Working paper
A research note on
knowledge-uncertainty-based learning (KUBL), using the subject of
Entrepreneurship as an example
JOSEPH KIM-KEUNG HO
Independent
Trainer
Hong
Kong, China
Dated:
November 1, 2019
Abstract: The
notion of knowledge-uncertainty-based learning (KUBL) has recently been
postulated by the writer for effective management subject learning. In order to
refine the KUBL notion, this article clarifies the nature of KUBL by comparing
it with that of knowledge-certainty-based learning (KCBL). It also offers an
example of KUBL study material via a literature review of the entrepreneurship
subject. The literature review relies exclusively on the Journal of
Entrepreneurship (Sage Publications). The article makes further enhancement of
the newly formulated KUBL notion.
Keywords: Knowledge-certainty-based
learning (KCBL), knowledge-uncertainty-based learning (KUBL), KUBL study
material, management subject learning, entrepreneurship.
Introduction
In
management subject learning, a prime thinking is that learners should strive to
build up intellectual capability on reflective learning and higher-order
thinking. This is typified by learning frameworks such as Gibb’s reflective
cycle (re: Mulder, n.d.; Finlay, 2008) and Bloom’s Taxonomy (re: Armstrong,
n.d.; Vieyra, 2006). Of late, this
writer has propounded on the importance of knowledge-uncertainty-based learning
(KUBL) as a way to pursue this intellectual capability building goal (Ho,
2019). In Ho (2019), the writer discusses the KUBL topic using the Total
Quality Management subject as an example. In this article, the writer takes
another look at KUBL, using the subject of entrepreneurship as an example. It
is, thus, a follow-up article of Ho (2019).
Knowledge-uncertainty-based learning (KUBL) as
compared with knowledge-certainty-based learning (KCBL)
To
nuture a learner’s mindset to be receptive to reflective and higher-order
learning, a management subject learner needs to understand the nature and differences
between the following two types of learning, namely, knowledge-certainty based
learning (KCBL) and knowledge-uncertainty-based learning (KUBL). In Ho (2019),
the writer explains KUBL in terms of its six underlying thinkings as well as
KUBL study materials produced via literature review. Here, a comparison of the
two learning modes is provided in Table 1 as follows:
Table 1: A comparison of knowledge-certainty
based learning (KCBL) and knowledge-uncertainty-based learning (KUBL) in terms
of attributes
|
Attributes
|
Knowledge-certainty
based learning (KCBL)
|
Knowledge-uncertainty-based
learning (KUBL)
|
|
Attribute 1:
Theoretical stance on the nature of management subject knowledge produced by
the academic community
|
Objective
|
Subjective, critical,
postmodern
|
|
Attribute 2:
Theoretical stance on the world of management practices
|
Unitary
|
Pluralistic, coercive
|
|
Attribute 3: Perceived
nature of management subject knowledge production activities
|
Rational, scientific,
progressive, cumulative, goal-directed, slightly time-space insensitive and
systematic
|
Cultural, idiosyncratic,
political, controversial, fragmental, strongly time-space sensitive, opportunistic
and imaginative
|
|
Attribute 4:
Theoretical stance on the world of academic community
|
Unitary
|
Pluralistic, coercive
|
|
Attribute 5:
Prime study materials of management subjects
|
Introductory textbooks on
management subjects and practitioners’ articles on social media
|
Academic journal articles,
notably in the form of KUBL study materials
|
|
Attribute 6:
Order of learning in terms of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning
|
Remembering, understanding,
applying and analyzing
|
Applying, analyzing, evaluating
and creating
|
Regarding
Table 1, the underlying views on nature of management subject knowledge, the
world of management practices, the perceived nature of knowledge-production activities, the
world of the academic community, main study materials relied on, learning
objectives of KCBL and KUBL are incompatible;
yet, the two learning modes are both essential for effective management subject
learning; for instance, both of them are required to meet the range of learning
needs as identified in Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning. It is by grasping their
different nature that management subject learners become more capable of making
use of both of these two learning modes in effective management subject
learning. In
addition, Ho (2019) calls for more efforts to produce KUBL study materials via
literature review and offers an example on such kind of study material for the
Total Quality Management subject. In the next section, another KUBL study
material is presented as related to the subject of Entrepreneurship.
Examining the entrepreneurship literature to
come up with KUBL study material
The
management subject considered here is entrepreneurship, which is “an act of seeking investment
and production opportunity, developing and managing a business venture, so as
to undertake production function, arranging inputs like land, labour, material
and capital, introducing new techniques and products, identifying new sources
for the enterprise” (Businessjargons.com, n.d.). In order
to produce a KUBL study material for the entrepreneurship, this writer examined
articles published in The Journal of
Entrepreneurship (Sage Publications). The range of years of publication for
this literature review exercise is from 1999 to 2019. Extracts on contention
issues, knowledge uncertainty and knowledge gaps are gathered from 30 academic
articles and incorporated into a table (re: Table 1); the key words associated
with the extracts are indicated next to the extracts. The extracts are sorted in
chronological order. Table 1 is as follows:
Table 1: Issues and related key words in entrepreneurship
research: a sample of academic articles, in chronological order
|
Years
of publication
|
Issues
and knowledge gaps as recognized in entrepreneurship academic articles:
extracts from The Journal of
Entrepreneurship
|
Key
words involved
|
|
Article 1
1999
|
“There are numerous theoretical and
empirical studies that consider attributes such as risk-taking,
innovativeness, need for achievement, and managerial competence as important
enabling qualities for entrepreneurship. A closer look into such studies
reveals that the issue of age and family background has received scant
attention, especially as explanatory variables of the phenomenon of
entrepreneurship” (Kazmi, 1999).
|
Influences of age and family background
|
|
Article 2
2000
|
“One
conceptual element that is considered a major factor in stimulating new
business creation and SME growth and development in regional and local
environments is the entrepreneurial infrastructure. Surprisingly, however,
this concept has not specifically received extensive theoretical or empirical
attention. Similarly, the decision-making process for participating in
infrastructure support networks has not been investigated” (Tan, Tan and
Young, 2000).
|
Entrepreneurial infrastructure
|
|
Article 3
2002
|
“...
we do feel that enough emphasis has
not been placed on the aspect of research on women and enterprise? Attention
paid to women as owners is also showing a decreasing trend, particularly if
one looks into what has gone into the last few years” (Ganesan, Kaur and
Maheshwari, 2002).
|
Women and enterprise
|
|
Article 4
2005
|
“Ideas behind innovation are considered not
singular and consistent for the entire development process, but are multiple
and constantly developing, perhaps diverging or converging, and ultimately
cohering into new ideas, which will have partially stable outcomes, to give
rise to spin-off ideas and projects (Chandler, Keller & Lyon, 2000;
Rogers, 2001; Van de Ven, Polley, Garud & Venkataraman, 1999; Woodman,
Sawyer & Griffin, 1993). A more complete analysis of innovation therefore,
requires a careful consideration of all the important attributes involved” (Hung and Mondejar, 2005).
|
Innovation
|
|
Article 5
2011
|
“Research within the framework of social
network theory has not paid much attention to the entrepreneurial attributes”
(Prajapati
and Biswas, 2011).
|
Social network theory
|
|
Article 6
2011
|
“There is a lively debate going on, both in
academic and political circles, concerning what elements constitute an
enabling environment for small-scale African business entrepreneurs”
(Kristiansen, 2001).
|
Small-scale business entrepreneurs
|
|
Article 7
2012
|
“Opportunity recognition (OR) is at the very heart of entrepreneurship.
However, research on OR in the context of social entrepreneurship is still in
its early stages” (Lehner
and Kaniskas, 2012).
|
Opportunity recognition
|
|
Article 8
2012
|
“Traditional ethnic entrepreneurship studies
focus on specific characteristics of a given ethnic group (Waldinger, Aldrich
& Ward, 1990). Recent research has begun to investigate how a given
ethnic group interacts with or incorporates itself into the larger economy
for a more comprehensive picture (Valdez, 2008)” (Ma, Wang and Lee,
2012).
|
Ethnic group
|
|
Article 9
2013
|
“Entrepreneurship through education was seen by many policy and
strategy leaders as a positive venture, however the growth in the early 2000s
did not appear to be co-ordinated or have a consistent approach with most
curriculum-based programmes being offered through Business Schools (ISBA,
2004; Matlay, 2005; McKeown et al., 2006; NCGE, 2008; see also Brush et al.,
2003 for provision in the US). ISBA (2004) argued that there was a need to
develop programmes tailored to the specific needs of target markets, rather
than providing generic courses” (Higgins,
Smith and Mirza, 2013).
|
Entrepreneurship education
|
|
Article 10
2013
|
“Researchers have claimed that
entrepreneurship is omnipresent in humans, but its manifestation depends on
the environment (Begley & Tan, 2001). There is a need to explore the
influence of socio-cultural characteristics on intrapreneurial orientation” (Sinha and Srivastava, 2013).
|
Socio-cultural characteristics
|
|
Article 11
2014
|
“Social Entrepreneur (SE) is an emerging
research construct with no universally accepted definition (Austin, Stevenson
& Wei-Skillern, 2006; Swanson & Zhang, 2010). SE is variously defined
in terms of an entrepreneur with a social vision and abilities to analyse,
empathise, enthuse, communicate, enable, empower, advocate and mediate (De
Leeuw, 1999; Mort, Weerawardena & Carnegie, 2003; Yunus, 2011)” (Basu and Sharma,
2014).
|
Social entrepreneurship
|
|
Article 12
2014
|
“There is a limited body of evidence
exploring the individual level differences in the opportunity or
necessity-driven entrepreneur’s profiles (Block & Wagner, 2007; Davidsson
& Wiklund, 2001; Kautonen & Palmroos, 2009). Furthermore, there is a
lack of empirical research focused on a comparison of differences between the
necessity and opportunity motivation of entrepreneurship in the
post-socialist or crossnational contexts. The majority of empirical evidence
is based on the developed economy context and there is a gap of evidence for
transitional economies or less developed countries (Giacomin, Guyot, Janssen
& Lohest, 2007; Grilo & Thurik, 2008)” (Borozan and
Pfeifer, 2014).
|
Entrepreneurship motivation
|
|
Article 13
2014
|
“While the self-employment propensity of immigrants is well documented,
little is known about what happens to ventures started up by them. Are
earnings derived from the new ventures large enough to compensate for the
opportunity cost of being self-employed?” (Irastorza and
Peña, 2014).
|
Immigrants
|
|
Article 14
2014
|
“In deciding which individual to hire for a specific job or position,
the personnel selection process is an invaluable help to choosing the person
with the most adequate profile and potential to contribute to the success of
the organisation (e.g., Schmidt & Chan, 1998; Schmidt & Hunter,
1998). It is, therefore, quite surprising that in the field of
entrepreneurship research, personnel selection theories, methods and
procedures seem to be absent” (Santos and Caetano, 2014).
|
Personnel seletion
|
|
Article 15
2014
|
“The study of entrepreneurship is quite young and while a great deal of
understanding about it has been achieved in the past decade, integrative
approaches have been rare (Antoncic, Cardon & Hisrich 2004; Cooper,
Markman & Niss, 2000; Ma & Tan 2006). Whether one argues that
strategy subsumes entrepreneurship or that entrepreneurship subsumes
strategic management, it is difficult to deny that the apparent intersection
between strategy and entrepreneurship exists (Meyer, Neck & Meeks, 2002)”
(Dhliwayo,
2014).
|
Integrative approaches
|
|
Article 16
2015
|
“Clearly, entrepreneurship research needs to
move beyond only studying the context of small, new and owner-managed firms
alone if it is to more completely capture samples that are relevant to the
phenomena associated with the emergence of new economic activity” (Mattingly, 2015).
|
New economic activity
|
|
Article 17
2015
|
“...
the past decade or so has
witnessed the emergence of a small but burgeoning subset of the
entrepreneurship literature that has started to seek to explain why
entrepreneurs operate in the informal economy both in the global South
(Bhatt, 2006; Bhowmik, 2007; Charmes, 1998; Cross, 2000; Cross & Morales,
2007; Das, 2003; Gurtoo & Williams, 2009, 2011; Minard, 2009; Unni &
Rani, 2003) and global North (Barbour & Llanes, 2013; Dellot, 2012;
Llanes & Barbour, 2007; Small Business Council, 2004; Venkatesh, 2006;
Webb, Bruton, Tihanyi & Ireland, 2013; Webb, Ireland & Ketchen, 2014;
Williams, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009; Webb, Tihanyi, Ireland & Sirmon, 2009;
Williams, Nadin & Baric, 2011). The result is that competing theories
have emerged to explain informal sector entrepreneurship” (Williams and
Youssef, 2015).
|
Informal economy
|
|
Article 18
2015
|
“The past several decades have witnessed
numerous attempts at incorporating the concept of entrepreneurship into
mainstream economic theory. The revival of this concept was spurred by the
acute realisation of its absence from economic theory, as well as by the
ever-growing interest of policy makers in finding out how entrepreneurship
can lead to economic growth (Audretsch & Thurik, 2001)” (Dorobat and
Topan, 2015).
|
Economic theory
|
|
Article 19
2015
|
“Various conceptualisations of social
entrepreneurship have emphasised one common purpose of social entrepreneurial
ventures (SEVs)—that of devising creative ways to address long-standing
social problems (Alter, 2004; Alvord, Brown & Letts, 2004; Bornstein,
2007; Dees, 2001; Mair & MartÃ, 2006; Martin & Osberg, 2007; Trivedi &
Stokols, 2011). Despite their orientation towards the mitigation of
intractable social problems, many social enterprises are unsuccessful in
creating positive and sustained social change (Hamschmidt & Pirson,
2011)” (Trivedi
and Misra, 2015).
|
Social entrepreneurship; sustainable social change
|
|
Article 20
2016
|
“Patterns and determinants of firm growth
are one of the classic, but still most emphasised, topics in management
studies. At the same time, both organisational networks and entrepreneurial
orientation (EO) emerged as an important area of inquiry within
entrepreneurship. However, these three constructs have not previously been
linked together” (Martins,
2016).
|
Organisational networks; entrepreneurial orientation
|
|
Article 21
2016
|
“Though historical research on entrepreneurship did begin during the
early part of the twentieth century, it moved to the sidelines, giving centre
stage to the more popular managerial and organisational approaches of the
1970s. While it seems logical to blame Chandler (Wadhwani & Jones, 2006) for
the same, it seems doubtful to hold him fully responsible. In recent times,
there has been a resurgence of interest in historical approaches to studying
entrepreneurship” (Shankar,
2016).
|
Historical research
|
|
Article 22
2017
|
“Several studies have examined women’s entrepreneurship and associated
barriers in different contexts..... However, no study has sought to rank and
establish causal relationships among various barriers to women’s
entrepreneurship” (Raghuvanshi,
Agrawal and Ghosh, 2017).
|
Women’s entrepreneurship
|
|
Article 23
2017
|
“While economics and sociology literature on informal firms is
relatively well developed, entrepreneurship and management journals offer
articles that focus on informal ventures from theory-building perspective and
macro-level analysis through panel data (Bruton, Ireland, & Ketchen,
2012; Thai & Turkina, 2014; Webb, Bruton, Tihanyi, & Ireland, 2013).
Very few studies have adopted the cognitive or behavioural point of view to
study entrepreneurship in an informal setting” (Hallam and
Zanella, 2017).
|
Cognitive and behaviourial views
|
|
Article 24
2017
|
“Research has focused primarily on social entrepreneurs’ motivations
and intentions (e.g., generating economic or ‘social’ value; Zahra,
Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009), less on their behaviours (e.g.,
attempting to unite economic and social welfare logics of action (Basu &
Sharma, 2014; Pache & Santos, 2013) and almost not at all on their function in the economy (cf. Santos, 2012 for an
exception). Indeed, a fundamental question has only begun to be explored: do social entrepreneurs fulfil a unique function
in the marketplace?” (Roundy and
Bonnal, 2017).
|
Economic and social welfare logics of action
|
|
Article 25
2018
|
“A key limitation of the SE [strategic
entrepreneurship] perspective is that
it suffers from a lack of empirical evidence regarding the balance between
opportunity-seeking and advantageseeking activities and the absence of a
concrete SE model to be applied in empirical studies (Foss & Lyngsie,
2011; Klein, Barney, & Foss, 2012; Luke, Kearins, & Verreynne, 2011).
Moreover, contingency-based research has provided insufficient evidence of SE
effects on firm performance (FP) (Schindehutte & Morris, 2009)” (Kim, 2018).
|
Strategic entrepreneurship
|
|
Article 26
2018
|
“Given that the informal sector constitutes
the largest share of the urban labour force in Ethiopia, examining the effect
of networks on entrepreneurial outcomes is an important yet
under-investigated research area” (Kebede, 2018).
|
Network effect
|
|
Article 27
2018
|
“The role of entrepreneurship in promoting
innovation in large firms has received considerable empirical attention.
There is a widely held view in the literature that entrepreneurship and
innovation are tightly intertwined (Fagerberg, Fossas, & Sappprasert,
2012). However, the relationship between entrepreneurship and innovation is
not well articulated (Landström, Åström, & Harirchi, 2013; Maritz &
Donovan, 2013)” (Arshi
and Burns, 2018).
|
Innovation and entrepreneurship
|
|
Article 28
2019
|
“Since OR [organisational renewal] is
considered essential to respond to a changing environment, it would be
prudent to study this phenomenon, including its antecedents. An
entrepreneurial mindset among an organisation’s managers, as well as rank and
file, is essential for OR (Chakravarthy & Lorange, 2008; Taylor,
2001).... does CE [corporate
entrepreneurship] indeed lead to OR? If this is true, how are they linked?
Second, how can OR, a firm-level construct, be translated to the functional
level, such as operations?” (Joshi, Kathuria and Das, 2019).
|
Organisational renewal
|
|
Article 29
2019
|
“Despite the insights produced by EE [entrepreneurial ecosystems]
research, studies have not developed a theory explaining the mechanisms
through which vibrant EEs influence entrepreneurial activity” (Roundy and
Fayard, 2019).
|
Entrepreneurial ecosystems
|
|
Article 30
2019
|
“....
an entrepreneur can be
driven by multiple sources of passion, which can positively complement each
other or induce conflicts impacting the development of EP [entrepreneurial
passion] and performance. Although Cardon, Glauser, and Murnieks (2017)
provide evidence for far more sources of EP, such as passion for people,
social causes, products or services, there are almost no empirical studies
that deal with origins, developments and effects of passion that emerge from
such multiple sources and domains.” (Schulte-Holthaus, 2019).
|
Entrepreneurs’ passion
|
Regarding
Table 1, the main content issues, knowledge uncertainty and knowledge gaps are
related to (i) personal and social factors (re: articles 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12,
13, 17, 22, 23, 29 and 30) (ii) management theories (re: articles 4, 5, 7, 18,
26, 27 and 28) and (iii) subthemes in entrepreneurship practices (re: articles
9, 11, 14, 15, 19 and 25). Overall, the
various entrepreneurship issues do not fizzle out, though some of them have a
more recent research history, e.g., social entrepreneurship, strategic
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystem. As the sample size of extracts
is small and its source is exclusively from one academic journal, i.e., The Journal of Entrepreneurship, Table 1
primarily serves as an illustration of KUBL study materials on the
entrepreneurship subject.
Concluding remarks
On
postulating the new topic of knowledge-uncertainty-based learning (KUBL), the
writer has produced a pioneering work, using the Total Quality Management
subject as an example (Ho, 2019). This article is a second one on KUBL. It
refines the KUBL idea further with another literature review example on the
entrepreneurship subject. More intellectual effort is required to conceptually
develop this topic further, nevertheless. Lastly, the writer admits the
influence of his research work on managerial intellectual learning (re:
Facebook page on Managerial intellectual
learning) and the multi-perspective, systems-based research (re: Facebook
page on the multi-perspective,
systems-based research) in formulating the KUBL topic; thus, studying the
subject of managerial intellectual learning is of use to gain a deeper
understanding of KUBL.
References
Arshi,
T. and Burns, P. 2018.”Entrepreneurial Architecture: A Framework to Promote Innovation in Large
Firms” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 27(2): 151–179.
Basu,
S. and Sharma, A. 2014. “Exploring Stewardship as an Antecedent Behavioural
Trait of Social Entrepreneurs” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 23(1): 19–33.
Borozan,
D. and Pfeifer, S. 2014. “Exploring Entrepreneurs’ Motivation: Comparison of
Croatia, European Post-socialist and Developed Countries” The Journal of
Entrepreneurship 23(2): 263–287.
Dhliwayo,
S. 2014. “Entrepreneurship and Competitive Strategy: An Integrative Approach” The
Journal of Entrepreneurship 23(1):
115–135.
Dorobat,
C.E. and Topan, M.V. 2015. “Entrepreneurship and Comparative Advantage” The Journal of
Entrepreneurship 24(1): 1–16.
Ganesan, R., Kaur, D. and Maheshwari,
R.G. 2002. “Women Entrepreneurs: Problems and Prospects” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 11(1): 75-93.
Hallam,
C.R.A. and Zanella, G. 2017. “Informal Entrepreneurship and Past Experience in
an Emerging Economy” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 26(2): 163–175.
Higgins, D., Smith, K. and
Mirza, M. 2013. “Entrepreneurial Education: Reflexive Approaches to Entrepreneurial
Learning in Practice” The Journal of
Entrepreneurship 22(2): 135–160.
Ho,
J.K.K. 2019. “A research note on knowledge-uncertainty-based learning (KUBL),
using Total Quality Management (TQM) subject as an example” European Academic Research 7(8)
November: 3763-3778.
Hung, H. and Mondejar, R. 2005.
“Corporate Directors and Entrepreneurial Innovation: An Empirical Study” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 14(2): 117-129.
Irastorza,
N. and Peña, I. 2014 “Earnings of Immigrants: Does Entrepreneurship Matter?” The
Journal of Entrepreneurship 23(1):
35–56.
Jackson, M.C. 2003. Systems thinking: creative holism for
managers, Wiley.
Joshi,
M.P., Kathuria, R. and Das, S. 2019. “Corporate Entrepreneurship in the Digital
Era: The Cascading Effect through Operations” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 28(1): 4–34.
Kazmi, A. 1999. “What Young
Entrepreneurs Think and Do: A Study of Second-Generation Business
Entrepreneurs” The Journal of
Entrepreneurship 8(1): 67-77.
Kebede,
G.F. 2018. “Social Capital and Entrepreneurial Outcomes: Evidence from Informal
Sector Entrepreneurs in Ethiopia” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 27(2): 209–242.
Kim,
H.J. 2018. “Reconciling Entrepreneurial Orientation and Dynamic Capabilities: A
Strategic Entrepreneurship Perspective” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 27(2) 180–208.
Kristiansen, S. 2001. “Promoting
African Pioneers in Business: What Makes a Context Conducive to Small-Scale
Entrepreneurship?” The Journal of
Entrepreneurship 10(1): 43-69.
Lehner,
O.M. and Kaniskas, J. 2012. “Opportunity Recognition in Social Entrepreneurship:
A Thematic Meta Analysis” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 21(1) 25–58.
Ma,
Z.Z., Wang, T.T. and Lee, Y. 2012. “The Status of International Ethnic
Entrepreneurship Studies: A Co-citation Analysis” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 21(2): 173–199.
Martins,
I. 2016. “Network Usage, Entrepreneurial Orientation and Their Effectiveness on
SMEs Growth” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 25(1) 18–41.
Mattingly,
E.S. 2015. “Dependent Variables in Entrepreneurship Research” The Journal of
Entrepreneurship 24(2): 223–241.
Prajapati,
K. and Biswas, S.N. 2011. “Effect of Entrepreneur Network and Entrepreneur
Self-efficacy on Subjective Performance: A Study of Handicraft and Handloom
Cluster” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 20(2): 227–247.
Raghuvanshi,
J. Agrawal, R., and Ghosh, P.K. 2017. “Analysis of Barriers to Women
Entrepreneurship: The DEMATEL Approach” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 26(2): 220–238.
Roundy,
P.T. and Bonnal, M. 2017. “The Singularity of Social Entrepreneurship:
Untangling its Uniqueness and Market Function” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 26(2): 137–162.
Roundy,
P.T. and Fayard, D. 2019. “Dynamic Capabilities and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems:
The Micro-Foundations of Regional Entrepreneurship” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 28(1): 94–120.
Santos,
S.C. and Caetano, A. 2014. “Entrepreneur Selection Methodology for
Entrepreneurship Promotion Programmes” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 23(2): 201–230.
Schulte-Holthaus,
S. 2019. “Passion and Performance in Entrepreneurial Contexts: An
Interest-based Approach” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 28(2): 201–222.
Shankar,
R.K. 2016. “Indian Entrepreneurship through a Historical Lens: A Dialogue with Dwijendra
Tripathi” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 25(1) 1–17.
Sinha, N. and Srivastava, B.L.
2013. “Association of Personality, Work Values and Socio-cultural Factors with
Intrapreneurial Orientation” The
Journal of Entrepreneurship 22(1): 97–113.
Tan, T.M., Tan, W.L. and Young, J.E.
2000. “Entrepreneurial Infrastructure in Singapore: Developing a Model and
Mapping Participation” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 9(1): 1–33.
Trivedi,
C. and Misra, S. 2015. “Relevance of Systems Thinking and Scientific Holism to
Social Entrepreneurship” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 24(1): 37–62.
Williams,
C.C. and Youssef, Y. 2015. “Theorising Entrepreneurship in the Informal Sector
in Urban Brazil: A Product of Exit or Exclusion?” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 24(2): 148–168.
