Presented at 1997 Babson College-Kauffman Foundation Entrepreneurship Research Conference, held at Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts, April 17-20, 1997. Understanding the Field of Entrepreneurship : A Synthesis of the Most Often Quoted by Jean-Pierre Béchard Working paper no. 1997-04 April 1997 ISSN : 0840-053X Copyright 1997. École des Hautes Études Commerciales (HEC), Montréal. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. Toute traduction ou toute reproduction sous quelque forme que ce soit est interdite. Les textes publiés dans la série des Cahiers de recherche HEC n'engagent que la responsabilité de leurs auteurs. La publication de ce Cahier de recherche a été rendue possible grâce à des subventions d'aide à la publication et à la diffusion de la recherche provenant des fonds de l'école des HEC. Direction de la recherche, École des HEC, 3000, chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montréal (Québec) Canada H3T 2A7.
Abstract How can we understand a field of research as new as that of entrepreneurship? A study of the most often quoted works in the journals Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Journal of Small Business Management, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, and International Small Business Journal for the past nine years makes up the basic material for this research. These contributions are then classified according to three levels of knowledge: the praxiological level, the disciplinary level, and the epistemological level. The first level is concerned with ideas relating to entrepreneurship management and development practices. The disciplinary level reviews the different contributions of economic, psychological, socio-cultural, and organizational theories to the field of entrepreneurship. Finally, the epistemological level deals with the way the authors concerned define, model, classify, and evaluate the field of entrepreneurship. Each level is the object of an analysis of its structuring hypotheses. The following is a synthesis of these contributions from a paradigmatic type of approach.
Introduction In everyday life, we observe and even take part in many diverse entrepreneurial projects. An analysis of these activities is fascinating in many ways. Are these projects of an economic nature or not? Do they belong to an individual, to an already existing organization, or to society? Are they rooted in the intentional phase, or in the discovery, or application of the idea? Are they controlled by people with special traits or behaviours? In fact, all these questions come from a twofold concern: how can we understand and predict this spirit of enterprise? Researchers in the field of entrepreneurship have been trying to penetrate this mystery for several years. The field of research into entrepreneurship is as diversified, even fragmented, as entrepreneurial practices themselves. How, then, can we distinguish the essential from the nonessential, the necessary from the superfluous? On a more practical level, how can a young researcher make sense of everything published in the thirty or so journals dedicated to the field of entrepreneurship? Review of the Literature Several approaches are suggested to better grasp the field of entrepreneurship: the practical approach, the disciplinary approach, and the epistemological approach. Understanding entrepreneurship by practicing it is the oldest method of investigation. Researchers conduct interviews with entrepreneurs to better understand their world and what being an entrepreneur means to them. This idiosyncratic approach allows everyone participating in an entrepreneurial activity to formulate a comprehensive and predictive theory on the subject. The disciplinary approach is familiar to most academicians from their university training and undoubtedly from the influence of their thesis director. Economy (Kirchhoff, 1991), psychology (Shaver, Scott, 1991), sociology (Reynolds, 1991), anthropology (Stewart, 1991), strategic management (Sandberg, 1992), entrepreneurial behaviour (Gartner, Bird, Starr, 1992), marketing (Hills, Laforge, 1992), finance (Brophy, Shulman, 1992) are also ways to grasp the field of entrepreneurship. This vertical disciplinary approach is paired with a horizontal disciplinary approach by resorting to the schools of thought (Cunningham, Lischeron, 1991). The themes cross the disciplines and influence the perception of the field. Finally, we can identify the epistemological approach throughout the works of Casrud, Olm, Eddy, 1988; Bygrave, 1989a, 1989b; Bygrave, Hofer, 1991; Hofer, Bygrave, 1992; Bygrave, 1993; and Déry, Toulouse, 1996. There are two conflicting yet complimentary para- Copyright École des HEC 1
digms: the paradigm of content and the paradigm of process. In light of these works, we feel that an understanding of the field of entrepreneurship must include all of these approaches as each one brings something different, and to favour one over another would be a serious error. We feel it is time to make a synthesis of the whole. The practical, disciplinary, and epistemological approaches can be integrated into a larger framework that we will present in the next section. Theoretical Frame The knowledge of a field of research can be grouped on three levels: the praxiological level, the disciplinary level, and the epistemological level. This frame is reminiscent of what the philosophy of science teaches about the construction of knowledge (Morin, Brunet, 1992). Table 1 Theoretical Framework for an Analysis of the Field of Entrepreneurship Epistemological level Attemps to define Attempts to create models Attemps to classify/evaluate Disciplinary level Economic theories Psychological theories Organizational theories Cultural theories Praxiological level Management practices Development practices The praxiological level combines all the practical knowledge that prescribes the norms and limits of conduct in situations of maintenance (order) and innovation (disorder). The disciplinary level is characterized by theoretical and empirical knowledge from one or several sciences such as economics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. This knowledge is constructed with the goal of understanding and/or predicting the field of entrepreneurship according to rigorous scientific methodology. The epistemological level can be seen as a metatheoretical group of knowledge that combines several disciplinary contributions, and which has the goal of defining, modeling, classifying, and evaluating the field of entrepreneurship as a whole. Copyright École des HEC 2
Considered as a whole, the field of entrepreneurship presents the following structure: at its base, are all of the managerial and developmental practices that sustain both the disciplinary level and the epistemological level. Disciplinary theories shed some light on these practices and modify one another using certain concepts or constructs that come from other theoretical corpora. At the top is the epistemological level where one gets the feel of a kind of interdisciplinarity of definitions, models, and classifications/evaluations. Let us see how a synthesis of the most frequently cited references in the field allow a better understanding of the structure of the field of entrepreneurship and its main questions. Methodology The basic hypothesis of our investigation holds that the most important entrepreneurship authors are those most frequently cited by researchers in this field. We decided to build two data banks, one American and one European. The period covered was from October 1986 to October 1995. To access the most frequently cited American research in the field of entrepreneurship, we used PRO-QUEST software. First we searched the data bank for the two words "entrepreneur" and "entrepreneurship". The exercise was first conducted in 1991 and then again in 1995 which gave us access to articles published in professional and scholarly journals between October 1986 and April 1995, nearly nine years of research work on entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is mentioned in more than one hundred journals written for practitioners and academicians. This wide publication base is offset by the fact that slightly less than half of the articles are concentrated in three American journals that specialize in entrepreneurship : Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice (76 articles), Journal of Business Venturing (54 articles), and Journal of Small Business Management (37 articles). This concentration in these three American journals confirms MacMillan's study (1991) establishing them as the best received mediums by the scientific entrepreneurship community in the United States. We decided to use the 167 articles published in these journals as our basic material. Then we computerized all the bibliographical references in these 167 articles. In our opinion, these references are the source of the arguments of those building the field of entrepreneurship in America. This monastic work brought to light the top 30 most often quoted authors in the bibliographies of the 167 indexed articles. We identified eleven books, seven parts of books, and twelve scholarly articles. It should be noted that since some of these books or parts of books are new editions such as Vesper, 1980, 1990; Collins, Moore, Unwalla, 1964; Collins, Moore, 1970 and Brockhaus, 1982; Brockhaus, Horwitz, 1986, we grouped them together. Further, Bygrave's articles, 1989a, 1989b, are considered as one contribution. Therefore, we have 26 separate contributions from the 30 most frequently cited authors. To construct a data bank from the European journals, we decided to computerize all the bibliographical references of all the articles published in the journals Entrepreneurship and Regional Development and International Small Business Journal between October 1986 and October 1995. We chose these two journals after having asked six senior Canadian and Copyright École des HEC 3
European researchers in the field of entrepreneurship for their opinion on the best European journal. As they came up with not one but two journals, we decided to use both of them. There were 5420 indexed titles from Entrepreneurship and Regional Development (January 1989 to October 1995) and 3911 titles from International Small Business Journal (October 1986 to October 1995). Results Tables 2, 3, and 4 present the most frequently cited contributions in our data bank. Table 2 shows the 18 most frequently cited titles in the American journals Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, and Journal of Small Business Management between October 1986 and April 1995. Table 3 presents the 19 most frequently cited titles in the two European journals Entrepreneurship and Regional Development and International Small Business Journal between October 1986 and October 1995. Finally, there are 12 contributions that are found in both the American and European data banks (see Table 4). These results are grouped according to the three levels of the theoretical framework: the praxiological level, the disciplinary level, and the epistemological level. Drucker (1985) and Vesper (1985) are two representative authors on the praxiological level. The first is interested in entrepreneurial management practices and the second is interested in development practices through the intermediary of university entrepreneurship training programs. In summary, the field of entrepreneurship is constructed on relatively solid practical knowledge that we must continue to explore and describe. It is certain that the praxiological level alone cannot explain the entrepreneurial reality, insights from the disciplinary theories are needed to shed light on this universe. On the disciplinary level, the 35 most frequently cited contributions are grouped into four categories: economic theories, psychological theories, organizational theories, and, finally, cultural theories. Copyright École des HEC 4
Table 2 The Most Frequently Cited in Entrepreneurship Found Exclusively in the Three American Journals 1 (October 1986 - April 1995) Bird, B., Implementing Ideas : The Case for Intention, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, n o 3, 1988, pp. 442-453. Bygrave, W.D., The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (I) : A Philosophical Look at its Research Methodologies, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 14, n o 2, Fall 1989, pp. 7-30. Bygrave, W.D., The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (II) : Chaos and Catastrophes Among Quantum Jumps?, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 14, n o 3, Winter 1989, pp. 7-30. Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W.R., Carland, J.C., Differentiating Entrepreneurs from Small Business Owners : A Conceptualization, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, n o 2, 1984, pp. 354-359. Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., Carland, J.C., Who is an Entrepreneur? is a Question Worth/Asking, Journal of Small Business, Vol. 12, n o 4, 1988, pp. 33-39. Collins, O.F., Moore, D.G., Unwalla, D.B., The Enterprising Man, East Lansing, M.I., Michigan State University Business Studies, 1964, 254 pages. Collins, O.F., Moore, D., The Organization Makers. A Behavioral Study of Independant Entrepreneur, New York, Meredith, 1970. Gartner, W.B., Who is an Entrepreneur? Is the Wrong Question, American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 12, n o 4, 1988, pp. 11-32. Gartner, W.B., A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, 1985, pp. 696-706. Gartner, W.B., What Are We Talking About When We Talk About Entrepreneurship?, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 5, 1990, pp. 15-28. Katz, J., Gartner, W.B., Properties of Emerging Organization, Academy of Management Review, 1988, Vol. 13, n o 3, pp. 429-441. Kilby, P., Entrepreneurship and Economic Development, P. Kilby (ed.), New York, Free Press, 1971. Low, B.L., MacMillan, I.C., Entrepreneurship : Past Research and Future Challenges, Journal of Management, Vol. 14, n o 2, 1988, pp. 139-161. Peters, T.J., Waterman, R.H., In Search of Excellence, New York, Harper and Row, 1982. Smith, N., The Entrepreneur and his Firm : The Relationship Between Type of Man and Type of Company, East Lansing, Michigan State University Press, 1967. Stinchombe, A.L., Social Structure and Organization in Handbook of Organizations, 1965, pp. 142-193. Vesper, K.H., Entrepreneurship Education, Wellesley, M.A., Babson College, 1985. Wortman, M.S., Jr., Entrepreneurship : An Integrating Typology and Evaluation of the Empirical Research in the Field, Journal of Management, Vol. 13, 1987, pp. 259-279. 1 Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Venturing,Journal of Small Business Management. Copyright École des HEC 5
Table 3 The Most Frequently Cited in Entrepreneurship Found Exclusively in the Two European Journals 1 (October 1986 - October 1995) Birch, D., The Job Generation Process, Cambridge, MA MIT Program on Neighbourhood and Regional Change, 1979. Birley, S., The Role of Networks in the Entrepreneurial Process, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 1, n o 1, 1985, pp. 101-117. Bolton, J.E. (Chairman), Small Firms : Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Small Firms, 1971, Cmnd. 4811, London, HMSO. Brusco, S., Small Firms and Industrial Districts : The Experience of Italy in D. Keeble and Wever E. (eds.), New Firms and Regional Development in Europe, 1986, London Croom Helm, pp. 184-202. Casson, M., The Entrepreneur : An Economic Theory, 1982, Oxford : Martin Robertson. Chell, E., J. Haworth and S. Brearley, Entrepreneurial Personality : Concepts, Cases and Categories, 1991, Routledge, London. Cross, M., Nes Firm Formation and Regional Development, 1981, Gower : Farnborough. Johannisson, B., Beyond Process and Structure : Social Exchange Network, International Studies of Management and Organization, 1987, Vol. 17, n o 1, pp. 3-23. Kirzner, I., Competition and Entrepreneurship, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1973. Oakey, R., High Technology Small Firms. Regional Development in Britain and the United States, 1984, New York : St-Martin's. Piore, M.J. and C.F. Sabel, The Second Industrial Divide : Possibilities of Prosperity, 1984, New York, N.Y. : Basic Books. Scase, R. and R. Goffee, The Real World of the Small Business Owner, 1980, London : Croom Helm. Scase, R. and R. Goffee, The Entrepreneurial Middle Class, 1982, London : Croom Helm. Stanworth, M., J. Curran, Management Motivation in the Smaller Business, 1973, London : Gower Press. Storey, D., Entrepreneurship and the New Firm, 1982, London : Croom Helm. Storey, D. and S. Johnson, Job Generation and Labour Market Change, 1987, London : MacMillan. Storey, D.J. et al, The Performance of Small Firms, 1987, London : Croom Helm. Sweeney, G.P., Innovation, Entrepreneurs and Regional Development, 1987, New York : St-Martin Press. Williamson, O., Markets and Hierarchies : Analysis and Antithrust Implications, 1975, New York : The Free Press. 1 Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, International Small Business Journal. Copyright École des HEC 6
Table 4 The Most Frequently Cited Countributions in Entrepreneurship Found in Both the Three American Journals 1 and the Two European Journals (October 1986 - October 1995) Aldrich, H., C. Zimmer, Entrepreneurship Through Social Networks in D. Sexton et R. Smilor (eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Cambridge, M.A., Ballinger, 1986, pp. 3-23. Brockhaus, R.H. Sr., The Psychology of the Entrepreneurship in C.A. Kent, D.L. Sexton, K.H. Vesper (eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1982. Brockhaus, R.H., P.S. Horwit, The Psychology of the Entrepreneur in D.L. Sexton & R.W. Smilor (ed.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Cambridge, M.A., Ballinger, 1986. Carsrud, A.L., K.W. Olm, G.G. Eddy, Entrepreneurship Research in Quest of a Paradigm in D.L. Sexton, R.W. Sandor (eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Cambridge, A. Ballinger, 1986, pp. 367-378. Churchill, N.C., V.L. Lewis, The Five Stages of Small Business Growth, Harvard Business Review, mai-juin 1983, pp. 30-32. Drucker, P.F., Innovation and Entrepreneurship : Practice and Principles, 1985, New York, Harper and Row, 1985. McClelland, D.S., The Achieving Society, Princeton, D., Van Nostrand, New York, 1961. Porter, M.E., Competitive Strategy, New York, Free Press, 1980. Shapero, A., L. Sokol, The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship in C. Kent, D.L. Sexton, K.H. Vesper (eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1982. Schumpeter, J.A., The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, M.A., Harvard University, 1934, 255 pages. Vesper, K.H., New Venture Strategies, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1980, 356 pages. Vesper, K.H., New Venture Strategies, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1990, 356 pages. 1 Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Small Business Management, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, International Small Business Journal Fourteen authors describe economic theories: Schumpeter, 1934; Bolton, 1971; Storey, 1982; Storey et al, 1987; Storey, Johnson, 1987; Piore, Sabel, 1984; Birch, 1979; Kirzner, 1973; Oakey, 1984; Sweeney, 1987; Cross 1981; Brusco, 1986; Casson, 1982; Williamson, 1975. In the chapter on psychological theories, we find the following eight contributions: McClelland, 1961; Collins, Moore, Unwalla, 1964; Collins, Moore, 1970; Brockhaus, 1982; Brockhaus, Horwitz, 1986; Bird, 1988; Stanworth, Curran, 1973; Chell, Harworth, Brearly, 1991. Organizational theories are represented by the following eight names: Porter, 1980; Peter, Waterman, 1982; Smith, 1967; Churchill, Lewis, 1983; Katz, Gartner, 1988; Stinchombe, Copyright École des HEC 7
1965; Aldrich, Zimmer, 1986; Birley, 1985. The five most frequently cited contributions dealing with cultural theories are : Shapero, Sokol, 1982; Kilby, 1971; Scase, Goffee, 1980, 1982; Johannisson, 1987. Finally, from the epistemological level there emerges twelve works related to defining, modeling, and classifying/evaluating the field of entrepreneurship (Carland, Hoy, Boulton, Carland, 1984; Gartner, 1988; Carland, Hoy, Carland, 1988; Gartner, 1990; Vesper, 1980, 1990; Gartner, 1985; Carsrud, Olm, Eddy, 1988; Wortman, 1987; Low, MacMillan, 1988; Bygrave, 1989a; Bygrave, 1989b). Copyright École des HEC 8
Discussion What can be said about these results? A careful examination of these authors allows us to extract the structuring hypotheses that emerge on each level of knowledge (see Table 5). Table 5 The Structuring Hypotheses of the Field of Entrepreneurship The epistemological level The disciplinary level What is an Entrepreneur? What is the entrepreneurial process? What is the nature of the entrepreneurial context? How should we understand entrepreneurship? How can we predict entrepreneurship? What criticisms should be brought to research? What suggestions can be made for future research? What role should the entrepreneur have in the regulation of economic exchanges? What roles does regional background play in the development of the entrepreneurial offer? What are the personality traits of the entrepreneur? What are the personal characteristics of the entrepreneur? What key factors make a small business successful? How can one adapt to the environment s changing conditions? How are organizations born and how to they die? What are the cultural traits of an entrepreneur? In what socio-cultural context does an entrepreneur act? The praxiological level How to detect opportunities for innovation? How to manage innovation? How to develop winning strategies? How to train entrepreneurs? How to support entrepreneurs financially? How to support entrepreneurs technically? How to promote small business politically? Some hypotheses seem redundant due to the fact that the authors studied them at different levels of conceptualization. In fact, taken as a whole, these structuring hypotheses fuel four main debates in the field of entrepreneurship. Debate No. 1: Does entrepreneurship regulate the demand for goods and services or does it simply offer these goods and services? Debate No. 2: Does entrepreneurship imply people with definite personality traits or with selective innovative behaviour? Copyright École des HEC 9
Debate No. 3: Debate No. 4: Is entrepreneurship determined by a certain socio-cultural context or can it vary according to the ability of each member of society to perceive and act upon opportunities for social change? Is entrepreneurship necessarily the phenomenon of creating a new organization or is it the development of an existing organization? If we take the discussion further, we can say that the field of entrepreneurship is characterized by two main paradigms: the paradigm of the economy of entrepreneurs and the paradigm of the society of entrepreneurs (see Table 6). We suggest that there are four groups of forces underlying the paradigm of the economy of entrepreneurs 1) economic forces that regulate the demand for goods and services, 2) psychological forces that determine the psychological traits of entrepreneurs, 3) socio-cultural forces that modulate the cultural traits of entrepreneurs, 4) organizational forces that prompt an adaptation to competitive pressures. The paradigm of the society of entrepreneurs is also defined by four groups of forces : 1) economic forces that expand the offer of goods and services, 2) psychological forces that encourage innovative behaviours, 3) socio-cultural forces that allow the people in a society to perceive opportunities for social change and to act on them, and 4) the creative force of a new organization. Forces Paradigms Table 6 Synthesis of the Field of Entrepreneurship Paradigm of the Economy of Entrepreneurs Paradigm of the Society of Entrepreneurs Economic forces Regulation of demand Development of the offer Psychological forces Personality traits Behaviour for innovation Socio-cultural forces Cultural traits Ability to perceive and to act on opportunities for social change Organizational forces Adaptation of organizations to competitive pressures Creation of a new organization In research, the paradigm of the economy of entrepreneurs is clearly dominant and refers to a preoccupation with the content of entrepreneurship. As for the paradigm of the society of entrepreneurs that is being increasingly linked with the entrepreneurial process, it is more and more being considered as an alternative that is taking root in the management and development practices of entrepreneurship. Thus, with its diverse points of view, a synthesis of the field of entrepreneurship gives the impression of great complexity. Consequently, it is not surprising to Copyright École des HEC 10
note as did Kilby (1971) and Gartner (1990), that a study of the entrepreneurship phenomenon is undertaken from a single view, the view favoured by individual training and experience. On the theoretical level this unidisciplinary tendency leaves a feeling of dissatisfaction. Is there a need to define the multidimensional nature of entrepreneurship? We think there is. Attempting to define entrepreneurship comes back to taking a position on the respective values of theory and practice, rules and usage, knowledge and action, and training and experience. In our opinion, the concepts of learning and education may hold the beginning of a definition through their ability to explain the interfaces between knowledge of content and knowledge of process. But there is much still to be done and an overall measure of entrepreneurship will long remain out of the reach of our instruments. In conclusion, we would like to emphasize three limits to this research. First, two different methods were used to construct the two data banks and the periods covered do not coincide perfectly. Also, the two European journals chosen do not correspond to the American perception of the best European journals (MacMillan, 1991). Finally, the most frequently cited contributions vary with time, which limits the reproducibility of the results. Copyright École des HEC 11
References Aldrich, H., C. Zimmer, (1986) Entrepreneurship Through Social Networks, in D. Sexton et R. Smilor (eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Cambridge, M.A. Ballinger, pp. 3-23. Birch, D., (1979) The Job Generation Process, Cambridge, Massachussetts, MA MIT Program on Neighbourhood and Regional Change. Bird, B., (1988) Implementing Ideas : The Case for Intention, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, n o 3, pp. 442-453. Birley, S.,(1985) The Role of Networks in the Entrepreneurial Process, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 1, n o #, pp. 101-117. Bolton, J.E. (Chairman), (1971) Small Firms : Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Small Firms, Cmnd. 4811, London HMSO. Brockhaus, R.H. Sr., (1982) The Psychology of the Entrepreneurship, in C.A. Kent, D.L. Sexton, K.H. Vesper (eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall. Brockhaus, R.H., P.S. Horwitz, (1986) The Psychology of the Entrepreneur, in D.L. Sexton & R.W. Smilor (ed.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Cambridge, M.A. Ballinger. Brophy, D.J., J.M. Shulman, (Spring 1992) A Finance Perspective on Entrepreneurship Research, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, n o 3, pp. 61-71. Brusco, S (1986)., Small Firms and Industrial Districts : The Experiences of Italy, in D. Keeble and E. Wever (eds.), New Firms and Regional Development in Europe, London : Croom Helm, pp. 184-202. Bygrave, W.D., (May 1993) Theory Building in the Entrepreneurship Paradigm, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8, n o 3, pp. 281-294. Bygrave, W.D., C. W. Hofer, (Winter 1991) Theorizing About Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, n o 2, pp. 13-22. Bygrave, W.D., (Fall 1989) The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (IO : A Philosophical Look at its Research Methodologies, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 14, n o 2, pp. 7-30. Bygrave, W.D., (Winter 1989) The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (II) : Chaos and Catastrophes Among Quantum Jumps?, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 14, n o 3, pp. 7-30. Carland, J.W., F. Hoy, W.R. Boulton, J.C. Carland, (1984) Differentiating Entrepreneurs from Small Business Owners : A Conceptualization, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, n o 2, pp. 354-359. Copyright École des HEC 12
Carland, J.W., F. Hoy, J.C. Carland, (1988) Who is an Entrepreneur? is a Question Worth/Asking, American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 12, n o 4, pp. 33-39. Carsrud, A.L., K.W. Olm, G.G. Eddy, (1985) Entrepreneurship Research in Quest of Paradigm, in D.L. Sexton, R.W. Sandor (eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Cambridge, A. Ballinger, pp. 367-378. Casson, M., (1982) The Entrepreneur : An Economic Theory, Oxford : Martin Robertson. Chell, E., J. Haworth and S. Brealy,(1991) Entrepreneurial Personality : Concepts, Cases and Categories, London : Routledge. Churchill, N.C., V.L. Lewis, (May-June 1983) The Five Stages of Small Business Growth, Harvard Business Review, pp. 30-32. Collins, O.F., D.G. Moore, D.B. Unwalla, (1964) The Enterprising Man, East Lansing, M.I., Michigan State University Business Studies, 254 pages. Collins, O.F., D. Moore, The Organization Makers. (1970) A Behavioral Study of Independant Entrepreneur, New York, Meredith. Cross, M. (1981) New Firm Formation and Regional Development, Gower : Farnborough.. Cunningham, J.B., J. Lischeron, (1991) Defining Entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Management, pp. 45-61. Déry, R., J.-M. Toulouse, (1996) The Social Structuring of the Field of Entrepreneurship : A Case Study, Canadian Journal of Administration Sciences, Vol. 13, n o 4, pp. 285-305. Drucker, P.F.,(1985) Innovation and Entrepreneurship : Practice and Principles, New York : Harper and Row. Gartner, W.B., (1985) A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 696-706. Gartner, W., B. Bird, J. Starr, (Spring 1992) Actif as if : Differentiating Entrepreneurial from Organizational Behavior, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, n o 3, pp. 13-31. Gartner, W.B., (1990) What Are we Talking About When We Talk About Entrepreneurship?, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 5, pp. 15-28. Gartner, W.B., (1988) Who is an Entrepreneur? is the Wrong Question, American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 12, n o 4, pp. 11-32. Hills, G.E., R.W. LaForge, (Spring 1992) Research at the Marketing Interface to Advance Entrepreneurship Theory, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, n o 3, pp. 33-59. Hofer, C.W., W.D. Bygrave, (Spring 1992) Researching Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship, Copyright École des HEC 13
Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, n o 3, pp. 91-100. Johanisson, B.,(1987) Beyond Process and Structure : Social Exchange Network, International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 17, n o 1, pp. 3-23. Katz, J., W.B. Gartner, (1988) Properties of Emerging Organization, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, n o 3, pp. 429-441. Kilby, P., (1971) Entrepreneurship and Economic Development, P. Kilby (ed.), New York, Free Press. Kirchhoff, B.A., (Winter 1991) Entrepreneurship's Contribution to Economics, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, n o 2, pp. 93-112. Kirzner, I., (1973) Competition and Entrepreneurship, Chicago : University of Chicago Press. Low, B.L., I.C. MacMillan, (1988) Entrepreneurship : Past Research and Future Challenges, Journal of Management, Vol. 14, n o 2, pp. 139-161. MacMillan, I.C., (1991) Delineating a Forum for Entrepreneurship Scholars, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6, pp. 83-87. McClelland, D.S., (1961) The Achieving Society, Princeton, D., Van Nostrand, New York. Morin, L., L. Brunet, (1992) Qu'est-ce que la science?, in Philosophie de l'éducation, (Chapitre 2), Presses de l'université Laval - de Boeck Wesmail, pp. 45-111. Oakey, R., (1984) High Technology Small Firms, Region Development, in Britain and the United States, London : Frances Pinter. Peters, T.J., R.H. Waterman, (1982) In Search of Excellence, New York, Harper and Row. Piore, M.J., C.F. Sabel, (1984) The Second Industrial Divide : Possibilities for Prosperity, New York : Basic Books. Porter, M.E., (1980) Competitive Strategy, New York, Free Press. Reynolds, P. (Winter 1991) Sociology and Entrepreneurship : Concepts and, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, n o 2, pp. 47-70. Sandberg, W.R., (Spring 1992) Strategic Management's Potential to a Theory of Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, n o 3, pp. 73-90. Scase, R. and R. Goffee, (1982) The Entrepreneurial Middle Class, London : Croom Helm. Scase, R. and R. Goffee, (1980) The Real World of the Small Business Owner, London : Croom Helm. Copyright École des HEC 14
Schumpeter, J.A., (1934) The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, M.A. Harvard University, 255 pages. Shapero, A, L. Sokol, (1982) The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship, in C. Kent, D.L., Sexton, K.H. Vesper (eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall. Shaber, K.G., L.R. Scott, (Winter 1991) Person, Process, Choixe : The Psychology of New Venture Creation, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, n o 2, pp. 23-45. Smith, N., (1967) The Entrepreneur and His Firm : The Relationship between Type of Man and Type of Company, East Lansing, Michigan State University Press. Stanworth, M., J. Curran, (1973) Management Motivation in the Smaller Business, London : Gower Press. Stewart, A., (Winter 1991) A Prospectus of on the Anthropology of Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, n o 2, pp. 71-92. Stinchombe, A.L., (1965) Social Structure and Organization, in Handbook of Organizations, pp. 142-193. Storey, D. and S. Johnson, (1987) Job Generation and Labour Market Change, London : Macmillan. Storey, D.J. et al.(1987) The Performance of Small Firms, London : Croom Helm. Storey, D., (1982) Entrepreneurship and the New Firm, London : Croom Helm. Sweeney, G.P., (1987) Innovation, Entrepreneurs and Regional Development, New York : St- Martin Press. Vesper, K.H.,(1980) New Venture Strategies, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 356 pages. Vesper, K.H., (1985) Entrepreneurship Education, Wellesley, M.A., Babson College. Vesper, K.H., (1990) New Venture Strategies, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 356 pages. Williamson, O.E., (1975) Markets and Hierarchies. Analysis and Antitrust Implication, New York, Free Press. Wortman, M.S., Jr., (1987) Entrepreneurship : An Integrating Typology and Evaluation of the Empirical Research in the Field, Journal of Management, Vol. 13, pp. 259-279. Copyright École des HEC 15