Separated by a common language? Entrepreneurship research across the atlantic.

While recent inventories and assessments of the entrepreneurship field examine the focus, purpose, and methods, one area receiving less attention is the outcome or dependent variable. The outcome variable is of critical importance in scholarship, as it is a leading indicator of the cumulative nature of the scholarship in our field. This paper reviews 389 articles published over the past 3 years in four top entrepreneurship journals; two published in the United States and two published in Europe. It classifies the scholarship by theoretical underpinnings, independent variables, dependent variables, and then looks at the variation in these by origin of the journal. Results indicate that entrepreneurship researchers are using a wide variety of dependent variables, that the most popular unit of analysis is the firm, and that performance, broadly defined, is the most popular dependent variable. Implications for future research are discussed.

Introduction

Thomas Kuhn (1970) offered a theory of the development of scientific fields suggesting that they progress through identifiable stages. In most fields, these stages are characterized by an accumulation of reliable empirical results and the derivation of replicable tools and general principles (VanderWerf & Brush, 1989). Often there is no consensus on definition, so disagreements arise because of scholars' roots in different disciplinary areas (Hagstrom, 1965). However, a lack of consensus is not necessarily a hindrance to achieving empirical progress in a field. History shows that an emerging field often converges on a few distinct populations that are narrowed over time. After a period of accelerated research on a particular topic, the empirical field broadens again (VanderWerf & Brush, 1989).

But as a field moves forward, accelerating and decelerating at various times, there is tension as it broadens or narrows in focus. To account for the variation in scholarship, social scientists suggest that a domain definition must be both comprehensive and parsimonious (Dubin, 1978; Whetten, 1989). Emergent fields are frequently characterized by competition and debates as different dimensions are explored (Ritzer, 1975). In Entrepreneurship, one of our main institutions, the Academy of Management Entrepreneurship Division has endorsed a broad definition of the domain of entrepreneurship:

[Entrepreneurship is] the creation and management of new

businesses, small businesses and family businesses, and the

characteristics and special problems of entrepreneurs. Major topics

include: new venture ideas and strategies; ecological influences on

venture creation and demise; the acquisition and management of

venture capital and venture teams; self-employment; the

owner-manager; management succession; corporate venturing and the

relationship between entrepreneurship and economic development

(Revised 4/95). (1)

This broad definition permits scholars to focus on different areas, levels, and populations, defining entrepreneurship in a way that fits their research (Davidsson, Low, & Wright, 2001). On the other hand, this statement also suggests it is difficult to have a comprehensive theory and the inclusive nature of the topics of study runs the risk of becoming a field that is a potpourri (Gartner, 2001).

Other scholars argue for a narrow domain definition and research that focuses on what is distinctive about entrepreneurship (Gartner, 2001; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). They suggest developing a domain that predicts a set of empirical phenomena not explained by other fields, for example newness, novelty or creation (Brush et al., 2003; Busenitz et al., 2003; Dailey, McDougall, Covin, & Dalton, 2002; Sharma & Chrisman, 1999). A narrow focus on stable characteristics permits scholars the opportunity to compare and contrast studies; however it limits the breadth of topics studied.

As these debates continue, from time to time reviews and assessments identify whether we are making progress, what we are studying and what the new research directions might be (Aldrich, 1992; Aldrich & Baker, 1997; Davidsson et al., 2001; Low & MacMillan, 1988). But, the definition of progress is not always clear. Aldrich (1992) noted that the field had expanded its repertoire of research designs and analytical techniques, and he proposed that research directions depend on the assumptions we make about the scientific and normative structure of the field. First, the unified or normal science view holds that progress is achieved when there is an accumulation of empirically tested hypotheses and well grounded generalizations, developed through quantitative data, rigorous design, and statistical techniques (Kuhn, 1970). Researchers test theories using hypotheses to replicate and confirm previous findings, working to achieve continuity (Aldrich & Baker, 1997). Second, an alternative perspective suggests that researchers should emphasize diversity of theories and methods, where subgroups of entrepreneurship researchers develop communities with varying methods and standards (Gartner, 2001). Third, a pragmatic view suggests that the issues addressed assume more prominence than the methods, which can change as the researcher's purpose and conditions change. In the pragmatic view, the pursuit of uniqueness is valued more than continuity (Mone & McKinley, 1993). This could be considered to be of practical relevance where investigations might be more phenomena driven, seeking to obtain results which have implications for education, practitioners, or policy (Hoy, 1997).

Several assessments of the field have addressed the question of progress. Some focused on the context and process of entrepreneurship, while others examined different aspects of the field, notably the purpose of research (Low, 2001), assumptions in theory development (Gartner, 2001), new perspectives (Aldrich & Martinez, 2001), level of analysis (Davidsson & Wiklund, 2001), and research design and construct measurement (Chandler & Lyon, 2001). Empirical literature reviews have examined domain boundaries, by determining the extent to which entrepreneurship articles are published in other management journals (Busenitz et al., 2003); reviewed empirical studies to examine how firm level performance was measured (Murphy, Trailer, & Hill, 1996); examined the topics of inquiry used in empirical studies (Thornhill & Celly, 2006); and considered the source of data and measurement techniques (Chandler & Lyon, 2001).

While recent inventories and assessments provoked our thinking, we found two areas that received less attention. First, despite the rapid internationalization of our scholarly community, trends emerging from different areas of the world have not been comprehensively captured in prior literature reviews. The field of entrepreneurship is truly a global community if we consider that the International Council for Small Business currently has 11 country-based or regional affiliates containing 2,400 members from over 70 countries. The Academy of Management Entrepreneurship Division has more than 2,000 academic members, a significant percentage of whom are from international business schools. Finally, the Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference receives upwards of 600 submissions each year and nearly 50% are from scholars from outside the U.S. The expansion of European research, scholarly conferences, publications, and participation raises the question as to whether or not there are any differences in perspectives or research cross-nationally.

Second, the dependent variable received less attention in previous reviews. Previous literature reviews in entrepreneurship examined performance measurement (Brush & VanderWerf, 1992; Murphy et al., 1996) focusing on firm-level outcomes, but fewer assessments of the entrepreneurship literature considered the outcomes or dependent variable more broadly (Thornhill & Celly, 2006). A better understanding of the dependent variable, the theories employed in entrepreneurship research and the inference approaches taken to study those theories and variables, might well inform us as to whether the field is broadening or narrowing, and hence the progress we are making. To examine the entrepreneurship scholarship in general, the dependent variable in particular, and the differences in European/U.S. trends in research, we address three broad research questions in this paper:

1. What are the different approaches in entrepreneurship research?

2. What are the outcomes/dependent variables most often employed by entrepreneurship researchers?

3. What are the variations in approaches and outcomes/dependent variables across origin of journal?

In the next sections we describe our methodology, present and then discuss our findings, and offer future research directions and conclusions.

Methodology

Data Collection