Evolving Conversations A Look At The Convergence In Entrepreneurship Research

Description
In this detailed description relating to evolving conversations a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research.

__________________________________

Copyright © 2001 - 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 de la Chaire d’entrepreneurship Maclean Hunter n’engagent que la responsabilité de leurs
auteurs

This research paper was presented at the 2001 Babson-Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference
held at he Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping, Sweden, June 13-17, 2001.





























Evolving conversations: a look
at the convergence in
entrepreneurship research

by

Denis Grégoire, Richard Déry,
Jean-Pierre Béchard

Working paper n
o
2001-12

December 2001

ISSN : 0840-853X






EVOLVING CONVERSATIONS: A LOOK AT THE CONVERGENCE IN
ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH

Denis Grégoire, University of Colorado at Boulder
Richard Déry, École des Hautes Études Commerciales de Montréal
Jean-Pierre Béchard, École des Hautes Études Commerciales de Montréal





Abstract

This research presents an empirically grounded picture of the converging conversations
shaping the field of entrepreneurship. We analyze the 13 593 references cited in the 752
papers published in the FER Proceedings between 1981 and 1999. The results show that
five converging axes have been attracting entrepreneurship scholars over time: research
on personal characteristics of the entrepreneur, on factors affecting new venture perfor-
mance, on venture capitalist’s practices and their impact on entrepreneurship, on the
influence of social networks, and research drawing from a resource-based perspective.




Résumé

Cette recherche présente un portrait empirique des conversations académiques qui, en
convergeant, structurent le champ de la recherche en entrepreneurship. Nous y analysons
les 13 593 références citées dans les 752 articles publiées dans les Actes des Conférences
de Babson (Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research) entre 1981 et 1999. L’analyse révèle
5 axes de convergence qui, au cours des années, ont attiré les chercheurs en
entrepreneurship : les caractéristiques personnelles des entrepreneurs; les facteurs
affectant la performance des nouvelles entreprises; les pratiques des investisseurs en
capital de risque et leur impact sur l’entrepreneurship; l’influence des réseaux sociaux; et
les recherches inspirées par la perspective des ressources et compétences.



__________________________________
Copyright © 2001 - 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 de la Chaire d’entrepreneurship Maclean Hunter n’engagent que la responsabilité de leurs
auteurs
EVOLVING CONVERSATIONS: A LOOK AT THE CONVERGENCE IN
ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH

Denis Grégoire, University of Colorado at Boulder
Richard Déry, École des Hautes Études Commerciales de Montréal
Jean-Pierre Béchard, École des Hautes Études Commerciales de Montréal


IS THERE CONVERGENCE IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH?

Considering the fragmentation that seems to be plaguing entrepreneurship, Aldrich and Baker
(1997) remark that in young scientific fields, where there is little consensus on definitions or approaches,
convergence is arrived at “because researchers are attracted by the initial progress made by early
investigators.” In this light, they suggest that “influence comes from exemplary research, not from the
propagation of rules or admonitions” and conclude that “the field will be shaped by those who produce
research that interests and attracts others to build on their work (Aldrich & Baker, 1997: 398).”
Surprisingly however, their own search for convergence focuses not on exemplary works, but on the
research designs, samples, and methods used by entrepreneurship scholars. Even in a recent account of
national differences in entrepreneurship research, Aldrich (2000: 5) repeats a conclusion that he and Baker
made in 1997: “Judging from normal science standards, entrepreneurship research is still in a very early
stage. If no single powerful paradigm exists, then there is even less evidence for multiple coherent points
of view (Aldrich & Baker, 1997: 398).”

Many authors have published literature surveys and conceptual syntheses that look at the forces
driving the field (e.g. Bygrave & Hofer, 1991; Low & MacMillan, 1988). From a more empirical
standpoint, Shane (1997) examined the impact that specific authors (and institutions) had on
entrepreneurship research by counting the number of publications in 19 academic journals deemed of
high-quality. Adjusting for co-authorship and a journal’s standing, he found that he, MacMillan, Covin,
Birley and Bygrave were the five scholars who had the most impact in the field. But while interesting,
this observation still does not tell whether these scholars’ publications lead to converging streams of
research. Closer to the idea that scholars build upon each other’s work, a few studies look more closely at
the references found in entrepreneurship articles. For instance, Ratnatunga and Romano (1997) analyze
the references found in 725 articles from six journals associated with small enterprise research between
1986 and 1992. Sorting out the most cited articles in three publication periods (1975-80; 1981-85; 1986-
92), they find the personal characteristics of entrepreneurs to be the only consistent topic of research over
time. Along the same vein, Béchard (1997) compares the references in four entrepreneurship journals and
observes two distinct paradigms emerging from the literature: the economy of entrepreneurs (a focus on
the variables of entrepreneurship) and the society of entrepreneurs (a focus on its processes).

By virtue of their empirical approach, these studies offer a convincing account of what the most
influential works in entrepreneurship could be. Still, it is not clear whether the “classics” that they
identify necessarily lead to the kind of convergence that Aldrich and Baker are alluding to. Moreover, it is
not evident from these classics alone what the convergence is about – if it exists at all. From a citation
point of view, identifying such convergence would be more compelling if it revolved around a few
references repeatedly cited together. In other words, the relationships between the most frequently cited
works would arguably be a stronger indication that scholars are converging on a given topic or approach.

In light of these observations, we investigate the question of convergence by looking not at the
samples, definitions, methods or most published authors, but rather by focusing on the co-citation
relationships between the most cited references used by the field’s participants. Because it emphasizes the
Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
2
interplay between various conversations and their evolution in time, our portrait of entrepreneurship
research makes three contributions. First, by using a methodology that goes beyond classical analyses of
“the most commonly cited works”, we provide a more refined answer to those seeking convergence in the
exemplary works from which people are building their own research. Second, we not only highlight what
the most influential titles are, but also show how various conversations are linked to one another, thereby
hinting at some important characteristics of the field as a whole. And third, we believe that our
“mapping” of the field can help policy officials and practitioners make sense of a rapidly growing body of
research, and find ways in which they can engage in those very conversations that are shaping the field. In
the end, we believe that our picture of the field contributes to a better understanding of the theoretical and
methodological issues that animate, as Venkataraman puts it (1997:120), our “invisible college” of
entrepreneurship scholars.

OBJECT OF STUDY AND METHOD OF RESEARCH

This paper analyzes the 13 593 references cited in the 752 full-length papers published in the
Babson / Kauffman Conference’s Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research Proceedings between 1981 and
1999. Five observations support the choice of this particular series as a representative sample of
entrepreneurship research. First, the Conference is generally seen as an important forum for
entrepreneurship scholars (Aldrich and Baker, 1997: 379). Second, the series is arguably representative of
the entrepreneurship research presented in other academic journals (Aldrich and Baker, 1997: 394).
Third, the Conference presents a somewhat more “global” picture of the field than individual journals –
the more so if we consider its international character. Fourth, the Conference’s 19-year record offers a
comprehensive picture of the evolution of various research streams. And fifth, we agree with Aldrich and
Baker that “by nurturing particular types of research, (the Babson Conferences) may have contributed to
the standardization of research practices in entrepreneurship and created a core community of researchers
who can play gatekeeper roles in the profession and enforce its gradually emerging standards (1997:
394).” Hence, it is our assertion that the Babson / Kauffman Conference Proceedings offer a valid
illustration of the citation practices that have characterized the field of entrepreneurship research over the
period considered.

The analysis of this corpus is based on co-citation analysis, a technique that is widely used in the
sociology of science and technology. In entrepreneurship proper, Déry and Toulouse used the technique
to offer a detailed account of the social structuration of the field – as evidenced by the Journal of Business
Venturing between 1986 and 1993 (Déry & Toulouse, 1996). The present paper expands on this first
study.

The research was accomplished in three methodological stages. In the first stage, the references
cited in each 752 articles studied were inventoried. In the second stage, this inventory was used to create a
co-occurrence matrix, where all the source articles citing a similar reference were paired together. The
graphical representation of these co-occurences leads to the identification of networks of cited references.
In essence, what these networks represent are the co-occurrence relations that exist between different titles
cited in the 752 source articles. As such, these co-occurrence relationships can be interpreted as
conditional probabilities that is, the probability of finding reference “y” when reference “x” has already
been cited in a given text. In the third stage of the research, these networks of references were content
analyzed for the commonalities shared by the co-cited titles, therefore highlighting the axes of
convergence that have animated entrepreneurship scholars publishing in the Babson / FER Proceedings.

Two methodological considerations are worth noting before moving to the actual mapping of
converging references. First, and in order to present a manageable picture of the field, we only consider
the titles that are cited more than 15 times. Our argument is that to represent a potential point of
convergence, a reference has to be present in at least 2 % of the 752 articles studied (citation frequency
Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
3
threshold). Second, we posit that for two works to form a potential axis of convergence, the co-
occurrence between them has to be at least 25 %. This decision rule means, for instance, that a
“meaningful” relationship will be said to exist between two references cited 15 times only if both texts are
cited together a minimum of four times (i.e. 4/15 = 26,6 %). Note that we are not passing any judgment
on the statistical significance of co-occurrence relationships, but are rather striving for the identification of
cogent patterns.

DESCRIPTION OF FINDINGS: FER 1981-1999

Figure 1 presents the co-occurrence networks between the 44 titles most frequently cited in the
FER corpus over the period 1981-1999. At first sight, a number of conversations are anchored around
Porter’s seminal piece of 1980. Most notably are two clusters of works focusing on new venture
performance. A first one (P1) is found in the upper right hand of the figure and is illustrated by Sandberg
(1986) and Brush and Vanderwerf (1992). The central concern of this cluster is perhaps best summarized
by the question “how can we measure new venture performance?” A second cluster is found much lower
in the network (P2), and is organized around Sandberg and Hofer’s (1987) article. In a way, this
discussion focuses less on measurement issues as on how various factors affect new venture performance.
For instance, Van de Ven et al. (1984) explore the performance of 14 new educational-software firms
from three different perspectives (entrepreneurial, organizational and ecological) at two different stages of
development. Similarly, Sandberg and Hofer (1987) test a number of propositions about the respective
influence of entrepreneur’s characteristics, industry structure and strategy, as well as their interactions.
And Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven relate “characteristics of the founding top-management team, strategy
and environment to the sales growth of newly founded U.S. semiconductor firms” (1990: 504).
Interestingly, this later text ties to Stinchcombe’s (1965) discussion of the liability of newness, while
Sandberg and Hofer’s article leads to a different network focusing on venture capitalists’ decisions.

Still under Porter’s competitive strategy umbrella, but moving away from the emphasis on
industry structure, we find a relatively tight cluster of works that focus on a firm’s set of resources and
capabilities as the determining factor of competitive advantage – the so-called Resource-Based
Perspective (RBP). Most representative of this perspective are Barney’s (1991) and Wernerfelt’s (1984)
seminal articles. Also included are two older books by Penrose (1959) and Miles and Snow (1978). The
relationship between Wernerfelt’s (1984) text and Churchill and Lewis’ (1983) paper suggests that
scholars using the RBP have sought (among other things) to link specific resources and capabilities to
distinct stages of growth. In any case, the presence of such a tight cluster indicates that entrepreneurship
scholars have drawn significantly from the RBP, even if at this stage, we cannot identify more specific
topics for which this approach has been used.

Leaving aside these strategic concerns, we find two sub-networks anchored by McClelland (1961)
and which are concerned primarily with the person of the entrepreneur. The first group (E1) is rather
loosely tied and is comprised of books or chapters that review past research on the social or psychological
dimensions of entrepreneurship (e.g. Brockhaus, 1982; Shapero and Sokol, 1982), and/or propose more
specific models or theories, such as locus of control (Rotter, 1966) or life path change (Shapero and
Sokol, 1982), to explain why certain people engage in entrepreneurial activities. It is worth noting that
two conceptual pieces link (L) this later network on the person of the entrepreneur and the first cluster
focusing on new venture performance: Gartner’s (1985) integration of individual, organizational,
environmental and process characteristics in a model of new venture creation, and Low and MacMillan’s
(1988) review of the field’s advances. This link is further supported by Carland et al.’s (1984) argument
that the pursuit of innovation is the differentiating characteristic between entrepreneurs and small business
owners. Together, these three conceptual works seem to act as pivotal references for those scholars
linking differences in performance to differences in individual, organizational and strategic characteristics.

Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
4
The second group of works concerned with the person of the entrepreneur is more tightly knit
(E2): not only are they almost all related to both McClelland (1961) and Vesper (1980), they also share
many links with one another. Perhaps more clearly than in the previous sub-network, the central concern
of this cluster lies in investigating specific factors affecting a person’s decision to launch a new venture.
Examples of these factors range from need for achievement (McClelland, 1961), risk-taking propensity
(Brockhaus, 1982) or subjective perception of risk and ability (Liles, 1974) to personal antecedents
(Collins and Moore, 1964), personal characteristics (Hornaday and Aboud, 1971) or more immediate
situational factors (Shapero, 1975). In this case however, it is Schumpeter’s 1934 book that links this
group of works to other influential titles, such as Porter’s 1985 book on the internal underpinnings of
competitive advantage, Penrose’s 1959 piece on firm growth and Eisenhard and Shoonhooven’s (1990)
and Stinchcombe’s (1965) works on founder’s and environmental influences on new venture survival.

As we have noted above, another group of works converge on venture capitalists’ (VCs) roles and
practices. Anchored by MacMillan et al.’s (1985) exploration of VCs’ decision criteria, this tightly knit
network has three other poles: Tyebjee and Bruno’s (1984) model of VCs investment process, Gorman
and Sahlman’s (1989) description of VCs’ activities, and Sapienza’s (1992) study of VCs’ involvement in
funded ventures. It is interesting to note that such convergence on venture capital topics shares an
important link with works focusing on new venture performance, something that is perhaps best seen in
Sandberg and Hofer’s (1987) use of VCs’ decision criteria as predictors of new venture performance.
Stuart and Abetti’s (1990) study linking experience factors to early venture performance also appears as a
relatively influential work, even if not specifically tied to the above performance networks other than
through MacMillan et al. (1985).

Two smaller axes of convergence also appear in our picture. The first network (D) brings together
Pfeffer and Salancik’s (1978) and Williamson’s (1975) influential books and can be described as a
concern for the effect of structural and economic dependence relationships. The second axis (N) is
centered on “the role of (social) networks in the entrepreneurial process” and rests on Aldrich and
Zimmer’s (1986) and Birley’s (1985) articles. Finally, the six remaining works in this global picture (i.e.
Birch, 1979; Cyert and March, 1963; Drucker, 1985; Hambrick and Crozier, 1985; Jensen and Meckling,
1976) do not lead to additional networks. This does not mean that such references have not inspired
valuable research in their own right, but rather that such research has not (yet) generated more organized
axes of convergence within the field.

EVOLUTION IN TIME: FOUR PORTRAITS

In exploring whether these axes of convergence have evolved in time, we agree with Ratnatunga
and Romano’s contention that “any approach to selecting cut-off points is, however, inherently arbitrary
(1997: 202).” Nonetheless, because our intention is less to identify the precise points when networks have
been shifting as to investigate whether such shifts did occur, separating the corpus in four more or less
equal periods made more practical sense than testing every possible period length and cut-off point. Still,
a methodological word of caution is in order. Because we are considering limited periods with
considerably less source articles, we need to adjust the threshold parameters used to establish the citation
networks. Doing otherwise would result in networks so complex as to prevent any attempts of synthesis.
Therefore, we raise the minimum citation frequency from 2 % of the total corpus to 2,5 % of the limited
set of articles from the period under study. Similarly, we postulate that for two works to represent a
“meaningful” axis of convergence over the period, the co-occurrence relationship has to be at least 50 %.

FER 1981-1985: The characteristics of entrepreneurs as a defining theme

Quickly glancing at the most cited titles on figure 2, there is no doubt that concerns about the
personal characteristics of entrepreneurs dominated entrepreneurship research presented during the first
Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
5
half of the 1980s. We more or less meet the same titles noted in figure 1 and that centered on why certain
people decide to create new businesses (P2). But unlike what was observed in the aggregate network,
these concerns for the person of the entrepreneur are no longer anchored by Vesper (1980) and
McClelland (1961), but rather by Collins and Moore (1964/1970). New entries also tie to the network,
such as Hull et al.’s (1980) piece on personality traits.

Over and above this general focus however, three underlying concerns further color the picture.
First, the works of DeCarlo and Lyons (1979) and Schwarz (1976) indicate that in the early 1980s, a
number of scholars were converging on the study of female entrepreneurs – and sometimes with
additional considerations for minorities (F). Along the same vein, a second network (T) focuses on the
characteristics associated with technical entrepreneurs. Although it is graphically more spread-out, such
sub-network is nonetheless very tightly knit, with strong relationships between four pivotal works: Cooper
(1973); Roberts (1968); Roberts and Wainer (1971); and Wainer and Rubin, (1969). In both cases, the ties
with the larger network indicate that these research streams further attempted to delineate the individual
characteristics of entrepreneurs. Finally, a third small and isolated network (M) denotes more managerial
concerns for the performance of different entrepreneurs, as it links Hoad and Rosco’s (1964) study of
management factors contributing to performance to Smith’s (1967) typology of craftsman and
opportunistic entrepreneurs. Beyond these delineations however, the period’s strong focus on the person
of the entrepreneur still is manifest.

FER 1986-1990: Parallel conversations exhibiting little convergence

If there is one defining characteristic of the period represented in figure 3, it is the prominent
fragmentation of the corpus cited by participants to the 1986-1990 Conferences. We can count up to 8
loosely tied parallel conversations. But while these conversations often cover related topics, they fail to
generate clear-cut convergence around a cluster of titles. For instance, two parallel networks focus on new
venture performance (P1/2): Van de Ven et al. (1984) and Roure and Maidique (1986) on one side– the
later with a distinct focus on high-technology ventures, and Sandberg and Hofer (1987) and Stuart and
Abetti (1987) on the other. Similarly, there are two unrelated clusters centered on the personal
characteristics of entrepreneurs (E1/2). First, Carland et al.’s (1984) differentiation between
entrepreneurs and small business owners is linked to two separate texts: Churchill and Lewis’ (1983) five-
stage growth model and Brockhaus’s (1982) review of the psychology of the entrepreneur. A second
more scattered network links McClelland (1961) with Smith (1967), Smith and Miner (1983) and Rotter
(1966), apparently grounding personal characteristics research on different types of entrepreneurs.
Finally, two distinct dyads focus on the interface between venture capitalist’s activities and
entrepreneurship (V1/2), but without apparent dialogue between them. On the one hand, both MacMilllan
et al.’s (1985; 1987) pieces zero in on the decision criteria of VCs and their possible impact in terms of
performance. On the other hand, Bygrave (1987) and Timmons and Bygrave (1986) look at venture
capitalists’ practices and consider their role in fostering economic growth. Two other axes of convergence
remain isolated: a first one links Porter’s (1980) model of industry structure and strategy to Abell’s (1980)
text on strategic planning and the importance of “defining the business”; the second one is interestingly
constituted of textbooks focusing on the entrepreneurship process (e.g. Ronstadt, 1984; Timmons et al.
1985; Vesper, 1980). Again, no meaningful relationships link these parallel axes to other conversations.

FER 1991-1995: Structuring the field around a strategic perspective

Contrary to the previous period, the references used by entrepreneurship scholars in the first part
of the 1990s appear more organized, with four or five central works linking various others (see figure 4).
However, these central works don’t necessarily preside over tightly knit clusters, but over focused lines of
research, often represented by a single title. Having said that, the principal novelty in the period is the
establishment of Porter’s 1980 book as one of the principal anchor of the field. With its strong links to
Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
6
both Andrews’ (1971) and Miles and Snow’s (1978) seminal pieces, there is no doubt that the field now
revolves around a strategic impetus. Nested under Porter’s umbrella are two sub-networks concerned with
new venture performance (Ps): as in the aggregate picture, these sub-networks spur from two adaptations
of Sandberg’s dissertation (Sandberg, 1986 and Sandberg and Hofer, 1987). Interestingly, both networks
are further delineated in terms of entry strategy and barriers of entry, principally through the works of
MacMillan and Day (1987) and McDougall (1987). Similarly, these concerns for new venture
performance are linked to research on venture capitalist’s decisions (e.g. Gorman and Sahlman, 1989;
MacMillan et al., 1985; MacMillan et al., 1988; Tyebjee and Bruno, 1984), but this time through an earlier
work by Stuart and Abetti (1987). Although not related to other works, Kazanjian’s (1988) study linking
specific strategic concerns to four stages of growth also makes a noteworthy entry in the strategy network.

Beyond these strategic considerations, four parallel networks emerge from the 1991-95 picture,
this time under the “leadership” of Gartner’s (1985) article and Vesper’s (1980/90) book: a first set of
conceptual works (C) further delineated by Low and MacMillan (1988) and Carland et al. (1984); a
second group of works (O) looking at new venture creation from a population ecology perspective (e.g.
Aldrich and Auster, 1986; Stinchcombe, 1965); a third cluster (X) perhaps best described by a concern for
linking personal antecedents and experience to various forms of entrepreneurship and levels of
performance (e.g. Cooper and Dunkelberg, 1986; Stuart and Abetti, 1990); and a fourth set (R) of seminal
pieces reviewing the psychological and social characteristics of the entrepreneur (e.g. Brockhaus, 1982;
Shapero and Sokol, 1982). Three smaller networks remain unconnected with the rest: a first pair (1)
focuses on the influence of social networks (Aldrich and Zimmer, 1986, Aldrich et al., 1987); a second (2)
stems from Churchill and Lewis’ (1983) and Tyebjee et al.’s (1983) works on the stages of venture
growth; and a third group (3) linking Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (1989) echoes the field’s reliance on case
studies in its investigations of entrepreneurship processes.

FER 1996-1999: Enter the Resource-Based Perspective

If the previous period marked the consolidation of the strategic impetus, the period depicted in
figure 5 is clearly the domain of the Resource Based Perspective (RBP). Two kinds of works are
illustrated in this dominant network. A first pole (A) is comprised of classic references of the RBP (e.g.
Barney, 1991; Dierick and Cool, 1989; Penrose, 1959; and Wernerfelt, 1984). A second pole (B) is made
of texts more directly associated with entrepreneurship studies: in addition to the Gartner (1985) and
Churchill and Lewis (1983) pieces seen before, four titles make a strong appearance on this sub-network:
Chandler and Hanks’ (1993) investigation of capabilities that affect performance; Stevenson and
Gumpert’s (1985) contrasting picture of entrepreneurs’ and administrators’ “thought patterns”; Brush’s
(1992) review of female entrepreneurs’ research, and Duchesneau and Gartner’s (1990) profile of start-ups
in an emerging industry. Interestingly, Chandler and Hanks’ (1993) text ties to Brush and Vanderwerf’s
(1992) piece on performance measurement, and then to a sub-network of strategy formulation texts
including both Andrews’ (1971) and Hofer and Schendel’s (1978) books. Additionally, Chandler and
Hanks’ (1993) text also ties to a nexus of works focusing on new venture performance (P), and that
through the bridge formed by two books on organizations’ relationships to their environment, Pfeffer and
Salancik (1978) and Aldrich (1979) – the latter which is also tied to Cooper et al.’ (1994) study of human
and financial capital. In addition to Sandberg and Hofer’s (1987) JBV article, this sub-network is now
delineated by Miller and Camp’s (1985) study of factors affecting the performance of corporate ventures,
and McDougall et al.’s (1994) exploration of industry growth and strategic breadth. Clearly then, the use
of the RBP has not detracted entrepreneurship scholars from investigating factors affecting new venture
performance.

Above this network (S), we note a loosely tied group of more conceptual works perhaps best
characterized by a concern for the influence of external structures (e.g. Granovetter’s (1985) discussion of
under- and over-socialized actors, Hannan and Freeman’s (1984) seminal piece on population ecology,
Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
7
Larson’s (1992) study of social control in entrepreneurial settings, and Stinchcombe’s (1965) now familiar
discussion on the liability of newness. These work further tie to both Nelson and Winter’s (1982) and
Williamson’s (1975) discussions on the nature of the firm. Included in this network is also Cohen and
Levinthal’s (1990) proposition that innovative performance is path dependent, an argument that ultimately
links this group to the above RBP network.

Interestingly, research focusing on venture capitalists (VCs) exhibits a level of sophistication that
was absent from previous pictures. Two networks are now emerging. Anchored by Sapienza’s (1992)
article, the first one focuses on VCs’ contribution to new venture successes. Representative of this focus
are Ehrlich et al. (1994), Gorman and Sahlman’s (1989) and MacMillan et al.’s (1988) articles, all
published in JBV. The second network focuses more clearly on VCs’ decision process: in addition to the
now classic pieces of MacMillan et al. (1985) and Tyebjee and Bruno (1984), we now note Hall and
Hofer’s (1993) verbal protocol analyses of VCs’ evaluation decisions and Roure and Keeley’s (1990)
study of the factors predicting success in high-technology ventures. Worth mentioning is that the link
between these two streams of research is made through Gupta and Sapienza’s (1992) study of the strategic
preferences of venture capital firms.

Three weakly connected networks make an interesting appearance. A first link between Timmons
et al.’s (1987) Babson presentation and Kirzner’s (1973) seminal book suggests an emerging focus on
opportunity recognition (1). Further down, a more extensive network (2) links Lumpkin and Dess’s
(1996) clarification of entrepreneurial orientation, Covin and Slevin’s (1992) model of entrepreneurship as
firm behavior and Dess et al.’s (1997) tests of contingency and configurational models. Finally, a small
network ties Sexton and Bowman-Upton’s (1991) book on creativity and growth to Covin and Slevin’s
(1997) chapter on high growth transitions (3). In a way, these last two networks perhaps suggest the
emergence of an entrepreneurial view of strategy making.

INTERPRETING THE RESULTS OF CO-OCCURRENCE NETWORKS

Has there been convergence in entrepreneurship research? Manifestly, yes. At the aggregate
level, conversations about the variables affecting new venture performance, the factors affecting a
person’s decision to launch a new business, venture capitalist’s practices and their impact on
entrepreneurship and economic growth and the influence of social networks have all been important focal
points, as have been more seminal pieces about industry structure, strategic positioning and the resource-
based perspective. However, the four period-analyses show that these conversational axes have evolved
over time. Contrary to Ratnatunga and Romano’s (1997) observation about small business research
between 1986 and 1992, we find that “the personal characteristics of entrepreneurs” has not been a
“consistent topic” over the 1981-99 period: indeed, while it clearly dominated the Babson Conferences in
the first part of the 1980s, this topic waned over the subsequent years. In its place, a resolutely strategic
focus emerges as the dominant umbrella under which entrepreneurship scholars are positioning their work.

In a way, the observation that the number of cited titles increases steadily as we move from period
to period (from 1 533 different titles between 1981-85 to 3 335 between 1996-99 – see figures 2 to 5) is a
good indication that the body of knowledge mobilized by entrepreneurship scholars has grown
exponentially. Similarly, we observe that the core of this body of knowledge expands with time, moving
from 29 key-references in the first period to upward of 70 in the last period. However, such growth in
academic knowledge does not necessarily lead to more convergence. As we’ve seen, the move from
entrepreneur’s personal characteristics to a strategic focus generated many parallel conversations that
often failed to coalesce into a more tightly organized literature.

Similarly, it is important to highlight that the levels of convergence observed in this study are still
relatively low. For instance, figure 1 shows us that the most frequently cited title (Porter, 1980 – cited 47
Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
8
times) is found in only 6,25 % of the 752 articles studied. Similarly, only 5 titles are found in more than
4 % of the corpus (i.e. are cited more than 30 times), and 17 are cited more than 20 times (i.e. are found in
more than 2,8 % of the corpus). Comparable levels of citation frequencies can also be observed for each
of the by-period analyses, with the most cited titles rarely found in more than 10 % of the articles for the
period under review. Immediately, this tells us that the corpus of references analyzed here is highly
fragmented, an observation that is consistent with Ratnatunga and Romano’s (1997) findings about small
business research, where the most frequently cited title appeared in only 38 of 725 articles (5,24 %). That
being said, it is important to bear in mind that by their very nature, conferences like the Babson /
Kaufmann FER one are more likely to present a diverse all-encompassing picture than would be more
focused ones. Similarly, the portrait generated from conference proceedings is also likely to be more
diffuse than that offered by a single publication outlet. As a point of comparison, an earlier study noted
that the most cited titles in the Journal of Business Venturing between 1986 and 1993 were found in
13,1% of the articles (Déry and Toulouse, 1996). Still, the relatively low levels of convergence found
here highlight the eclectic nature of the field. In the end, entrepreneurship appears less characterized by a
dominant paradigm as by successive pockets of convergence.

At a more general level, it is worth observing that aside from a few conceptual works and research
on venture capital, the main anchors toward which the field is gravitating are often less associated with
entrepreneurship per se as with other disciplines, and with strategy in particular. In a way, this indicates
that if there is convergence in entrepreneurship research, it is more on an object of study, and not (yet) on
a specifically distinct body of knowledge – at least from a theoretical point of view. But in and of itself,
such finding is perhaps not so surprising, as it clearly reflects current debates that question the field’s
overall distinctiveness, and particularly with respect to strategy (Ireland et al., 2001; Shane &
Venkataraman, 2001; Zahra & Dess, 2001).

In the end, what our analysis shows is that throughout the last 20 years, there has been
convergence in the field of entrepreneurship. However, such convergence has not been stable and remains
relatively low, as older conversations tire off and new ones take over. In this light, it may be true that our
field is still in its adolescence. Still, the mix of convergence and diversity that permeates through our
findings remind us that this field is neither plagued by the conformism of single paradigms nor by the
anarchy of total fragmentation. What better place then to find rich opportunities for research?

REFERENCES

Aldrich, H. E. (2000). Learning together: national differences in entrepreneurship research. In D. L.
Sexton & H. Landström (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship (pp. 5-26). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Aldrich, H. E., & Baker, T. (1997). Blinded by the cites? Has there been progress in entrepreneurship
research? In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), Entrepreneurship 2000 (pp. 377-401). Chicago,
Ill: Upstart.
Béchard, J.-P. (1997). Understanding the field of entrepreneurship: a synthesis of the most often quoted
contributions. Paper presented at the Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College.
Bygrave, W. D., & Hofer, C. W. (1991). Theorizing about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 16(2), 13-23.
Déry, R., & Toulouse, J.-M. (1996). Social structuration of the field of entrepreneurship: a case study.
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 13(4), 285-305.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Camp, M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Integrating Entrepreneurship and Strategic
Management Actions to Create Firm Wealth. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 49-64.
Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges. Journal of
Management, 14(2), 139-161.
Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
9
Ratnatunga, J., & Romano, C. (1997). A "citation classics" analysis of articles in contemporary small
enterprise research. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 197-212.
Shane, S. A. (1997). Who is publishing the entrepreneurship research? Journal of Management, 23(1), 83-
95.
Shane, S. A., & Venkataraman, S. (2001). Entrepreneurship as a field of research: a response to Zahra and
Dess, Singh, and Erikson. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 9-20.
Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. In J. Katz, A. (Ed.),
Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth (Vol. 3, pp. 119-138): JAI Press.
Zahra, S., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Entrepreneurship as a field of research: encouraging dialogue and debate.
Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 9-20.



_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
10
0,27 Timmons et al. (94)
0,37 Sandberg (86)
0,40
0,27 Brush+Vanderwerf (92)
0,27 0,33
Gartner (85) Low+MacMillan (88)
0,25
0,28 Carland et al. (84)
Shapero + Sokol (82) 0,28
0,41 Brockhaus (82)
0,29
0,47 Rotter (66)
McClelland (61) 0,31 Smith (67)
0,39
0,27 Brockhaus (80)
0,27 0,33
Vesper (80) 0,27 Liles (74)
0,40 0,40
Collins and Moore (64)
0,25 0,33
0,30 0,35
0,30 Hornaday and Aboud (71)
0,27
Shapero (75)
Porter (80) Schumpeter (34) 0,30 Porter (85)
0,50 Miles and Snow (78)
Barney (91) 0,25
0,63 0,35
0,41 Penrose (59)
Churchill+Lewis (83) 0,25 0,44
0,31 Wernerfelt (84)
0,28
0,28 Stinchcombe (65)
0,29 0,29
0,29 Eisenhardt+Schoonhoven(90)
0,35
0,43 Sandberg, Hofer (87) 0,25
Van de Ven et al. (84)
0,25
0,40 Sapienza (92)
0,27
MacMillan et al. (85) 0,58 Tyebjee+Bruno (84) 0,47
0,33
0,27 Gorman and Sahlman (89)
0,44 Stuart and Abetti (90)
Williamson (75)
0,25
Citation frequency threshold = 2,0% (15 citations) Pfeffer and Salancik (78)
Number of source articles = 752 0,29
Aldrich+Zimmer (86) Birley (85)
Numbers on lines indicate co-occurrence probability (correlation)
Citation co-occurence threshold = 25% (0,25) Birch (79) Hambrick and Crozier (85)
Cyert and March (63)
Total number of references = 13 572 Jensen and Meckling (76)
Comprised of 8 380 different titles Cooper (79)
6 543 of which are cited only once / 114 more than 10 times Drucker (85)
47 43 36 32 28-26 25-21 20-15
6,25% 5,72% 4,79% 4,26% 3,72 - 3,46% 3,32 - 2,79% 2,66 - 1,99%
number of citations, FER 1981-99 (frequency in total number of source articles)
P1
VC
P2
E1
E2
D
L
N
RB
Figure 1 Co-occurrence network of references, FER Proceedings, 1981-1999









































N.B. Given the limited space available, the full references of the titles presented in
figures 1 through 5 are not listed in the present paper. The 11-page document is
available upon request from the first author.

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
11
0,60 Rotter (66)
0,60 Hull et al. (80)
Vesper (80) 0,67 0,60
0,50 Brockhaus (80)
0,67 0,50
McClelland (61) 0,50 Collins+Moore (70)
0,50 0,67
0,67 Liles (74) 0,50
0,50 Cooper (73) 0,60 Shapero (71)
0,50 0,50
0,50 Roberts+Wainer (71)
0,50
Shapero (75) 0,67
Roberts (68) 0,67
Collins+Moore (64) 0,50
1,00 Wainer+Rubin (69)
0,83
0,60 Hornaday+Aboud (71) 0,57 0,67
0,57 Schwartz (76)
0,57
DeCarlo+Lyons (79)
0,67 Cooper (71)
0,50
Citation frequency threshold = 2,5% (5 citations) Smith (67) Hoad+Rosco (64)
Number of source articles = 183
Birch (79) Schumpeter (34) Cooper (79) Cooper + Bruno (77)
Numbers on lines indicate co-occurrence probability (correlation) Shapero+Sokol (82) Utterback et al. (82)
Citation co-occurrence threshold = 50% (0,50) Timmons et al. (77) Lamont (72)
Number of references for the period = 1 983, comprised of 1 533 different titles, 1 313 of which are cited only once Timmons (82)
14 12 10 9 8 7 6 5
7,65% 6,56% 5,46% 4,92% 4,37% 3,83% 3,28% 2,73%
number of citations, FER 1981-85 (frequency in source articles for the period)
T
F
M
Vesper (80) 0,50 Timmons et al. (85) 0,50 Ronstadt (84)
Porter (80) 0,60 Abell (80)
Van de Ven et al. (84) 0,80 Roure+Maidique (86)
Sandberg+Hofer (87) 0,60 Stuart+Abetti (87)
0,50 Churchill+Lewis (83)
Carland et al. (84)
0,50 Brockhaus (82)
McClelland (61) 0,60 Smith+Miner (83)
0,80
Smith (67)
0,50
Rotter (66)
MacMillan et al. (85) 0,50 MacMillan et al.(87)
Bygrave (87) Timmons+Bygrave (86)
0,80
Drucker (85) Aldrich+Zimmer (86) Birley (85) Tyebjee+Bruno (84) Wells (74)
Gartner (85)
Citation frequency threshold = 2,5% (5 citations) Birch (79) Brockhaus (80)
Number of source articles = 193 Cooper (79) Shapero+Sokol (82)
Brockhaus+Horowitz (86) Hornaday+Aboud (71)
Numbers on lines indicate co-occurrence probability (correlation) Shapero (75)
Citation co-occurrence threshold = 50% (0,50) Stevenson et al. (85)
Robinson+Pearce (84)
Number of references for the period = 2 388 Sexton+Bowman (83)
Comprised of 1 801 different titles Cooper+Bruno (77) Cooper (71)
1 502 of which are cited only once Cooper (85)
15 11 10 9 8 7 6 5
7,77% 5,70% 5,18% 4,66% 4,15% 3,63% 3,11% 2,59%
number of citations, FER 1986-90 (frequency in source articles for the period)
P1
P2
E1
E2
V1
V2
Figure 2: Co-occurrence networks of references, FER Proceedings, 1981-1985






















Figure 3: Co-occurrence networks of references, FER Proceedings, 1986-1990






















_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
12
Gorman+Sahlman (89) MacMillan (88)
MacMillan et al. (85) 0,78 Tyebjee+Bruno (84) 0,50 0,83
0,50 Stuart+Abetti (87) 0,50 MacMillan+Day (87)
0,50
0,50
0,55 Sandberg+Hofer (87) 0,50 0,50
0,50
0,83 McDougall (87)
Sandberg (86) 0,67 Brush+Vanderwerf (92)
0,57 Kazajian (88)
Porter(80) 0,83 Andrews (71)
0,67
Miles+Snow (78)
0,50
0,50
0,52
0,55 Low+MacMillan(88) 0,67 Carland et al. (84)
0,50
Vesper (80/90) 0,60 Aldrich+Auster (86) 0,50 Stinchcombe (65)
0,50
0,55 Stuart+Abetti (90) 0,50 Cooper+Dunkelberg (86)
Gartner (85) 0,50
0,67
0,57 Brockhaus (82) Shapero+Sokol (82)
0,67
Aldrich+Zimmer (86) 0,50 Aldrich et al. (87)
Churchill+Lewis (83) 0,83 Tyebjee, T. et al. (83)
Yin (89) Eisenhardt (89)
0,71
Schumpeter (34) Birch (87) Hambrick+Crozier (85) Van de Ven et al. (84) Birch (79) Birley (85)
Eisenhardt+Schoonhoven (90) Jensen+Meckling (76) Cyert+March (63)
Citation frequency threshold = 2,5% (6 citations) Brockhaus (80) Williamson (75) Bygrave (89)
Number of source articles = 210 Cooper+Gascon (92) Feeser+Willard (90) Covin+Slevin (89)
Reynolds+Miller (88) Cooper (85)
Numbers on lines indicate co-occurrence probability (correlation) Porter (90) Gaston (89)
Citation co-occurrence threshold = 50% (0,50) Ronstadt (88) Cooper et al. (88)
Number of references for the period = 4 382, comprised of 3 219 different titles, 2 649 of which are cited only once
22-20 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6
10,48 - 9,52% 6,19% 5,71% 5,24% 4,76% 4,29% 3,81% 3,33% 2,86%
number of citations, FER 1991-95 (frequency in source articles for the period)
1
2
3
P1
P2
C
O
X
VC
Figure 4: Co-occurrence networks of references, FER Proceedings, 1991-1995




























N.B. Given the limited space available, the full references of the titles presented in figures 1 through 5 are not listed in the
present paper. The 11-page document is available upon request from the first author.

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
13
Granovetter (85) 0,57
0,57 Larson (92)
Schumpeter (34) 0,57
0,66 0,53 Stinchcombe (65) 0,50 Hannan+Freeman (84)
0,60 Hair et al. (95) 0,50
0,57 Williamson (75)
0,66 0,50
0,93 Nelson+Winter (82)
Penrose (59) 0,83 Cohen+Levinthal (90) 0,71
1,00
0,50 Aldrich+Fiol (94)
0,59 0,67
Barney (91) 0,50 Dierickx;Cool(89)
0,69 Wernerfelt (84) 0,67
0,50 Stevenson+Gumpert (85)
Gartner (85) 0,50
0,50
0,50 0,50
0,50
0,50 Churchill+Lewis (83) 0,50 Brush (92)
0,50
0,50 Duchesneau+Gartner (90)
Chandler+Hanks (93) 0,50
0,56 0,50
Brush+Vanderwerf (92) 0,50
0,50
0,50 Hofer+Schendel (78)
0,50
0,55 Andrews (71) 0,50
0,67
Cooper et al. (94) 0,50
Pfeffer+Salancik (78) 0,50 Aldrich (79)
0,50
Sandberg+Hofer (87) 0,50
0,50 Miller+Camp (85)
0,67
Timmons et al.(94) 0,67
0,50 McDougall et al. (94)
Porter (80) 0,50 Miles+Snow (78)
0,57
0,63 Timmons et al. (87) Kirzner (73)
0,57 Ehrlich (94)
0,57
Sapienza (92) 0,71 MacMillan et al. (89)
0,86
0,71 Gorman+Sahlman (89)
0,50
0,50 Gupta+Sapienza (92)
MacMillan et al. (85) 0,56 0,50
Tyebjee+Bruno (84) 0,50 Roure+Keeley (90)
0,57
0,86 Hall+Hofer (93)
Lumpkin+Dess (96) 0,71 Covin+Slevin (91) 0,67
0,67 Dess et al. (97)
Porter (85) 0,50
Sexton+Bowman-Upton (91) Covin+Slevin (97)
0,67
Citation frequency threshold = 3,5% (6 citations) Bygrave+Timmons (92) Stuart+Abetti (90) McClelland (61) Gartner (88) Bygrave (89)
Number of source articles = 166 (4 years only) Low+MacMillan (88) Jensen+Meckling (76) Granovetter (73) Bird (88)
Starr+MacMillan (90) Storey (94) Kirchhoff (94)
Numbers on lines indicate co-occurrence probability (correlation) Dillman (78) Siegel et al. (93) Bandura (86)
Citation co-occurrence threshold = 50% (0,50) Eisenhardt+Schoonhoven (90) Shaver+Scott (91) Birley+Westhead (94)
Number of references for the period = 4 832, comprised of 3 335 different titles, 2 642 of which are cited only once Cyert+March (63)
Carter (96)
21 18-17 14-13 12 -- 10 9 8 7 6
12,65% 10,84-10,24% 8,43-7,83% 7,23-6,02% 5,42% 4,82% 4,22% 3,61%
number of citations, FER 1996-99 (frequency in source articles for the period)
S
A
B
1
2
3
V1
V2
P
Figure 5: Co-occurrence networks of references, FER Proceedings, 1996-1999











































Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
14
MOST CITED REFERENCES

The present bibliography lists the 141 references most cited in the Babson / Kauffman Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research Conference Proceedings during the period 1981-1999. The list presented here
complements the paper presented by Grégoire, Déry and Béchard at the 2001 Babson / Kauffman
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research Conference held in Jönköping, Sweden, June 14
th
to 16
th
.

Abell, D. F. (1980). Defining the Business: The Starting Point of Strategic Planning. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organization and Environments. Englewodd Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Aldrich, H. E., & Auster, E. R. (1986). Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their
strategic implications. In L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior
(Vol. 8, pp. 165-198). San Francisco: JAI Press.
Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation.
Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 645-670.
Aldrich, H. E., Rosen, B., & Woodward, W. (1987). The impact of social networks on business founding
and profit: a longitudinal study. Paper presented at the Babson College / Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Malibu, CA.
Aldrich, H. E., & Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks. In D. L. Sexton & R. W.
Smilor (Eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship (pp. 2-23). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Andrews, K. R. (1971). The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1),
99-120.
Birch, D. L. (1979). The Job Generation Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Birch, D. L. (1987). Job Creation in America: How Our Small Companies Put The Most People To Work.
New York: The Free Press.
Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention. Academy of Management
Review, 13(3), 442-453.
Birley, S. (1985). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1),
107-117.
Birley, S., & Westhead, P. (1994). A taxonomy of business start-up reasons and their impact on firm
growth and size. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(1), 7-31.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal,
23(3), 509-520.
Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
15
Brockhaus, R. H. (1982). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In C. A. Kent & D. L. Sexton & K. H.
Vesper (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brockhaus, R. H., & Horowitz, P. S. (1986). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In D. L. Sexton & R. W.
Smilor (Eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Brush, C. G. (1992). Research on women business owners: past trends, a new perspective, and future
directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(4), 5-30.
Brush, C. G., & Vanderwerf, P. A. (1992). A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining estimates
of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(2), 157-170.
Bygrave, W. D. (1987). Syndicated investments by venture capital firms: a networking perspective.
Journal of Business Venturing, 2(2), 139-154.
Bygrave, W. D. (1989). The entrepreneurship paradigm (1): a philosophical look at its research
methodologies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(1), 7-26.
Bygrave, W. D., & Timmons, J. A. (1992). Venture Capital at the Crossroads. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., & Carland, J. A. C. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from
small business owners: a conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 354-359.
Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., & Reynolds, P. D. (1996). Exploring start-up event sequences. Journal of
Business Venturing, 11(3), 151-166.
Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1993). Market attractiveness, resource-based capabilities, venture
strategies, and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(4), 331-349.
Churchill, N. C., & Lewis, V. L. (1983). The five stages of small business growth. Harvard Business
Review, 61(3), 30-50.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorbtive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
Collins, O., & Moore, D. G. (1964). The Enterprising Man. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University
Press.
Collins, O., & Moore, D. G. (1970). The Organization Makers: A Behavioral Study of Independent
Entrepreneurs. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Cooper, A. C. (1971). The Founding of Technologically Based Firms.: The Center for Venture
Management.
Cooper, A. C. (1973). Technical entrepreneurship: what do we know? Research and Development
Management, 3, 59-64.
Cooper, A. C. (1979). Strategic management: new ventures and small business. In D. E. Schendel & C. W.
Hofer (Eds.), Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning. Boston:
Little, Brown and Company.
Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
16
Cooper, A. C. (1985). The role of incubator organizations in the founding of growth-oriented firms.
Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), 75-86.
Cooper, A. C. (1986). Entrepreneurship and high-technology. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), The
Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Cooper, A. C., & Bruno, A. V. (1977). Success among high-technology firms. Business Horizons(April
1977), 16-22.
Cooper, A. C., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1986). Entrepreneurship and paths to business ownership. Strategic
Management Journal, 7(1), 53-68.
Cooper, A. C., & Gascon, F. J. (1992). Entrepreneurs, processes of founding, and new-firm performance.
In D. L. Sexton & J. Kasarda (Eds.), The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship. Boston: PWS Kent.
Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, F. J., & Woo, C. Y. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as
predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 371-395.
Cooper, A. C., Woo, C. Y., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1988). Entrepreneur's perceived chances for success.
Journal of Business Venturing, 3(2), 97-108.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign
environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7-25.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1997). High growth transitions: theoretical perspectives and suggested
directions. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), Entrepreneurship 2000 (pp. 99-126). Chicago,
IL: Upstart Publishing Company.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
DeCarlo, J. F., & Lyons, P. R. (1979). A comparison of selected personal characteristics of minority and
non-minority female entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 17(4), 22-29.
Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm
performance: tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal,
18(9), 677-695.
Dierick, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainibility of competitive advantage.
Management Science, 35(12), 1504-1511.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row.
Duchesneau, D. A., & Gartner, W. B. (1990). A profile of new venture success and failure in an emerging
industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(5), 297-312.
Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
17
Ehrlich, S. B., De Noble, A. F., Moore, T., & Weaver, R. R. (1994). After the cash arrives: a comparative
study of venture capital and private investor involvement in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of
Business Venturing, 9(1), 67-82.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories form case study research. Academy of Management Review,
14(4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). Organizational growth: linking founding team, strategy,
environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 35(3), 504-529.
Feeser, H. H. R., & Willard, G. E. (1990). Founding strategy and performance: a comparison of high and
low growth high tech firms. Strategic Management Journal, 11(2), 87-98.
Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomena of new venture creation.
Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 696-706.
Gartner, W. B. (1988). "Who is the enteneur?" is the wrong question. American Journal of Small
Business, 12(4), 11-32.
Gaston, R. J. (1989). Finding Private Venture Capital for your Firm: A Complete Guide. New York:
Wiley.
Gorman, M., & Sahlman, W. A. (1989). What do venture capitalists do? Journal of Business Venturing,
4(4), 231-248.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American
Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
Gupta, A. K., & Sapienza, H. J. (1992). Determinants of venture capital firms' preferences regarding the
industry diversity and geographic scope of their investments. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(5),
347-362.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. A., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hall, J., & Hofer, C. W. (1993). Venture capitalist's decision criteria in new venture evaluation. Journal of
Business Venturing, 8(1), 25-42.
Hambrick, D. C., & Crozier, L. M. (1985). Stumblers and stars in the management of rapid growth.
Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), 31-45.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological
Review, 49(2), 149-164.
Hoad, W. M., & Rosko, P. (1964). Management Factors Contributing to the Success or Failure of New
Small Manufacturers. Ann Arbor: Bureau of Business Research, Graduate School of Business
Administration, The University of Michigan.
Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. E. (1978). Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts.: West Publishing.
Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
18
Hornaday, J., A., & Aboud, J. (1971). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. Personnel Psychology,
24(2), 141-153.
Hull, D. L., Bosley, J. J., & Udell, G. G. (1980). Renewing the hunt for the heffalump: identifying
potential entrepreneurs by personality characteristics. Journal of Small Business Management,
18(1), 1-18.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and
ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
Kazanjian, R. K. (1988). Relation of dominant problems to stages of growth in technology-based new
ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 257-279.
Kirchoff, B. A. (1994). Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capitalism: The Economics of Business Firm
Formation and Growth. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lamont, L. M. (1972). What entrepreneurs learn from experience. Journal of Small Business
Management, 10(4), 36-41.
Larson, A. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: a study of the governance of exchange
relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), 76-104.
Liles, P. R. (1974). New Business Ventures and the Entrepreneur. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges. Journal of
Management, 14(2), 139-161.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial intention construct and linking it to
performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
MacMillan, I. C., & Day, D. L. (1987). Corporate ventures into industrial markets: dynamics of aggressive
entry. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), 29-39.
MacMillan, I. C., Kulow, D. M., & Khoylian, R. (1988). Venture capitalists' involvement in their
investments: extent and performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(1), 27-47.
MacMillan, I. C., Siegel, R., & Subba Narasimha, P. N. (1985). Criteria used by venture capitalists to
evaluate new venture proposals. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), 119-128.
MacMillan, I. C., Zemann, L., & Subba Narasimha, P. N. (1987). Criteria distinguishing successful from
unsuccessful ventures in the venture screening process. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(2), 123-
137.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company.
McDougall, P. P. (1987). An analysis of strategy, entry barriers, and origin as factors explaining new
venture performance. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Carolina.
Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
19
McDougall, P. P., Covin, J. G., Robinson, R. B. J., & Herron, L. (1994). The effects of industry growth
and strategic breadth on new venture performance and strategy content. Strategic Management
Journal, 15(7), 537-554.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Miller, A., & Camp, B. (1985). Exploring determinants of success in corporate ventures. Journal of
Business Venturing, 1(1), 87-105.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource-Dependence
Perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 73-93.
Reynolds, P. D., & Miller, B. (1988). 1987 Minnesota New Firm Study: An Exploration of Firms and their
Economic Contribution. Minneapolis: The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs.
Roberts, E. B. (1968). A basic study of innovators: how to keep and capitalize on their talents. Research
Management, 11(4), 249-266.
Roberts, E. B., & Wainer, H. A. (1971). Some characteristics of technical entrepreneurs. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 18(3), 100-109.
Robinson, R. B. J., & Pearce, J. A. I. (1984). Research thrusts in small firm strategic planning. Academy of
Management Review, 9(1), 128-137.
Ronstadt, R. (1984). Entrepreneurship: Text, Cases and Notes. Dover, MA: Lord Publishing.
Ronstadt, R. (1988). The corridor principle. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(1), 31-40.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). General expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 609.
Roure, J. B., & Keeley, R. H. (1990). Predictors of success in new technology based ventures. Journal of
Business Venturing, 5(4), 201-220.
Roure, J. B., & Maidique, M. A. (1986). Linking prefunding factors and high-technology venture success:
an exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(3), 295-306.
Sandberg, W. R. (1986). New Venture Performance: The Role of Strategy and Industry Structure.
Lexington: Lexington Books.
Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
20
Sandberg, W. R., & Hofer, C. W. (1987). Improving new venture performance: the role of strategy,
industry structure, and the entrepreneur. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), 5-28.
Sapienza, H. J. (1992). When do venture capitalists add value? Journal of Business Venturing, 7(1), 9-27.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Schwartz, E. B. (1976). Entrepreneurship: a new female frontier. Journal of Contemporary Business,
53(1), 47-75.
Sexton, D. L., & Bowman, N. B. (1983). Comparative entrepreneurial characteristics of students. Paper
presented at the Babson College / Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Babson
College, MA.
Sexton, D. L., & Bowman-Upton, N. (1991). Entrepreneurship: Creativity and Growth. New York:
Macmillan.
Shapero, A. (1971). An Action Program for Entrepreneurship Multi-Disciplinary Research. Austin, TX.
Shapero, A. (1975). Who starts new businesses? The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur. Psychology
Today, 9(6), 83-87.
Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent & D. L. Sexton
& K. H. Vesper (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. (1991). Person, process, and choice: the psychology of new venture creation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 23-46.
Siegel, R., Siegel, E., & MacMillan, I. C. (1993). Characteristics distinguishing high-growth ventures.
Journal of Business Venturing, 8(2), 169-180.
Smith, N. R., & Miner, J. B. (1983). Type of entrepreneur, type of firm, and managerial motivation:
implications for organizational life cycle theory. Strategic Management Journal, 4(4), 325-340.
Smith, R. N. (1967). The Entrepreneur and his Firm.: Michigan State University Press.
Starr, J. A., & MacMillan, I. C. (1990). Resource cooptation via social contracting: resource acquisition
for new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 11(special issue on corporate entrepreneurship),
79-92.
Stevenson, H. H., & Gumpert, D. (1985). The heart of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review, 63(2),
85-95.
Stevenson, H. H., Roberts, M. J., & Grousbeck, H. I. (1985). New Business Ventures and the Entrepreneur
( 2nd
(1st by Liles, Patrick R. (1974)) ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Stevenson, H. H., Roberts, M. J., & Grousbeck, H. I. (1989). New Business Ventures and the Entrepreneur
( 3rd ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
21
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of
Organizations (pp. 142-193). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Storey, D. J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. New York: Routledge.
Stuart, R. W., & Abetti, P. A. (1987). Start-up ventures: towards the prediction of early success. Journal
of Business Venturing, 2(3), 215-230.
Stuart, R. W., & Abetti, P. A. (1990). Impact of entrepreneurial and management experience on early
performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(2), 151-162.
Timmons, J. A. (1982). Venture Capital in Sweden. Paper presented at the Babson College / Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Babson College.
Timmons, J. A., & Bygrave, W. D. (1986). Venture capital's tole in financing innovation for economic
growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(2), 161-176.
Timmons, J. A., Muzyka, D. F., Stevenson, H. H., & Bygrave, W. D. (1987). Opportunity recognition: the
core of entrepreneurship. Paper presented at the Babson College / Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research, Malibu, CA.
Timmons, J. A., Smollen, L. E., & Dingee, A. L. M. J. (1977). New Venture Creation: A Guide to Small
Business Development ( 1st ed.). Homewood, IL: RD Irwin.
Timmons, J. A., Smollen, L. E., & Dingee, A. L. M. J. (1985). New Venture Creation: a guide to
entrepreneurship ( 2nd ed.). Homewood, IL: R.D. Irwin.
Timmons, J. A., Smollen, L. E., & Dingee, A. L. M. J. (1994). New Venture Creation: a guide to
entrepreneurship ( 4th ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
Timmons, J. A., Smollen, L. E., & Dingee, A. L. M. J. (1999). New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship
for the 21st Century ( 5th ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin / McGraw Hill.
Tyebjee, T. T., & Bruno, A. V. (1984). A model of venture capitalist activity. Management Science, 30(9),
1051-1066.
Tyebjee, T. T., Bruno, A. V., & McIntyre, S. H. (1983). Growing ventures can anticipate marketing
stages. Harvard Business Review, 61(1), 62-65.
Utterback, J. M., Reitberger, G., & Martin, A. (1982). Technology and industrial innovation in Sweden.
Paper presented at the Babson College / Frontier of Entrepreneurship Research Conference,
Babson College, MA.
Van de Ven, A. H., Hudson, R., & Schroeder, D. M. (1984). Designing new business startups:
entrepreneurial, organizational, and ecological considerations. Journal of Management, 10(1), 87-
107.
Vesper, K. H. (1980). New Venture Strategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Vesper, K. H. (1990). New Venture Strategies ( Revised ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Evolving conversations: a look at the convergence in entrepreneurship research
____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________
Copyright © - École des HEC
22
Wainer, H. A., & Rubin, I. M. (1969). Motivation of research and development entreneurs: determinants
of company success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(3), 178-184.
Wells, W. (1974). Venture capital decision making. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon
University.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Market and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: The
Free Press.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and method. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

doc_834493654.pdf