A collective-evolutionary alternative for appraising entrepreneurship theory. (May 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wood, Matthew S; Fisher, Greg
• Is Part Of: Strategic organization. Volume 21:Number 2(2023)
• Page Start: 416
• Page End: 428
• Publication Date: 2023-05
• Subjects: alternative perspectives -- entrepreneurship -- philosophy of science -- theory evaluation -- theory progress; Management -- Periodicals; Organization -- Periodicals; Business planning -- Periodicals; Strategic planning -- Periodicals; Gestion stratégique; Planification stratégique; Théorie des organisations; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); 658.4012
• DOI: 10.1177/14761270221089959
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1476-1270

Abstract

In a recent Strategic Organization essay, Arend analyzed four papers as contributions to entrepreneurship theory. He concluded that progress toward building unique-to-field conceptualizations is impeded because contributions in the domain are not sufficiently novel, do not cover the breadth of the phenomenon, and fail to offer normative guidance to practicing entrepreneurs. In this essay, we respond to these conclusions by examining the premise behind the evaluation of theory progress used to derive them, and then drawing on insights from the philosophy of science research to introduce a collective-evolutionary perspective as an alternative for the appraisal of entrepreneurship theory. Our alternative view shifts the focus from single papers toward evaluating theory as a collection of contributions that appear over time. Under this perspective, it is the degree to which newer theories take up insights from prior theory in an evolutionary fashion that serves as a key indicator of progress. Recognizing this, we advocate for a path toward productive theorizing in entrepreneurship where borrowing insights from prior cross-disciplinary theory is a strength rather than weakness, where wide-scope theory is important at the research program level while narrow scope is appropriate for individual contributions, and where obsession over the novelty of theory concepts undermines the continuity needed to produce a reliable body of knowledge.