
The entrepreneurship field is still in search of its own identity. At the same time, entrepreneurship is not only capturing the time and passion of an increasing number of scholars but also the public resources that national and international entities devote to fostering entrepreneurship as an engine for economic development and growth. As a consequence of this fast-growing interest in entrepreneurship, academics are in search of conceptual and theoretical clarity while policymakers require guidelines for designing and evaluating their entrepreneurship policies.
The definition of the phenomenon under study and object of policymaking is a fist step for defining the boundaries of a field of study and building theories to explain that phenomenon (cf. Whetten, 1989; Busenitz et al., 2003). An important part of this search for meaning is making explicit the assumptions underlying the conceptualization of the phenomenon (cf. Gartner, 2001; Alvarez, 2005).
Following this line of reasoning, we argue that one of the obstacles for understanding the entrepreneurship phenomenon is the lack of integration of different assumptions, units, and levels of analysis that are implicit in different conceptualizations of entrepreneurship that underlie current theoretical perspectives, empirical work, and public policies.
In other words, making explicit and integrating the disparate phenomena underlying the conceptualizations of entrepreneurship provided by different scholars is a necessary condition for enhancing our collective understanding about it.
Based on this research need and complementing previous work (cf. Wennekers and Thurik, 1999; Davidsson and Wiklund, 2001; Gartner, 2001; Busenitz et al., 2003; Alvarez, 2005), we adopt a phenomenon driven approach at the ontological level for building a framework that makes explicit the different phenomena or units of analysis, their associated levels of analysis, stage, and disciplines that are implicit in different conceptualizations of entrepreneurship (Figure 2.1).
Our contribution is threefold. First, assuming that the different perspectives--i.e., descriptive or explanatory coherent frameworks--on entrepreneurship are not incommensurable (Kuhn, 1962) but complementary, we contribute a complementary articulation (Smelser and Swedberg, 1994) or a scholarship of integration (Boyer, 1990) approach to capture and understand the phenomena underlying the different conceptualizations of entrepreneurship. We provide a bi-dimensional framework based on the implicit level of analysis and stage of the entrepreneurial process that integrates the different entrepreneurship-related phenomena in order to capture their underlying connections.
Second, this integration is not limited to a richer description of units of analysis and assumptions presented by different entrepreneurship perspectives. We trace back each phenomenon to its most related discipline and theoretical paradigm in order to build the link between its ontological and epistemological dimensions. This is a necessary step in any research field (cf. Busenitz et al., 2003), because each perspective contributes its own vocabulary and set of assumptions, stresses different dimensions of the same phenomena (for example, creation of organizations and corporate venture as different modes of organizing the entrepreneurial activity) or emphasizes different entrepreneurship-related phenomena (for example, entrepreneurship as the entrepreneur and entrepreneurship as the SME). This conceptual and phenomenological variety contributes a richer vision of entrepreneurship, but creates lack of understanding because different units of analysis and assumptions are handled as if they were the same. Figure 2.1 links the seven different conceptions of entrepreneurship and maps them in relation to their associated disciplines and theories, which helps to make explicit and understand their assumptions in terms of units and levels of analysis and stage in the entrepreneurial process.
Third and finally, the mapping out of different entrepreneurship-related phenomena or different aspects of the same phenomenon and their associated perspectives pave the way for establishing a clearer connection between entrepreneurship domain, theory, method, and policymaking. In effect, the seven units and eight perspectives in Figure 2.1 provides a road map for establishing the theoretical boundaries to delineate the entrepreneurship domain, building theories and formulating hypotheses consistent with the phenomenon under study (i.e. theoretical validity), identifying the most appropriate measures for each phenomenon (i.e. construct validity), and designing and implementing more coherent entrepreneurship policies.
This latter contribution opens up new horizons for future studies on entrepreneurship at the ontological, theoretical, and methodological levels. At the entrepreneurship domain or ontological level, future work could deepen the analysis of what phenomena and dimensions constitute the core of the entrepreneurship field and what phenomena and dimensions are contingent or not essential.
This work at the ontological level will have a necessary impact at the epistemological level. In effect, the nature of the phenomenon would drive the more appropriate theoretical lenses and levels of analysis to approach it. For example, if alertness to profit opportunities is the essence of entrepreneurship, economics and psychology would be the most important lenses for studying the entrepreneurship phenomenon, and the individual the most prominent level of analysis. Future work could deepen the analysis of different combinations of phenomenon-perspective-level of analysis and their interrelationship in order to increase our collective understanding of their overlapping patterns. A benchmark could be the work that Baum and Rowley (2002) have done in the organization studies field. Based on a phenomenon-driven or scientific realist epistemological approach, they focus on capturing the domain of each organization perspective and the overlapping among domains. This approach creates a fish-scale pattern in which, although "each perspective does not overlap directly with every other one, adjacent perspectives share problem domains, and frequently complements each other" (Baum and Rowley, 2002:21).
In addition, given the multilevel nature of the entrepreneurship phenomenon and the emphasis of policymakers on fostering entrepreneurship as an engine for economic development and growth, more work is needed on the micro-peso-macro links and on the impact of entrepreneurship at different levels. For example, if institutions shape the entreprenuer's cognitive and motivational properties (cf. Baumol, 1968; Harper, 2004), the link between the institutional context and individual behavior constitutes an interesting multilevel area of research.
The interaction between the individual and the environment or the micro-macro link is key, not only to understanding the emergence of entrepreneurship but also to linking entrepreneurship to societal out comes. In effect, this latter topic is not only one of the proposed purposes of entrepreneurship research Low and MacMillan (1988); Low (2001) but also the criterion to analyze whether entrepreneurship is productive, unproductive, or destructive (Baumol, 1990). New firms' productivity (Shane, 2003:5) does not mean that entrepreneurship is beneficial at the societal level, unless it is assumed that firm level outcomes automatically translate to societal outcomes through an automatic coordination of self-interested individuals in a world without externalities. This assumption is neither real nor useful for prediction (Rocha and Ghoshal, 2006) and therefore it is necessary to develop a better understanding of how entrepreneurial outcomes are distributed and what kind of institutions are necessary to mediate the process. In effect, "entrepreneurial talent is not automatically dedicated to socially desirable ends--it requires institutions to accomplish this" (McGrath, 2003:527; cf. Stinchcombe, 1997).
At the methodological level, future work could focus on the link between the phenomenon under study, its specify measures, and the associated results. For example, some studies adopting a contextual or demand-side perspective of entrepreneurship have found opposite results in terms of the level of entrepreneurship due to different ways of defining and measuring entrepreneurship. For instance, population ecology predicts an inverted U relationship between density and foundings (Hannan and Freeman, 1989; Shane, 2003), while the incubator regions literature and the regional literature in general show a positive association between increasing density, as measured by specialization indices or proportion of SMEs, and firm births (Reynolds et al., 1994; Audretsch and Fritsch, 1994; Thornton, 1999). These disparate results are a consequence of differences in conceptual definitions and units of analysis, which in population ecology studies are foundings and industry or industry-region while in regional studies are generally new firms and regions, respectively. (1)
As a final word, we hope that making explicit what scholars are studying and testing and what policy makers are designing will contribute not only to a better understanding of entrepreneurship but also to an increasing dialogue between academics, practitioners, and policy makers to understand and change reality for the better.
(1) Note that these disparate results are not driven by a different research method, which in the case of population ecology is longitudinal and in that of regional studies is generally cross-sectional. In effect, the issue is that population ecology predicts decreasing rate of foundings at higher densities, while regional studies predict the opposite.
3 Conclusions and directions for future research.(Entrepreneurship safari: a phenomenon-driven search for meaning)
The entrepreneurship field is still in search of its own identity. At the same time, entrepreneurship is not only capturing the time and passion of an increasing number of scholars but also the public resources that national and international entities devote to fostering entrepreneurship as an engine for economic development and growth. As a consequence of this fast-growing interest in entrepreneurship, academics are in search of conceptual and theoretical clarity while policymakers require guidelines for designing and evaluating their entrepreneurship policies.
The definition of the phenomenon under study and object of policymaking is a fist step for defining the boundaries of a field of study and building theories to explain that phenomenon (cf. Whetten, 1989; Busenitz et al., 2003). An important part of this search for meaning is making explicit the assumptions underlying the conceptualization of the phenomenon (cf. Gartner, 2001; Alvarez, 2005).
Following this line of reasoning, we argue that one of the obstacles for understanding the entrepreneurship phenomenon is the lack of integration of different assumptions, units, and levels of analysis that are implicit in different conceptualizations of entrepreneurship that underlie current theoretical perspectives, empirical work, and public policies.
In other words, making explicit and integrating the disparate phenomena underlying the conceptualizations of entrepreneurship provided by different scholars is a necessary condition for enhancing our collective understanding about it.
Based on this research need and complementing previous work (cf. Wennekers and Thurik, 1999; Davidsson and Wiklund, 2001; Gartner, 2001; Busenitz et al., 2003; Alvarez, 2005), we adopt a phenomenon driven approach at the ontological level for building a framework that makes explicit the different phenomena or units of analysis, their associated levels of analysis, stage, and disciplines that are implicit in different conceptualizations of entrepreneurship (Figure 2.1).
Our contribution is threefold. First, assuming that the different perspectives--i.e., descriptive or explanatory coherent frameworks--on entrepreneurship are not incommensurable (Kuhn, 1962) but complementary, we contribute a complementary articulation (Smelser and Swedberg, 1994) or a scholarship of integration (Boyer, 1990) approach to capture and understand the phenomena underlying the different conceptualizations of entrepreneurship. We provide a bi-dimensional framework based on the implicit level of analysis and stage of the entrepreneurial process that integrates the different entrepreneurship-related phenomena in order to capture their underlying connections.
Second, this integration is not limited to a richer description of units of analysis and assumptions presented by different entrepreneurship perspectives. We trace back each phenomenon to its most related discipline and theoretical paradigm in order to build the link between its ontological and epistemological dimensions. This is a necessary step in any research field (cf. Busenitz et al., 2003), because each perspective contributes its own vocabulary and set of assumptions, stresses different dimensions of the same phenomena (for example, creation of organizations and corporate venture as different modes of organizing the entrepreneurial activity) or emphasizes different entrepreneurship-related phenomena (for example, entrepreneurship as the entrepreneur and entrepreneurship as the SME). This conceptual and phenomenological variety contributes a richer vision of entrepreneurship, but creates lack of understanding because different units of analysis and assumptions are handled as if they were the same. Figure 2.1 links the seven different conceptions of entrepreneurship and maps them in relation to their associated disciplines and theories, which helps to make explicit and understand their assumptions in terms of units and levels of analysis and stage in the entrepreneurial process.
Third and finally, the mapping out of different entrepreneurship-related phenomena or different aspects of the same phenomenon and their associated perspectives pave the way for establishing a clearer connection between entrepreneurship domain, theory, method, and policymaking. In effect, the seven units and eight perspectives in Figure 2.1 provides a road map for establishing the theoretical boundaries to delineate the entrepreneurship domain, building theories and formulating hypotheses consistent with the phenomenon under study (i.e. theoretical validity), identifying the most appropriate measures for each phenomenon (i.e. construct validity), and designing and implementing more coherent entrepreneurship policies.
This latter contribution opens up new horizons for future studies on entrepreneurship at the ontological, theoretical, and methodological levels. At the entrepreneurship domain or ontological level, future work could deepen the analysis of what phenomena and dimensions constitute the core of the entrepreneurship field and what phenomena and dimensions are contingent or not essential.
This work at the ontological level will have a necessary impact at the epistemological level. In effect, the nature of the phenomenon would drive the more appropriate theoretical lenses and levels of analysis to approach it. For example, if alertness to profit opportunities is the essence of entrepreneurship, economics and psychology would be the most important lenses for studying the entrepreneurship phenomenon, and the individual the most prominent level of analysis. Future work could deepen the analysis of different combinations of phenomenon-perspective-level of analysis and their interrelationship in order to increase our collective understanding of their overlapping patterns. A benchmark could be the work that Baum and Rowley (2002) have done in the organization studies field. Based on a phenomenon-driven or scientific realist epistemological approach, they focus on capturing the domain of each organization perspective and the overlapping among domains. This approach creates a fish-scale pattern in which, although "each perspective does not overlap directly with every other one, adjacent perspectives share problem domains, and frequently complements each other" (Baum and Rowley, 2002:21).
In addition, given the multilevel nature of the entrepreneurship phenomenon and the emphasis of policymakers on fostering entrepreneurship as an engine for economic development and growth, more work is needed on the micro-peso-macro links and on the impact of entrepreneurship at different levels. For example, if institutions shape the entreprenuer's cognitive and motivational properties (cf. Baumol, 1968; Harper, 2004), the link between the institutional context and individual behavior constitutes an interesting multilevel area of research.
The interaction between the individual and the environment or the micro-macro link is key, not only to understanding the emergence of entrepreneurship but also to linking entrepreneurship to societal out comes. In effect, this latter topic is not only one of the proposed purposes of entrepreneurship research Low and MacMillan (1988); Low (2001) but also the criterion to analyze whether entrepreneurship is productive, unproductive, or destructive (Baumol, 1990). New firms' productivity (Shane, 2003:5) does not mean that entrepreneurship is beneficial at the societal level, unless it is assumed that firm level outcomes automatically translate to societal outcomes through an automatic coordination of self-interested individuals in a world without externalities. This assumption is neither real nor useful for prediction (Rocha and Ghoshal, 2006) and therefore it is necessary to develop a better understanding of how entrepreneurial outcomes are distributed and what kind of institutions are necessary to mediate the process. In effect, "entrepreneurial talent is not automatically dedicated to socially desirable ends--it requires institutions to accomplish this" (McGrath, 2003:527; cf. Stinchcombe, 1997).
At the methodological level, future work could focus on the link between the phenomenon under study, its specify measures, and the associated results. For example, some studies adopting a contextual or demand-side perspective of entrepreneurship have found opposite results in terms of the level of entrepreneurship due to different ways of defining and measuring entrepreneurship. For instance, population ecology predicts an inverted U relationship between density and foundings (Hannan and Freeman, 1989; Shane, 2003), while the incubator regions literature and the regional literature in general show a positive association between increasing density, as measured by specialization indices or proportion of SMEs, and firm births (Reynolds et al., 1994; Audretsch and Fritsch, 1994; Thornton, 1999). These disparate results are a consequence of differences in conceptual definitions and units of analysis, which in population ecology studies are foundings and industry or industry-region while in regional studies are generally new firms and regions, respectively. (1)
As a final word, we hope that making explicit what scholars are studying and testing and what policy makers are designing will contribute not only to a better understanding of entrepreneurship but also to an increasing dialogue between academics, practitioners, and policy makers to understand and change reality for the better.
(1) Note that these disparate results are not driven by a different research method, which in the case of population ecology is longitudinal and in that of regional studies is generally cross-sectional. In effect, the issue is that population ecology predicts decreasing rate of foundings at higher densities, while regional studies predict the opposite.
3 Conclusions and directions for future research.(Entrepreneurship safari: a phenomenon-driven search for meaning)
The entrepreneurship field is still in search of its own identity. At the same time, entrepreneurship is not only capturing the time and passion of an increasing number of scholars but also the public resources that national and international entities devote to fostering entrepreneurship as an engine for economic development and growth. As a consequence of this fast-growing interest in entrepreneurship, academics are in search of conceptual and theoretical clarity while policymakers require guidelines for designing and evaluating their entrepreneurship policies.
The definition of the phenomenon under study and object of policymaking is a fist step for defining the boundaries of a field of study and building theories to explain that phenomenon (cf. Whetten, 1989; Busenitz et al., 2003). An important part of this search for meaning is making explicit the assumptions underlying the conceptualization of the phenomenon (cf. Gartner, 2001; Alvarez, 2005).
Following this line of reasoning, we argue that one of the obstacles for understanding the entrepreneurship phenomenon is the lack of integration of different assumptions, units, and levels of analysis that are implicit in different conceptualizations of entrepreneurship that underlie current theoretical perspectives, empirical work, and public policies.
In other words, making explicit and integrating the disparate phenomena underlying the conceptualizations of entrepreneurship provided by different scholars is a necessary condition for enhancing our collective understanding about it.
Based on this research need and complementing previous work (cf. Wennekers and Thurik, 1999; Davidsson and Wiklund, 2001; Gartner, 2001; Busenitz et al., 2003; Alvarez, 2005), we adopt a phenomenon driven approach at the ontological level for building a framework that makes explicit the different phenomena or units of analysis, their associated levels of analysis, stage, and disciplines that are implicit in different conceptualizations of entrepreneurship (Figure 2.1).
Our contribution is threefold. First, assuming that the different perspectives--i.e., descriptive or explanatory coherent frameworks--on entrepreneurship are not incommensurable (Kuhn, 1962) but complementary, we contribute a complementary articulation (Smelser and Swedberg, 1994) or a scholarship of integration (Boyer, 1990) approach to capture and understand the phenomena underlying the different conceptualizations of entrepreneurship. We provide a bi-dimensional framework based on the implicit level of analysis and stage of the entrepreneurial process that integrates the different entrepreneurship-related phenomena in order to capture their underlying connections.
Second, this integration is not limited to a richer description of units of analysis and assumptions presented by different entrepreneurship perspectives. We trace back each phenomenon to its most related discipline and theoretical paradigm in order to build the link between its ontological and epistemological dimensions. This is a necessary step in any research field (cf. Busenitz et al., 2003), because each perspective contributes its own vocabulary and set of assumptions, stresses different dimensions of the same phenomena (for example, creation of organizations and corporate venture as different modes of organizing the entrepreneurial activity) or emphasizes different entrepreneurship-related phenomena (for example, entrepreneurship as the entrepreneur and entrepreneurship as the SME). This conceptual and phenomenological variety contributes a richer vision of entrepreneurship, but creates lack of understanding because different units of analysis and assumptions are handled as if they were the same. Figure 2.1 links the seven different conceptions of entrepreneurship and maps them in relation to their associated disciplines and theories, which helps to make explicit and understand their assumptions in terms of units and levels of analysis and stage in the entrepreneurial process.
Third and finally, the mapping out of different entrepreneurship-related phenomena or different aspects of the same phenomenon and their associated perspectives pave the way for establishing a clearer connection between entrepreneurship domain, theory, method, and policymaking. In effect, the seven units and eight perspectives in Figure 2.1 provides a road map for establishing the theoretical boundaries to delineate the entrepreneurship domain, building theories and formulating hypotheses consistent with the phenomenon under study (i.e. theoretical validity), identifying the most appropriate measures for each phenomenon (i.e. construct validity), and designing and implementing more coherent entrepreneurship policies.
This latter contribution opens up new horizons for future studies on entrepreneurship at the ontological, theoretical, and methodological levels. At the entrepreneurship domain or ontological level, future work could deepen the analysis of what phenomena and dimensions constitute the core of the entrepreneurship field and what phenomena and dimensions are contingent or not essential.
This work at the ontological level will have a necessary impact at the epistemological level. In effect, the nature of the phenomenon would drive the more appropriate theoretical lenses and levels of analysis to approach it. For example, if alertness to profit opportunities is the essence of entrepreneurship, economics and psychology would be the most important lenses for studying the entrepreneurship phenomenon, and the individual the most prominent level of analysis. Future work could deepen the analysis of different combinations of phenomenon-perspective-level of analysis and their interrelationship in order to increase our collective understanding of their overlapping patterns. A benchmark could be the work that Baum and Rowley (2002) have done in the organization studies field. Based on a phenomenon-driven or scientific realist epistemological approach, they focus on capturing the domain of each organization perspective and the overlapping among domains. This approach creates a fish-scale pattern in which, although "each perspective does not overlap directly with every other one, adjacent perspectives share problem domains, and frequently complements each other" (Baum and Rowley, 2002:21).
In addition, given the multilevel nature of the entrepreneurship phenomenon and the emphasis of policymakers on fostering entrepreneurship as an engine for economic development and growth, more work is needed on the micro-peso-macro links and on the impact of entrepreneurship at different levels. For example, if institutions shape the entreprenuer's cognitive and motivational properties (cf. Baumol, 1968; Harper, 2004), the link between the institutional context and individual behavior constitutes an interesting multilevel area of research.
The interaction between the individual and the environment or the micro-macro link is key, not only to understanding the emergence of entrepreneurship but also to linking entrepreneurship to societal out comes. In effect, this latter topic is not only one of the proposed purposes of entrepreneurship research Low and MacMillan (1988); Low (2001) but also the criterion to analyze whether entrepreneurship is productive, unproductive, or destructive (Baumol, 1990). New firms' productivity (Shane, 2003:5) does not mean that entrepreneurship is beneficial at the societal level, unless it is assumed that firm level outcomes automatically translate to societal outcomes through an automatic coordination of self-interested individuals in a world without externalities. This assumption is neither real nor useful for prediction (Rocha and Ghoshal, 2006) and therefore it is necessary to develop a better understanding of how entrepreneurial outcomes are distributed and what kind of institutions are necessary to mediate the process. In effect, "entrepreneurial talent is not automatically dedicated to socially desirable ends--it requires institutions to accomplish this" (McGrath, 2003:527; cf. Stinchcombe, 1997).
At the methodological level, future work could focus on the link between the phenomenon under study, its specify measures, and the associated results. For example, some studies adopting a contextual or demand-side perspective of entrepreneurship have found opposite results in terms of the level of entrepreneurship due to different ways of defining and measuring entrepreneurship. For instance, population ecology predicts an inverted U relationship between density and foundings (Hannan and Freeman, 1989; Shane, 2003), while the incubator regions literature and the regional literature in general show a positive association between increasing density, as measured by specialization indices or proportion of SMEs, and firm births (Reynolds et al., 1994; Audretsch and Fritsch, 1994; Thornton, 1999). These disparate results are a consequence of differences in conceptual definitions and units of analysis, which in population ecology studies are foundings and industry or industry-region while in regional studies are generally new firms and regions, respectively. (1)
As a final word, we hope that making explicit what scholars are studying and testing and what policy makers are designing will contribute not only to a better understanding of entrepreneurship but also to an increasing dialogue between academics, practitioners, and policy makers to understand and change reality for the better.
(1) Note that these disparate results are not driven by a different research method, which in the case of population ecology is longitudinal and in that of regional studies is generally cross-sectional. In effect, the issue is that population ecology predicts decreasing rate of foundings at higher densities, while regional studies predict the opposite.
3 Conclusions and directions for future research.(Entrepreneurship safari: a phenomenon-driven search for meaning)
The entrepreneurship field is still in search of its own identity. At the same time, entrepreneurship is not only capturing the time and passion of an increasing number of scholars but also the public resources that national and international entities devote to fostering entrepreneurship as an engine for economic development and growth. As a consequence of this fast-growing interest in entrepreneurship, academics are in search of conceptual and theoretical clarity while policymakers require guidelines for designing and evaluating their entrepreneurship policies.
The definition of the phenomenon under study and object of policymaking is a fist step for defining the boundaries of a field of study and building theories to explain that phenomenon (cf. Whetten, 1989; Busenitz et al., 2003). An important part of this search for meaning is making explicit the assumptions underlying the conceptualization of the phenomenon (cf. Gartner, 2001; Alvarez, 2005).
Following this line of reasoning, we argue that one of the obstacles for understanding the entrepreneurship phenomenon is the lack of integration of different assumptions, units, and levels of analysis that are implicit in different conceptualizations of entrepreneurship that underlie current theoretical perspectives, empirical work, and public policies.
In other words, making explicit and integrating the disparate phenomena underlying the conceptualizations of entrepreneurship provided by different scholars is a necessary condition for enhancing our collective understanding about it.
Based on this research need and complementing previous work (cf. Wennekers and Thurik, 1999; Davidsson and Wiklund, 2001; Gartner, 2001; Busenitz et al., 2003; Alvarez, 2005), we adopt a phenomenon driven approach at the ontological level for building a framework that makes explicit the different phenomena or units of analysis, their associated levels of analysis, stage, and disciplines that are implicit in different conceptualizations of entrepreneurship (Figure 2.1).
Our contribution is threefold. First, assuming that the different perspectives--i.e., descriptive or explanatory coherent frameworks--on entrepreneurship are not incommensurable (Kuhn, 1962) but complementary, we contribute a complementary articulation (Smelser and Swedberg, 1994) or a scholarship of integration (Boyer, 1990) approach to capture and understand the phenomena underlying the different conceptualizations of entrepreneurship. We provide a bi-dimensional framework based on the implicit level of analysis and stage of the entrepreneurial process that integrates the different entrepreneurship-related phenomena in order to capture their underlying connections.
Second, this integration is not limited to a richer description of units of analysis and assumptions presented by different entrepreneurship perspectives. We trace back each phenomenon to its most related discipline and theoretical paradigm in order to build the link between its ontological and epistemological dimensions. This is a necessary step in any research field (cf. Busenitz et al., 2003), because each perspective contributes its own vocabulary and set of assumptions, stresses different dimensions of the same phenomena (for example, creation of organizations and corporate venture as different modes of organizing the entrepreneurial activity) or emphasizes different entrepreneurship-related phenomena (for example, entrepreneurship as the entrepreneur and entrepreneurship as the SME). This conceptual and phenomenological variety contributes a richer vision of entrepreneurship, but creates lack of understanding because different units of analysis and assumptions are handled as if they were the same. Figure 2.1 links the seven different conceptions of entrepreneurship and maps them in relation to their associated disciplines and theories, which helps to make explicit and understand their assumptions in terms of units and levels of analysis and stage in the entrepreneurial process.
Third and finally, the mapping out of different entrepreneurship-related phenomena or different aspects of the same phenomenon and their associated perspectives pave the way for establishing a clearer connection between entrepreneurship domain, theory, method, and policymaking. In effect, the seven units and eight perspectives in Figure 2.1 provides a road map for establishing the theoretical boundaries to delineate the entrepreneurship domain, building theories and formulating hypotheses consistent with the phenomenon under study (i.e. theoretical validity), identifying the most appropriate measures for each phenomenon (i.e. construct validity), and designing and implementing more coherent entrepreneurship policies.
This latter contribution opens up new horizons for future studies on entrepreneurship at the ontological, theoretical, and methodological levels. At the entrepreneurship domain or ontological level, future work could deepen the analysis of what phenomena and dimensions constitute the core of the entrepreneurship field and what phenomena and dimensions are contingent or not essential.
This work at the ontological level will have a necessary impact at the epistemological level. In effect, the nature of the phenomenon would drive the more appropriate theoretical lenses and levels of analysis to approach it. For example, if alertness to profit opportunities is the essence of entrepreneurship, economics and psychology would be the most important lenses for studying the entrepreneurship phenomenon, and the individual the most prominent level of analysis. Future work could deepen the analysis of different combinations of phenomenon-perspective-level of analysis and their interrelationship in order to increase our collective understanding of their overlapping patterns. A benchmark could be the work that Baum and Rowley (2002) have done in the organization studies field. Based on a phenomenon-driven or scientific realist epistemological approach, they focus on capturing the domain of each organization perspective and the overlapping among domains. This approach creates a fish-scale pattern in which, although "each perspective does not overlap directly with every other one, adjacent perspectives share problem domains, and frequently complements each other" (Baum and Rowley, 2002:21).
In addition, given the multilevel nature of the entrepreneurship phenomenon and the emphasis of policymakers on fostering entrepreneurship as an engine for economic development and growth, more work is needed on the micro-peso-macro links and on the impact of entrepreneurship at different levels. For example, if institutions shape the entreprenuer's cognitive and motivational properties (cf. Baumol, 1968; Harper, 2004), the link between the institutional context and individual behavior constitutes an interesting multilevel area of research.
The interaction between the individual and the environment or the micro-macro link is key, not only to understanding the emergence of entrepreneurship but also to linking entrepreneurship to societal out comes. In effect, this latter topic is not only one of the proposed purposes of entrepreneurship research Low and MacMillan (1988); Low (2001) but also the criterion to analyze whether entrepreneurship is productive, unproductive, or destructive (Baumol, 1990). New firms' productivity (Shane, 2003:5) does not mean that entrepreneurship is beneficial at the societal level, unless it is assumed that firm level outcomes automatically translate to societal outcomes through an automatic coordination of self-interested individuals in a world without externalities. This assumption is neither real nor useful for prediction (Rocha and Ghoshal, 2006) and therefore it is necessary to develop a better understanding of how entrepreneurial outcomes are distributed and what kind of institutions are necessary to mediate the process. In effect, "entrepreneurial talent is not automatically dedicated to socially desirable ends--it requires institutions to accomplish this" (McGrath, 2003:527; cf. Stinchcombe, 1997).
At the methodological level, future work could focus on the link between the phenomenon under study, its specify measures, and the associated results. For example, some studies adopting a contextual or demand-side perspective of entrepreneurship have found opposite results in terms of the level of entrepreneurship due to different ways of defining and measuring entrepreneurship. For instance, population ecology predicts an inverted U relationship between density and foundings (Hannan and Freeman, 1989; Shane, 2003), while the incubator regions literature and the regional literature in general show a positive association between increasing density, as measured by specialization indices or proportion of SMEs, and firm births (Reynolds et al., 1994; Audretsch and Fritsch, 1994; Thornton, 1999). These disparate results are a consequence of differences in conceptual definitions and units of analysis, which in population ecology studies are foundings and industry or industry-region while in regional studies are generally new firms and regions, respectively. (1)
As a final word, we hope that making explicit what scholars are studying and testing and what policy makers are designing will contribute not only to a better understanding of entrepreneurship but also to an increasing dialogue between academics, practitioners, and policy makers to understand and change reality for the better.
(1) Note that these disparate results are not driven by a different research method, which in the case of population ecology is longitudinal and in that of regional studies is generally cross-sectional. In effect, the issue is that population ecology predicts decreasing rate of foundings at higher densities, while regional studies predict the opposite.