities are created through the
intended or unintended consequences of human agency in relation to market processes.
That is, human agency can change the structural characteristics of the market such
as economic incentive structures, creating opportunities which can later be discovered
by entrepreneurs. Pacheco et al. (2010) suggest that this is a form of institutional
entrepreneurship, and that this creation type of entrepreneurship should be considered
in addition to studying the discovery process of the opportunities created through the
former type of process. This reads more like an extension than an actual critique of the
discovery view, an extension that is actually anticipated but not much discussed within
the discovery view (see Shane, 2003; Venkataraman, 1997). A third example is the
suggestion that multiple types of opportunities exist (Alvarez and Barney, 2007;
Companys and McMullen, 2007; Hmieleski and Baron, 2008). Also this viewpoint seeks
a reconciliation of discovery and creation views by suggesting that they explain It’s really
different types of opportunities. out there
Finally, and often in conjunction with the above arguments, a long series of more
particular critiques are directed at the discovery view, emphasizing that this view
overlooks some important aspects of the entrepreneurial process. Several papers point to
the lack of focus on creativity in the discovery view (Ardichvili et al., 2003; Dimov, 2007a, b;
Dutta and Crossan, 2005; Endres and Woods, 2007; Lumpkin and Lichtenstein, 2005; 137
Seymour, 2006). That is, discovery is not simply an act of perception, but a creative event
which in itself constitutes a process. As suggested by Dimov (2007a, p. 717), “[p]erhaps the
main deficiency of this line of research [the discovery view] is the conceptual collapse of
the time between a first insight and the idea that ends up being implemented.” What
happens between the initial insight and final idea is a creative process in which the
entrepreneur develops and changes the idea, and this creative process is highly important,
according to the critics. This has led to the introduction of various creativity and learning
theories being presented as important additions or partial replacements for the discovery
view (e.g. Dutta and Crossan, 2005; Lumpkin and Lichtenstein, 2005).
Others again have pointed to the lack of consideration of particular aspects of the
entrepreneurial process such as social and relational dynamics (Fletcher, 2006; Gaddefors,
2005; Garud and Karnøe, 2003; Sarasvathy, 2001), the emotional elements (Goss, 2007)
and subjectivity (Endres and Woods, 2007). Some of these aspects will be elaborated.
Social and relational interactions in entrepreneurial processes. As mentioned, several
scholars point out that the discovery view overlooks the social and relational aspects of
the entrepreneurial process. Certainly, the discovery view holds a role for what may
broadly be termed the social, yet only in relation to the exploitation of the opportunity.
The discovery is seen as an individual and cognitive act (Shane, 2003). The critics,
however, suggest that the social and relational play a much greater role throughout the
entire entrepreneurial process. Accordingly, Baker and Nelson (2005) propose that
opportunity discovery is not an act of individual epiphany, but a social and relational
process. And Fletcher (2006, p. 437) urges us to “[move] beyond an examination of
individual opportunity-seeking processes to consideration of the relationality between
people’s actions and their cultural, societal, economic and political situational context.”
Several concepts are used to describe the relational and social interactions, including
conversation (Dutta and Crossan, 2005), dialog (Gaddefors, 2005), stakeholdership
(Read et al., 2009; Sarasvathy, 2001) and collective action (Pacheco et al., 2010). Yet, the
variety is not one of simply wording, but illustrates fundamental differences in the
ways in which the role of the social and relational is conceptualized.
The content of this expanded role is diverse across the reviewed papers. A
continuum of viewpoints can be identified (see Table II). In the left hand column, a very

Network as
access to Distributed agency
resources Stakeholders and mobilization and collective action

Macro-level Jack and Anderson (2002), Pacheco et al. (2010),

embeddedness Sarason et al. (2006, 2010), Gaddefors (2007), Table II.
Chiasson and Saunders (2005) Fletcher (2006) Overview of selected
Micro-level Ardichvili et al. Read et al. (2009), Garud and Karnøe papers in relation to
interactions (2003), Sarasvathy (2001) (2003), perspectives on the role of
Dimov (2007a, b) Fletcher (2006) the social and relational
IJEBR moderate view can be found, where the entrepreneur makes use of others as audience
19,2 or sounding board for idea generation (Dimov, 2007a). This view is similar to the more
traditional or mainstream view of networks in entrepreneurship research, where the
entrepreneur is placed at the center of an ego-network and from that uses the network
contacts to access resources of different types, including information and feedback on
ideas and projects (Hite and Hesterly, 2001; Ruef, 2002). This perspective emphasizes
138 that although the opportunity discovery is an individual act, it does involve a strong
element of development, so that the initial insight needs development before it becomes
a full opportunity or business venture. And in that development process, other actors
are important in providing information, interpretation and feedback on the idea
(Ardichvili et al., 2003; Dimov, 2007a, b; Lumpkin and Lichtenstein, 2005).
In the middle column, different forms of partnership and stakeholdership views
can be found, primarily in the form of effectuation theory (Read et al., 2009;
Sarasvathy, 2001). Here, opportunities are seen to emerge as the entrepreneur
engages with self-selected stakeholders who buy into the venture and thereby make
their mark on the venture. So although the initial idea is conjured by an individual
entrepreneur, the impact of other actors surpasses that of providing feedback and
involves an actual involvement in the opportunity creation and a form of ownership
of the final opportunity. Also the dynamics of mobilization as presented in Companys
and McMullen (2007) would fit into this perspective.
In the right-hand column, the entrepreneur is de-centered at the expense of what
may be referred to as distributed agency (Fletcher, 2006; Garud and Karnøe, 2003).
Here, the entrepreneurial process is seen as a collective effort undertaken by multiple
actors. Garud and Karnøe’s (2003) case study is exemplary of this perspective, as
they emphasize that multiple actors are involved in the creation process in a way that
makes it almost meaningless to speak of an individualized entrepreneur. Also
Pacheco et al. (2010) consider institutional entrepreneurship as a form of collective
agency, where multiple actors act in cohesion to create opportunities which may later
be discovered by others. Finally, Fletcher (2006) suggests that opportunities are
created in conversational exchanges between multiple actors, and while it may be
possible later to assign agency to a single individual, this claim does not hold up
when examined more closely (see Korsgaard, 2011 for a similar view on the post hoc
assignment of entrepreneurial agency).
As we move further to the right on the horizontal dimension, the entrepreneur is
thus increasingly de-centered. Thus, in the network perspective, the individual
entrepreneur remains as an important focal point in entrepreneurial processes and
therefore also in the analysis of such processes. That is, whatever influence is exerted
by others is channeled through the cognitive, imaginative and creative processes of
the entrepreneur, and what goes on in the mind of the entrepreneur is crucial to the
understanding of opportunity development. In the distributed agency perspective,
the analytical focal point is moved outside the entrepreneur; indeed the individualized
entrepreneur becomes marginally relevant. The explanatory and effective force lies in a
collective of actors who coalesce around a shared cause.
The horizontal dimension in Table II, ranging from a traditional network as access
to resources to distributed agency, is not the only notable distinction between the
papers reviewed in relation to the role of the social. The vertical dimension
distinguishes between papers emphasizing the relational exchanges with concrete
others on a micro-level, and papers emphasizing the importance of the entrepreneur’s
dynamic embeddedness in macro-level social structures (Chiasson and Saunders, 2005;
Gaddefors, 2007; Jack and Anderson, 2002; Sarason et al., 2006, 2010). The papers that It’s really
discuss the importance of the entrepreneurs’ interaction with a broader social structure out there
explicitly seek to explore how the existing structures both enable and constrain
entrepreneurs in their effort to construct new opportunities (Chiasson and Saunders, 2005;
Fletcher, 2006; Jack and Anderson, 2002; Sarason et al., 2006, 2010). With the focus on
macro-level structures it becomes clear that entrepreneurs are not necessarily free to enact
whichever reality they believe is desirable. Entrepreneurial action must to some extent 139
conform to some of those normative structures that are already in place. On the other hand,
as pointed out by Fletcher (2006), social structures also provide resources which can be
drawn upon in the creation process. Few of those emphasizing micro-level interactions
would probably disagree with this but still emphasize that the constraints met by the
entrepreneur are first and foremost met in concrete interaction with others. Whatever broad
constraints the entrepreneur may meet, they come in the form of actual potential customers,
partners and stakeholders that need to be mobilized. As a consequence, an opportunity
becomes reality if and when stakeholders are mobilized (Read et al., 2009; Sarasvathy, 2001).
Opportunities as created. In the discovery view of opportunities it is taken for
granted that opportunities exist prior to discovery. The opportunity is implicitly seen
as a kind of entity waiting to be acted upon. Furthermore, it is tacitly assumed that
opportunities give themselves to discovery fully developed. A large number of the
papers reviewed argue that this is not (necessarily) the case. As pointed out by Hjorth
(2007), an opportunity thus always has a genesis that needs to be included in the
analysis of the entrepreneurial process.
This basic argument is made in a number of variations. A number of the reviewed
papers present what may be termed the development view (Ardichvili et al., 2003;
Dimov, 2007a, b; Sanz-Velasco, 2006; Sarasvathy, 2001), arguing that the discovery view
conceptually collapses the time between the first insight or recognition and the idea that
actually ends up being exploited (Dimov, 2007a). In between these two points in time, a
creative process of development and refinement takes place. Sanz-Velasco (2006) shows
how entrepreneurs recognize only a rudimentary opportunity at first, and that before
the opportunity can serve as a definite guide to action for the entrepreneur, a process of
development is needed.
Different models of the development process can be found in the papers. Ardichvili
et al. (2003) present the most elaborate version with a staged model, starting with the
initial recognition of unmet needs or underemployed resources, through business
concept, business plan and business form to a successful venture. The development
process may be one of simple addition of elements (Sanz-Velasco, 2006), or iterative and
cyclical (Ardichvili et al., 2003).
Sarasvathy (2001) makes a similar point, although in a way that is less loyal to the
theoretical roots of the opportunity concept. She argues that what we have at the outset
are abstract aspirations. But these do not entail a single and inevitable opportunity to
be realized. The abstract aspiration is open to a number of opportunities to be formed,
as also indicated in the effectuation concept, where the goal of the entrepreneurial
process fluctuates relative to the resources and stakeholders involved.
An even more radical version of the argument completely dispenses with the
idea that an opportunity is rooted in some more or less definite information, market
need or underemployed resource. As such, opportunities are seen as constructions
(Fletcher, 2006). They occur, if not ex nihilo, then as something that emerges from the
interactions of actors. Whatever origins they may have are in the very same
interactions, and not some externally given reality.
IJEBR Individuality and subjectivity. A fourth and final central theme in the critique of the
19,2 discovery view of opportunities relates to the role of individuality and subjectivity.
Two distinct elements are drawn out in the papers. First, it is argued that the
opportunity is in fact not separate from the individual (Berglund, 2007; Klein, 2008;
Krueger, 2000; Sarason et al., 2006, 2010; Sarasvathy, 2001). Thus, according to some
critics, the distinction that the discovery view installs between an objective
140 opportunity and a subjective discovery is invalid. As opportunities do not present
themselves fully developed, an element of interpretation (Sarason et al., 2006, 2010)
and/or imagination (Berglund, 2007; Klein, 2008) is involved, making it inherently
subjective. Particularly interesting here is the notion of opportunities as imagined,
invoked by Berglund (2007) and Klein (2008). Both clearly inspired by Austrian
economics, they emphasize that opportunities are imagined, and that entrepreneurs act
on imagined states of affairs. Thereby they move the center of attention from cognitive
discovery to concrete action. A move that is emphasized in many of the other papers
reviewed (Mønsted, 2007; Sarason et al., 2006, 2010; Sarasvathy, 2001).
Second, it is argued that the discovery view does not fully account for the many
experiential dimensions involved in entrepreneurship (Goss, 2007; Hjorth, 2007;
Krueger, 2000). The discovery view focusses on the cognitive element of discovery, but
does not pay sufficient notice to emotional (Goss, 2007; Hjorth, 2007), creative,
interpretive and intentional (Krueger, 2000) elements of the entrepreneur. Hjorth (2007)
and Goss (2007) emphasize the desire and emotional energy involved in entrepreneurial
processes and thereby point to the need to explore how these elements may inhibit or
promote entrepreneurial engagement. Similarly, as discussed above, the creative and
interpretive element should be given more consideration according to a number of
scholars. In a similar vein, and in continuance of the recent focus on entrepreneurial
intentions, Krueger (2000) draws out the role of the potential entrepreneurs’ actual
intention or willingness to engage in entrepreneurial activities.
Differences within the central themes. The coding of differences within the central
themes showed that within each theme the arguments and critiques converged in groups.
Furthermore, the groupings were highly correlated across the themes. Three different
groups emerge from the coding: a development group, a construction group and an
evolutionary group. The three main aspects of each group are summarized in Table III.
The grouping is an abstraction and as such emphasizes differences between the groups
and deemphasizes differences within the groups. Furthermore, some contributions are
not readily placeable. Some may well be placed in two or more of the groups, e.g.
Sarasvathy (2001), Read et al. (2009), Berglund et al. (2007) and Wood and McKinley
(2010) that would fit into both the development and construction groups. And some do
not appear to fit into any one of the groups, e.g. Berglund (2007) and Klein (2008).
Yet, the grouping shows that the critique of the discovery view comes from different
ontological and theoretical foundations; ranging from standard post-positivism in the
development group, to evolutionary theory and social constructionism in second and
third group. It is also clear that these different foundations lead to different foci in the
critique as well as different implications for method and practice. Table III summarizes
the differences between the groups.
The differences between the three groups are significant, proposing different future
avenues of research. First, the difference in theoretical focus leads to different units and
levels of analysis. So while the development group and to some extent the evolutionary
group will maintain a methodological individualism, keeping the entrepreneur as
an important locus of explanation, the construction group promotes the relational
 Development group Evolutionary group Construction group
It’s really
out there
Main references Ardichvili et al. (2003), Luksha (2008), Fletcher (2006), Gaddefors
Sanz-Velasco (2006), Dimov Companys and (2005, 2007), Garud and
(2007a, b), Endres and McMullen (2007), Karnøe (2003), Baker and
Woods (2007), Wood and Pacheco et al. (2010), Nelson (2005), Sarason et al.
McKinley (2010), Krueger Buenstorf (2007) (2006, 2010), Jack and
(2000), Berglund et al. Anderson (2002), Chiasson
141
(2007), and Saunders (2005),
Dutta and Crossan (2005), Schindehutte and Morris
Sarasvathy (2001), (2009), Hjorth (2007),
Read et al. (2009) Sarasvathy (2001),
Read et al. (2009)
Main critique of Collapses the time between Needs to be Overlooks the social and
the discovery initial insight and supplemented with a relational construction of
view implemented opportunity, theory of how opportunities, thereby
thereby overlooking the opportunities are presenting an
creative development of created before they oversimplified view of the
the opportunity are discovered entrepreneurial process
Or overlooks the
existence of multiple
types of opportunities
Theoretical focus The individual entrepreneur Market processes, Social and relational
(or organization) as creative collective action and processes in which
agent drawing on feedback the change of opportunities emerge.
from network contacts. market structures The world creating force of
Creative, interpretive and interpretation, discourse
learning processes and conversations
Implications for Use of both qualitative and Use of both qualitative Priority given to qualitative
method quantitative methods – and quantitative and processual methods –
focus on micro-level methods – focus on focus on micro-level
processes macro-level processes processes or the duality of
structure and agency
(structuration)
Implications for Emphasis on developing the Issues of legitimacy, Enhancing, e.g. narrative,
practice creative thinking and mobilization and improvisational and
learning capabilities of legislation relational competences of
individuals and potential entrepreneurs. Table III.
organizations Emphasizing emergence Three groups within the
and improvisation before critique of the discovery
planning and structure view of opportunities

processes as a unit of analysis and the individual entrepreneur as a dynamic entity

created in these processes. Similarly, the evolutionary view will seek to explain
primarily on a macro-level, and the development view and construction view
emphasize different forms of micro-level analysis. These differences make it unlikely
and inexpedient to attempt to derive propositions and models from the critique of the
discovery view as a whole.

Discussion
This section will discuss the findings of the review as presented above. In the
discussion I will focus on three aspects of the findings that relate specifically to some of
IJEBR the current discussions concerning opportunities as well as the nature of
19,2 entrepreneurship as a phenomenon:
. the opportunity concept as focal point for a number of important debates in the
entrepreneurship field;
. no creation view in the singular; and
142 . problems with reconciling creation and discovery views of opportunities.
The opportunity concept as focal point. The central themes presented above touch on a
broad range of issues including the nature of entrepreneurial agency, the role of
subjectivity and creativity in entrepreneurial processes, the entrepreneurs’ (singular or
plural) interaction with the social and structural environment as well as the ontological
foundations of entrepreneurship research. Furthermore, many of these contributions
actually use empirical studies to engage with the deeper ontological issues (contrary to
Alvarez and Barney, 2007). As such, it is clear that the debate on the nature of
opportunities goes right to the heart of what entrepreneurship is really about and that
despite critique, the individual-opportunity nexus has in fact become a focal point for
many of the most interesting debates within entrepreneurship research. As such, while
the reviewed papers all criticize Shane and Venkataraman’s (2001) view of
opportunities, it seems that most indirectly acknowledge the value of the nexus
perspective as a catalyst for theoretical development in the entrepreneurship field.
Engaging with the opportunity concept seems to invite lines of argumentation that
encompass several levels of reflection; from ontological discussions about the nature of
markets, actors and structure and theoretical elaborations of the interaction between
entrepreneurs, stakeholders and markets, to empirical studies of real-life entrepreneurial
processes and even normative propositions. Therefore, the debate on opportunities
appears to be a fruitful venue for theoretical development within entrepreneurship research;
and a theoretical development that integrates rather than separates empirical
research and theoretical discussions (contrary to, e.g. Low and MacMillan, 1988).
No creation view in the singular. From the central themes above and the differences
within the critique as presented, it is clear that the critique of the discovery view differs
in many important aspects, and speaking of a creation view in the singular is
problematic. Indeed, this would erase important differences which bring out different
but important problematic aspects of taking a discovery view of opportunities.
As is clear from Table III, the differences within the critique of the discovery view
are not easily reconcilable, and it is near impossible to draw out propositions that fit
across all groups. The theoretical foci as well as methodological and practical
implications of the various forms of creation views point in several directions. By
referring to a creation view in the singular, a kind of closure is attained in which some
of the nuances are made invisible, the possibility of constructive debate is limited and
polarized positions are created (see, e.g. Alvarez and Barney, 2007). In a number of
papers this closure is constructed in order to pursue a reconciliation strategy between
the discovery and creation views of opportunity (cf. Alvarez and Barney, 2007;
Berglund, 2007; Chiasson and Saunders, 2005; Companys and McMullen, 2007; Dutta
and Crossan, 2005; Sarason et al., 2006), yet, given the diversity internally within what
it termed creation view, such a closure and reconciliation might be a bit premature.
Reconciliation is problematic. Indeed, it seems that reconciliation attempts
between the discovery and creation views suffer from drawbacks. The reconciliation
attempts are quite numerous among the reviewed papers, and they generally follow
two strategies. One is to claim the co-existence of multiple types of opportunities It’s really
(Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Companys and McMullen, 2007), the other to neutralize out there
the difference between discovery and creation views through integration in a broader
theoretical framework, e.g. structuration theory (Berglund, 2007; Chiasson and
Saunders, 2005; Dutta and Crossan, 2005; Sarason et al., 2006).
The first strategy overlooks the fact that many of the particularly European critics are
in fact engaged in a serious debate concerning the very nature and function of 143
entrepreneurship, the entrepreneurial process and the role of the entrepreneur. The
differences invoked in this debate are fundamental and sometimes of a philosophical
nature and therefore not readily resolved. Yet, this debate is not taken into account in the
reconciliatory attempts. An example of this is Alvarez and Barney’s (2007) distinction
between creation and discovery views. Although a review such as Alvarez and Barney’s
(2007) must certainly be allowed the freedom to make some simplifications and
aggregations, the creation view they present is very narrow in comparison with the
diversity identified in this review. Alvarez and Barney (2007) suggest that the creation
view incorporates a teleological understanding of human agency and builds on an
evolutionary realist ontology. This characterization overlooks the claims made by
several creation scholars, in particular those here labeled as the construction group.
While Alvarez and Barney (2007) are by no means obliged to consider all emerging
voices and claims within the entrepreneurship field, what is central here is the
implication of their narrow and monolithic conceptualization of the creation view. It
allows a coupling of discovery and creation views with two distinct decision-making
contexts, namely risky and uncertain, respectively. Yet, this goes directly against
implications of the claims made in the construction group (see Table III).
Here, uncertainty is a fundamental aspect of all human action, the market is an
ongoing creative process (see Buchanan and Vanberg, 1991 for a similar view), and
conditions of risk is a concept that does not match anything that entrepreneurs might
encounter in “real life.” So this strategy gains reconciliation between the discovery and
creation views at the cost of disregarding important discussions concerning the nature
of entrepreneurial agency, markets and uncertainty. Furthermore, the translation of the
creation and discovery views into empirical research relating these specifically to real-
world contexts assumed to be characterized as risky and uncertain, is perhaps a bit
premature (see, e.g. Hmieleski and Baron, 2008; Mitchell et al., 2008; Zahra, 2008).
The second strategy, in which the discovery and creation views are subsumed into a
single theoretical frame such as structuration theory or the 4I framework[2] (Chiasson
and Saunders, 2005; Dutta and Crossan, 2005; Sarason et al., 2006), suffers from a
similar problem. The examples of this strategy try to locate the discovery aspects in a
concept of structure, yet this concept of structure is neither independent of the
individual actors nor detached and objective. So they invoke a very different form of
structure or objectivity than the one presumed in the discovery view. This defeats one
of the central purposes of the nexus perspective, namely to separate the individual
from the opportunity, so that these may appear as distinct units of analysis. With
the dynamic concept of structure as (partly) malleable by individual agents, the
structuration-theory-based critiques appear to be versions of a creation view.
The debate between Sarason et al. (2006, 2010) and Mole and Mole (2010) testifies to
this. Here it is clearly argued by Mole and Mole (2010) that a structuration view is not
compatible with a discovery view of opportunities. Again, the reconciliation is
achieved at the expense of crucial points made, in this case by the discovery view,
about the ontology of entrepreneurship and opportunities.
IJEBR Conclusion
19,2 This paper has presented a review of the recent critique of the discovery view of
opportunities in the entrepreneurship research field. The review showed that a
number of problems exist with the discovery view, and that these problems limit its
ability to show the complexity and diversity of entrepreneurship. In particular issues
related to social and relational interactions, the nature of opportunities and the role
144 of individuality and subjectivity were seen as problematic areas by the critics of
the discovery view. The review also found three distinct groups within the critique
with different theoretical foci. Indeed, the differences between the groups made it
inexpedient to create a synthesis between them.
With regard to the ongoing debate within the field concerning opportunities, the
paper presented three points which might serve to enhance the understanding and
further development of the positions in the debate. First, it was argued that the
opportunity concept serves well as a focal point for many of the important issues
in entrepreneurship research, as it raises questions concerning the nature of
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial agency. Second, it was shown that it is
problematic to speak of the creation view in the singular. Finally, it was shown that a
reconciliation strategy with regard to the discovery and creation view is problematic,
as it invariably overlooks or disregards central elements within the different positions.
Generally, the papers reviewed here stand testament to the value of engaging in
dialogs exploring and emphasizing constructive differences. In particular as these
differences are not simply of a philosophical and abstract nature, but have implications
for how we perceive and study entrepreneurship and even for the kind of normative
suggestions being made to practitioners. It may therefore be argued that instead of
pursuing reconciliation, it is perhaps a more fruitful path to discuss and explore the
differences. I believe this will help entrepreneurship scholars better grasp the multiple
dimensions and aspects of entrepreneurship.
Notes
1. The terms discovery, recognition and identification are sometimes used interchangeably;
elsewhere they signify differences in terms of whether the entrepreneur is active or passive.
Here, the term discovery signifies the view promoted by writers promoting the so-called
nexus perspective of entrepreneurship (Shane and Venkataraman, 2001). In relation to the
critique presented, the distinction between discovery, recognition and identification is of little
importance.
2. The 4I framework describes a multistage description of organizational learning processes, as
they take place on multiple levels, from individual to group and to organization. The stages
of the process are intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing, hence 4I (Dutta
and Crossan, 2005).

References
Alvarez, S.A. and Barney, J.B. (2005), “How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions of
uncertainty?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 776-93.
Alvarez, S.A. and Barney, J.B. (2007), “Discovery and creation: alternative theories of
entrepreneurial action”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 1 Nos 1-2, pp. 11-26.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S. (2003), “A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity
identification and development”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 105-23.
Baker, T. and Nelson, R.E. (2005), “Creating something from nothing: resource construction through
entrepreneurial bricolage”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 329-66.
Berglund, H. (2007), “Opportunities as existing and created: a study of entrepreneurs in It’s really
the Swedish mobile internet industry”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 243-74. out there
Berglund, K., Dahlin, M. and Johansson, A.W. (2007), “Walking a tightrope between artistry
and entrepreneurship: the stories of the Hotel Woodpecker, Otter Inn and Luna Resort”,
Journal of Enterprising Communities, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 268-84.
Buchanan, J.M. and Vanberg, V.J. (1991), “The market as a creative process”, Economics and 145
Philosophy, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 167-86.
Buenstorf, G. (2007), “Creation and pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities: an evolutionary
economics perspective”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 28 No. 4, p. 323.
Busenitz, L.W. (1996), “Research on entrepreneurial alertness”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 35-44.
Busenitz, L.W., West, G.P., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G.N. and Zacharakis, A. (2003),
“Entrepreneurship research in emergence: past trends and future directions”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 285-308.
Chiasson, M. and Saunders, C. (2005), “Reconciling diverse approaches to opportunity research
using the structuration theory”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 747-67.
Companys, Y.E. and McMullen, J.S. (2007), “Strategic entrepreneurs at work: the nature,
discovery, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities”, Small Business Economics,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 301-22.
Dimov, D. (2007a), “Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding
entrepreneurial opportunities”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 5,
pp. 713-31.
Dimov, D. (2007b), “From opportunity insight to opportunity intention: the importance of person-
situation learning match”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 561-83.
Dutta, D.K. and Crossan, M.M. (2005), “The nature of entrepreneurial opportunities:
understanding the process using the 4I organizational learning framework”,
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 425-49.
Eckhardt, J.T. and Shane, S.A. (2003), “Opportunities and entrepreneurship”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 333-49.
Endres, A.M. and Woods, C.R. (2007), “The case for more ‘subjectivist’ research on how
entrepreneurs create opportunities”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
and Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 222-34.
Fletcher, D.E. (2006), “Entrepreneurial processes and the social construction of opportunity”,
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 421-40.
Gaddefors, J. (2005), “Creating context – entrepreneurial opportunities in a consumer market
setting”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 199-224.
Gaddefors, J. (2007), “Metaphor use in the entrepreneurial process”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 173-93.
Gaglio, C.M. and Katz, J.A. (2001), “The psychological basis of opportunity identification:
entrepreneurial alertness”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 95-111.
Gartner, W.B. (1989), “‘Who Is an Entrepreneur?’ Is the wrong question”, Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 47-69.
Gartner, W.B., Carter, N.M. and Hills, G.E. (2003), “The language of opportunity”, in Steyaert, C.
and Hjorth, D. (Eds), New Movements in Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,
pp. 103-24.
Garud, R. and Karnøe, P. (2003), “Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded
agency in technology entrepreneurship”, Research Policy, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 277-300.
IJEBR Goss, D. (2007), “Reconsidering Schumpeterian opportunities: the contribution of interaction
ritual chain theory”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research,
19,2 Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3-18.
Grant, P. and Perren, L. (2002), “Small business and entrepreneurial research: meta-theories,
paradigms and prejudices”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 185-211.
Hayek, F.A. (1945), “The use of knowledge in society”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 35
146 No. 4, pp. 519-30.
Hite, J.M. and Hesterly, W.S. (2001), “The evolution of firm networks: from emergence to early
growth of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 275-86.
Hjorth, D. (2007), “Lessons from Iago: narrating the event of entrepreneurship”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 712-32.
Hmieleski, K.M. and Baron, R.A. (2008), “Regulatory focus and new venture performance: a
study of entrepreneurial opportunity exploitation under conditions of risk versus
uncertainty”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 285-99.
Jack, S.L. and Anderson, A.R. (2002), “The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial
process”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 467-87.
Kaish, S. and Gilad, B. (1991), “Characteristics of opportunities search of entrepreneurs
vs executives: sources, interests, general alertness”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 45-62.
Kirzner, I.M. (1973), Competition and Entrepreneurship, The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
Kirzner, I.M. (1997), “Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian
approach”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 60-85.
Klein, P.G. (2008), “Opportunity discovery, entrepreneurial action, and economic organization”,
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 175-90.
Korsgaard, S. (2011), “Entrepreneurship as translation: understanding entrepreneurial
opportunities through actor-network theory”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,
Vol. 23 Nos 7-8, pp. 661-80.
Krueger, N.F. (2000), “The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence”, Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 9-27.
Lindgren, M. and Packendorff, J. (2009), “Social constructionism and entrepreneurship: basic
assumptions and consequences for theory and research”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 25-47.
Low, M.B. and MacMillan, I.C. (1988), “Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 139-62.
Luksha, P. (2008), “Niche construction: the process of opportunity creation in the environment”,
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 269-83.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Lichtenstein, B.B. (2005), “The role of organizational learning in the
opportunity-recognition process”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 451-72.
Miller, K.D. (2007), “Risk and rationality in entrepreneurial processes”, Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 1 Nos 1-2, pp. 57-74.
Mitchell, R.K., Mitchell, J.R. and Smith, J.B. (2008), “Inside opportunity formation: enterprise
failure, cognition, and the creation of opportunities”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 225-42.
Mole, K.F. and Mole, M. (2010), “Entrepreneurship as the structuration of individual and
opportunity: a response using a critical realist perspective: comment on Sarason, Dean and
Dillard”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 230-7.
Mønsted, M. (2007), “Strategic networking in small high tech firms”, International It’s really
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 15-27.
out there
Pacheco, D.F., Dean, T.J. and Payne, D.S. (2010), “Escaping the green prison: entrepreneurship
and the creation of opportunities for sustainable development”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 464-80.
Read, S., Song, M. and Smit, W. (2009), “A meta-analytic review of effectuation and venture
performance”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 573-87. 147
Ruef, M. (2002), “Strong ties, weak ties and islands: structural and cultural predictors of
organizational innovation”, Ind Corp Change, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 427-49.
Sanz-Velasco, S.A. (2006), “Opportunity development as a learning process for entrepreneurs”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 251-71.
Sarason, Y., Dean, T. and Dillard, J.F. (2006), “Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and
opportunity: a structuration view”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 286-305.
Sarason, Y., Dillard, J.F. and Dean, T. (2010), “How can we know the dancer from the dance?: reply
to ‘Entrepreneurship as the structuration of individual and opportunity: a response using
a critical realist perspective’”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 238-43.
Sarasvathy, S., Venkataraman, S., Dew, N. and Velamuri, R. (2002), “Three views of entrepreneurial
opportunity”, in Acs, Z. and Audretsch, D. (Eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Baston, MA, pp. 141-60.
Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001), “Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic
inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 243-64.
Schindehutte, M. and Morris, M.H. (2009), “Advancing strategic entrepreneurship research: the
role of complexity science in shifting the paradigm”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 241-76.
Seymour, R. (2006), “Hermeneutic phenomenology and international entrepreneurship research”,
Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 137-55.
Shane, S. (2000), “Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities”,
Organization Science, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 448-69.
Shane, S. (2003), A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus,
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 217-26.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2001), “Entrepreneurship as a field of research: a response to
Zahra and Dess, Singh, and Erickson”, Academy of Management. The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 13-16.
Short, J.C., Ketchen, D.J.J., Shook, C.L. and Ireland, R.D. (2010), “The concept of ‘Opportunity’
in entrepreneurship research: past accomplishments and future challenges”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 40-65.
Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C. (1990), “A paradigm of entrepreneurship – entrepreneurial
management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, Special Isue, pp. 17-27.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), The Basics of Qualitative Research, Sage, London.
Vaghely, I.P. and Julien, P.-A. (2010), “Are opportunities recognized or constructed?: an
information perspective on entrepreneurial opportunity identification”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 73-86.
Venkataraman, S. (1997), “The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: an editor’s
perspective”, in Katz, J. and Brockhaus, R. (Eds), Advances in Entrepreneurship, JAI Press,
Greenwich, pp. 119-38.
IJEBR Wood, M.S. and McKinley, W. (2010), “The production of entrepreneurial opportunity:
a constructivist perspective”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 66-84.
19,2
Zahra, S.A. (2008), “The virtuous cycle of discovery and creation of entrepreneurial
opportunities”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 243-57.

About the author

148 Steffen Korsgaard is Assistant Professor at Aarhus University and holds a PhD in Entrepreneurship.
His research focuses on entrepreneurial processes, opportunities and the social dimensions of
entrepreneurship. His work has been published in journals including Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development and International Small Business Journal. Steffen Korsgaard can be contacted at:
stk@asb.dk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints