www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

Looking Back at 20 Years of Entrepreneurship Research:

What Did We Learn?

Per Davidsson

Queensland University of Technology

Jönköping International Business School

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

Agenda

• The Early Conferences

• What Did We Learn?

• The (Remaining) Challenges of ENT Research

• Europe vs. North America

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

All this is said by the greatest of traitors/sinners

• Not RENT regular in recent years (but Babson & Academy regular)

• My best RENT papers not in ERD—or thanks to others• I’ve been all over the place topic-wise and levels-wise• I’ve explored more than I have theory-tested• I have had a lead role in projects with huge heterogeneity

problems…• Even left the continent…

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

The Early Conferences…

• Brussels 1987• Vienna 1988• Durham 1989

• Växjö 1991

• Budapest 1993

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

The Early Conferences…

• A lot of mapping out the field– Conceptually– Empirically (extremely descriptive)

• Some well-known names; some long forgotten• Great diversity of approaches• Some interesting ‘false starts’, e.g.,

– Topic: entrepreneurship as career issue– Method: computer simulation, etc.

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

20 years—What Did We Learn?• Small Firms Are Important• New Firms Are Important

– Innovation; Job Creation; Regional development

• New Firms Are Important– Innovation; Job Creation; Regional development

• Not so much individuals with unique inborn qualities– Ind. Level: cognition, behaviour, habituals

• New Firms Are Important– Innovation; Job Creation; Regional development

• Not so much individuals with unique inborn qualities– Ind. Level: cognition, behaviour, habituals

• Environment– clusters; districts; milieux

• New Firms Are Important– Innovation; Job Creation; Regional development

• Not so much individuals with unique inborn qualities– Ind. Level: cognition, behaviour, habituals

• Environment– clusters; districts; milieux

• Teams, Network, Social capital

• New Firms Are Important– Innovation; Job Creation; Regional development

• Not so much individuals with unique inborn qualities– Ind. Level: cognition, behaviour, habituals

• Environment– clusters; districts; milieux

• Teams, Network, Social capital• Process• ‘The Opportunity’ and the Person-Venture fit

…and a whole lot else, of course!

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

20 years—What Did We Learn?

• Multi-level phenomenon• Complexity• Heterogeneity A Challenge to Research!• Reason for theory-drivenness and

methodological adaptations

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

A Common Levels Fallacy in Entrepreneurship Research Fallacy

Characteristics of

individual X

Creation of

ONE new venture

by individual X

(possibly with ind

Y and Z)

Performance of

THIS venture

Conclusion: distinguish clearly between individual level research and venture or firm level research

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

Phenomenon-driven research

• ‘Complete’ understanding

• Of the ‘entire’ phenomenon

• As it presents itself ‘in the real world’

• Population study OR ‘thick description’ case

• Large, representative sample from the ‘entire population’

• Include ‘all relevant variables’ / care about ‘everything’

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

Theory-driven research

• Is X related to Y in the manner predicted by theory Z?

• We don’t care what other things may also have an effect on Y

• We are not particularly interested in population X in country Q at time T

• Current, average practice isn’t necessarily ‘right’

• Experiment!

• Use a ‘narrow’ sample (age, gender, education) to reduce heterogeneity

• Study / measure a few issues WELL, rather than everything superficially

• Control for heterogeneity that has not been designed away

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

A quantitative example…

Venture Growth

(H4b) .22*

(H4a) .28*(H1a) .08

(H3a) .22*

(H1c) .11

(H3c) .26*

(H1b) .05

-.03

-.07

.17*

(H8b) .21*

(H3b) .34*

(H2a) .06

(H2b) .14*

(H8a) .24*

(H8c) .19*

(H5a) .13*

(H7a) .14*

(H6a) .23*

(H5b) .12*

(H7b) .15*

(H6b) .22*Past Venture

Growth+

Size+

Age+

Tenacity

Passion

NewResource Skill

CommunicatedVision

Goals

Self-efficacy

RegionalMunificence+

.08

Baum et al., JAP, 2004

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

A qualitative example…

Shane (2000) Org. Science

• All cases based on SAME basic innovation• Access to ALL start-ups, successful and

unsuccessful• Focus on narrow range of issues—role of prior

knowledge• Compelling; convincing results (cf. Sarasvathy;

Bhave—more exploratory, but focused)

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

Europe vs. North America

• North American examples…by intention• 20 years of increasing North American influences…

which one can have opinions about– Paradigmatically narrow– Focus on quantity, adding lines to CVs– All about packaging; ‘selling’ stories & results– Make-believe theory-drivenness

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

Europe vs. North America

• BUT…the top of that iceberg produces the ‘best’, most influential, most cited research

• Why?• Infrastructure/Institutions

– Babson & FER vs. RENT & ad hoc books– AoM vs. EURAM– JBV & ETP vs. ERD & IJSB

• Incentives?

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

Europe vs. North America• European paradigmatic diversity—a weakness and

potential strength– Building and sharing cumulative knowledge

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

Europe vs. North America• European paradigmatic diversity—a weakness and

potential strength– Building and sharing cumulative knowledge

• Collaboration among research teams– In a maturing field it takes a combination of skills to conduct

top level research and package it for top level outlets

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

Europe vs. North America• European paradigmatic diversity—a weakness and

potential strength– Building and sharing cumulative knowledge

• Collaboration among research teams– In a maturing field it takes a combination of skills to conduct

top level research and package it for top level outlets

• Collaboration with oneself– Stamina; building a research stream (effectuation, bricolage,

bootstrapping)

www.qut.edu.au

Queensland University of Technology

But a strong counter balance to the excesses of the North American

system is badly needed!

Let’s support RENT, ERD & other European institutions!

Thank you!