Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Review of Entrepreneurial Epistemologies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Epistemological Attributions to Entrepreneurial Firms

  • 211 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter critically examines the entrepreneurial theories of classical, neo-classical, and modern schools of thought. The Marshallian and Kirzner’s theories have been discussed, which have emerged from classical school of thought. The classical arguments have been further linked to the theories of neo-classical school of thought represented by Schumpeter and arguments made in the gatekeeping concepts of entrepreneurial growth. This chapter further discusses the modern school of thought comprising stewardship theory, social cognition theory, business modeling, and digitization. The epistemological transition between classical and neo-classical, and neo-classical and modern schools of thought has been discussed in this chapter to bridge the contextual knowledge across the philosophies on entrepreneurship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ács, Z., & Audretsch, D. (1988). Innovation in large and small firms; an empirical analysis. American Economic Review, 78, 678–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Desai, S., & Hessels, J. (2008). Entrepreneurship, economic development and institutions. Small Business Economics, 31, 219–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, N., Grottke, M., Mishra, S., & Brem, A. (2016). A systematic literature review of constraint-based innovations: State of the art and future perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 64(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allahbakhsh, M., Benatallah, B., & Ignjatovic, A. (2013). Quality control in crowdsourcing systems. IEEE Internet Computing, 17(2), 76–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., & Anderson, P. (2013). Forming and exploiting opportunities: the implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational research. Organization Science Journal, 24(1), 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armour, J., & Cumming, D. J. (2008). Bankruptcy law and entrepreneurship. American Law and Economic Review, 10, 303–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berglund, H., Dimov, D., & Wennberg, K. J. (2018). Beyond bridging rigor and relevance: The three-body problem in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venture Insights, 9(1), 87–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernacki, M. L., Aleven, V., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2015). An examination of self-efficacy during a learning episode: Initial levels, changes, and associations with learning. Metacognition & Learning, 10, 99–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bharadwaj, A., Sawy, O. A. E., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights. Management Information System Quarterly, 37(2), 471–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biryabarema, E. (2019, November 22). Drone firm in talks in Uganda on medical supply delivery deal. Health News. Reuters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, D., Colombo, M. G., Lamastra, C. R., & Wasserman, N. (2019). The organizational design of entrepreneurial ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(3), 243–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chavis, L. W., Klapper, L. F., & Love, I. (2009). The impact of the business environment on young firm financing. World Bank Economic Review, 25, 486–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., D’Adda, D., & Piva, E. (2010). The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: An empirical analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 113–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbetta, G., & Salvato, C. (2004). Self-serving or self-actualizing? Models of man and agency costs in different types of family firms: A commentary on “Comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: Conceptual issues and exploratory evidence”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 355–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, D., & Li, D. (2013). Public policy, entrepreneurship, and venture capital in the United States. Journal of Corporate Finance, 23, 345–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebner, A. (2006). Institutions, entrepreneurship, and the rationale of government: An outline of the Schumpeterian theory of the state. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 59(4), 497–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eddleston, K. A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2007). Destructive and productive family relationships: A stewardship theory perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 545–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferro de Guimarães, J. C., Severo, E. A., & Maia de Vasconcelos, C. R. (2018). The influence of entrepreneurial, market, knowledge management orientations on cleaner production and the sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 1653–1663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, J. P., Tonidandel, S., & Cortina, J. M. (2016). Getting through the gate: Statistical and methodological issues raised in the reviewing process. Organizational Research Methods, 19, 402–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, V. S. (2018). Understanding the donor experience: Applying stewardship theory to higher education donors. Public Relations Review, 44(4), 533–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hossain, M. (2017). Mapping the frugal innovation phenomenon. Technology and Society, 51, 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, L., & Pearce, J. L. (2015). Managing the unknowable: The effectiveness of early-stage investor gut feel in entrepreneurial investment decisions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60, 634–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, S., Hon, L. C., & Brunner, B. R. (2004). Organisation-public relationships: Measurement validity in a university setting. Journal of Communication Management, 9(1), 14–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirchhoff, B. A., Linton, J. D., & Walsh, S. T. (2013). Neo-Marshallian versus Schumpeterian creative destruction: Its impact on business research and economic policy. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(2), 159–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C. S., & Huang, C. (2020). Discovering differences in the relationship among social entrepreneurial orientation, extensions to market orientation and value co-creation—The moderating role of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 42(1), 97–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 545–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machikita, T., Tsuji, M., & Ueki, Y. (2016). Does Kaizen create backward knowledge transfer to Southeast Asian firms? Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1556–1561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A. (1948). Principles of economics: An introductionary volume (8th ed.). London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathias, B. D., Solomon, S. J., & Madison, K. (2017). After the harvest: A stewardship perspective on entrepreneurship and philanthropy. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(4), 385–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordin, F., & Kowalkowski, C. (2010). Solutions offerings: a critical review and reconceptualization. Journal of Services Management, 21(4), 441–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagán-Castaño, E., Maseda-Moreno, A., & Santos-Rojo, C. (2020). Wellbeing in work environments. Journal of Business Research, 115, 469–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressgrove, G. N., & McKeever, B. W. (2016). Nonprofit relationship management: Extending the organization-public relationship to loyalty and behaviors. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28, 193–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopal. (1996). Business links through NGOs: An Indian experiment in rural development. Development in Practice, 6(2), 154–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopal. (2015). Butterfly effect in competitive markets: Driving small change for larger differences. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopal. (2016). Innovative business projects: Breaking complexities, building performance (Vol. 2)–Financials, new insights, and project sustainability. New York: Business Expert Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopal. (2020a). Convergence of local enterprises with large corporations: Bridging industry 4.0: Functions on broader business canvass. In Rajagopal & R. Behl (Eds.), Innovation, technology, and market ecosystem (pp. 1–28). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopal. (2020b). Sustainable businesses in developing economies—Socio-economic and governance perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopal, A., & Moya, F. A. M. (2020). Marketing strategies for start-up enterprises: Conceptual framework to analyze business performance through cross-sectional metrics. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 21(2), 238–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, E. (2016). A realist perspective of entrepreneurship: Opportunities as propensities. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 410–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahdari, A., Sepasi, S., & Moradi, M. (2016). Achieving sustainability through Schumpeterian social entrepreneurship: The role of social enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 347–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. New York: Random House Digital.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Samano, M., & Santugini, M. (2020). Long-run market configurations in a dynamic quality-ladder model with externalities, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2020.103943.

  • Saxton, G. D., Oh, O., & Kishore, R. (2013). Rules of crowdsourcing: models, issues, and systems of control. Information Systems Management, 30(1), 2–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1949). The communist manifesto in sociology and economics. Journal of Political Economy, 57, 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (2nd ed., pp. 11–26). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segne, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of organizational learning. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T. P. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, U., & Uhlaner, L. M. (2010). Performance-based vs socially supportive culture: A cross-national study of descriptive norms and entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1347–1364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storberg-Walker, J., & Gubbins, C. (2007). Social networks as a conceptual and empirical tool to understand and “do” HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(3), 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usher, E. L., & Schunk, D. H. (2018). Social cognitive theoretical perspective of self-regulation. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed., pp. 19–35). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, S. T., & Groen, A. J. (2013). Introduction to the field of emerging technology management. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(1), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilden, R., Gudergan, S., & Lings, I. (2019). The interplay and growth implications of dynamic capabilities and market orientation. Industrial Marketing Management, 83, 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E., & Kaiser, E. F. (2005). Transaction cost economic and business administration. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 21(1), 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, A., & Govindarajan, V. (2015). Engineering reverse innovation. Harvard Business Review, 93(7–8), 81–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z., Liu, L., Wang, H., Li, J., Hu, D., Yan, J., et al. (2018). Collective behavior learning by differentiating personal preference from peer influence. Knowledge-Based Systems, 159, 233–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business and Economics, Universidad Anáhuac México Sur, Mexico City, Mexico

    Ananya Rajagopal

Authors
  1. Ananya Rajagopal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ananya Rajagopal .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rajagopal, A. (2021). Review of Entrepreneurial Epistemologies. In: Epistemological Attributions to Entrepreneurial Firms. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64635-6_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation