Using Integrative Propositional Analysis for Evaluating Entrepreneurship Theories

Previous studies have noted a proliferation of disparate theories of entrepreneurship. This makes it difficult to find the best theory for application in teaching, practice, and research. Choosing the right entrepreneurship theories to teach and encourage is critical to providing entrepreneurs with the knowledge they need to succeed. Scholars have recommended integrating entrepreneurship theories across disciplines and across practice; however, rigorous methods to assess and integrate the best theories are lacking. Integrative propositional analysis is an emerging method to assess and improve theories using the theory structure as data, rather than relying on empirical data and opinion alone. This exploratory study pilot tested this approach with a sample of nine entrepreneurship theories. Several insights emerged that entrepreneurship researchers, educators, and practitioners can use to synthesize and improve theories for their specific needs and to collaboratively integrate the best theories from research and experience to create better theories.

[1]  Thomas J. Holmes,et al.  A Theory of Entrepreneurship and Its Application to the Study of Business Transfers , 1990, Journal of Political Economy.

[2]  George Ritzer,et al.  Metatheorizing in sociology , 1991 .

[3]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[4]  Holger Schiele,et al.  Consortium benchmarking: Collaborative academic–practitioner case study research , 2011 .

[5]  D. Audretsch,et al.  An Eclectic Theory of An Eclectic Theory of Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship , 2001 .

[6]  P. Murphy,et al.  A Model of Social Entrepreneurial Discovery , 2009 .

[7]  Steven E. Wallis.  Structures of Logic in Policy and Theory: Identifying Sub-systemic Bricks for Investigating, Building, and Understanding Conceptual Systems , 2015 .

[8]  Steven E. Wallis.  How to Choose between Policy Proposals: A Simple Tool Based on Systems Thinking and Complexity Theory , 2013 .

[9]  D. Kuratko.  The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends, and Challenges , 2005 .

[10]  Mark C. Casson.  Entrepreneurship and the Theory of the Firm , 2005 .

[11]  Sandra Schruijer,et al.  The use of cognitive mapping in eliciting and evaluating group cognitions , 2010 .

[12]  Steven E. Wallis.  Validation of Theory: Exploring and Reframing Popper's Worlds , 2008 .

[13]  What constitutes successful entrepreneurship? An analysis of recent Australasian awards experiences , 2004 .

[14]  Patricia H. Thornton.  THE SOCIOLOGY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP , 1999 .

[15]  Steven E. Wallis.  A Systems Approach to Understanding Theory: Finding the Core, Identifying Opportunities for Improvement, and Integrating Fragmented Fields , 2014 .

[16]  Gordon E. Shockley,et al.  Virgil’s Aeneas as the Quintessential Social Entrepreneur: Juxtaposing Selections from Epic Poetry and Entrepreneurship Theory to Teach Social Entrepreneurship , 2010 .

[17]  B. Flyvbjerg.  Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research , 2006, 1304.1186.

[18]  Steven E. Wallis.  Toward the Development of More Robust Policy Models , 2010 .

[19]  Pat R I C I,et al.  Rogers : Using Programme Theory to Evaluate Complicated 29 Using Programme Theory to Evaluate Complicated and Complex Aspects of Interventions , 2007 .

[20]  Lowell W. Busenitz,et al.  The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory , 2001 .

[21]  S. Zahra.  Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: A taxonomic approach , 1993 .

[22]  Peter Suedfeld,et al.  Integrative Complexity of Communications in International Crises , 1977 .

[23]  Z. Ács,et al.  The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship , 2005 .