A R T I C L E S Entrepreneurship���s Next Act Shaker A. Zahra and Mike Wright Executive Overview Entrepreneurship has become firmly established as a legitimate scholarly discipline. For entrepreneurship to influence managerial practice and public policy, however, we believe there needs to be a substantive shift in the focus, content, and methods of entrepreneurship research. We discuss ways this shift could occur, highlighting the need to recognize the multiple dimensions of entrepreneurial activities���and the impor- tance of examining the heterogeneous aspects of context and factoring them into future theory building and testing efforts���and delineating the microfoundations of entrepreneurship. We also discuss how to strengthen the link between entrepreneurship research and public policy. Hrance���itDanielthe istorian J. Boorstin observed, ���The greatest obstacle to discovery is not igno- is illusion of knowledge��� (Boorstin, 1985, p. 86). Scholarly progress, there- fore, requires us to assess what we know and how well we know it as well as what we don���t know. We would do well to apply this perspective to entrepreneurship research, which, as a scholarly discipline, has achieved widespread recognition with business schools and policymakers, yet is still the subject of much debate regarding its boundar- ies and the rigor, relevance, and impact of its findings. This duality raises thorny issues about how entrepreneurship research is likely to evolve. In this article, we sketch out several key changes that can help reconstruct the entrepre- neurship field and make it more influential for practicing managers and policymakers. Our sug- gested changes center on (1) developing and using richer indicators of entrepreneurial activities, (2) engaging more fully with the context when study- ing entrepreneurship, (3) examining the micro- foundations of entrepreneurial phenomena, and (4) connecting entrepreneurship research to pub- lic policy making. These are essential steps to refocus the field and achieve the substantive shift we aspire to see. By discussing each suggestion below, we hope to provide a coherent set of di- mensions of context, analyzing and recognizing the intimate link between process and context as well as clarifying the intersection of process and the organizational mode of entrepreneurship, and analyzing the disconnect between process and en- trepreneurial activities aiming to address the dis- connect between these dimensions and policy design. EntrepreneurshipResearch���sGrowingPains Idepartments n recent years universities around the world have developed research centers and academic that offer specialized curricula and training in the essentials of creating, managing, and growing firms (Zahra, Newey, & Shaver, 2011). This has contributed to the rapid growth of academic research into entrepreneurship and en- trepreneurs through the use of rigorous and inno- Shaker A. Zahra (zahra004@umn.edu) is the Department Chair, Robert E. Buuck Chair of Entrepreneurship, and Academic Director of the Gary S. Holmes Entrepreneurship Center, Department of Strategic Management and Organization, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota. * Mike Wright (mike.wright@imperial.ac.uk) is Professor of Entrepreneurship, Centre for Management Buy-out Research, Imperial College Business School, London, and Visiting Professor, University of Ghent. 2011 67 Zahra and Wright Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder���s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2010.0149

vative methods borrowed from other disciplines (Davidsson, Low, & Wright, 2001 Short, Ketchen, Combs, & Ireland, 2010 Ucbasaran, Westhead, & Wright, 2001). Entrepreneurship re- search has been conducted at multiple levels (Shepherd, 2011), including events, processes, in- dividuals, firms, and societies. Recent research has adopted an international comparative focus (Li & Zahra, in press), and entrepreneurship research is also increasing its penetration into the top jour- nals in management, organization behavior, strat- egy, and finance (Ireland, Reutzel, & Webb, 2005), further legitimizing the field and improving our appreciation of entrepreneurs��� decision mak- ing and their strategies (Wiklund, Davidsson, Au- dretsch, & Karlsson, 2011). Though recent progress cannot be disputed, we believe that the time has come for a substantive shift in the focus, content, and methods of entre- preneurship research (Sorenson & Stuart, 2008). This shift is essential to give meaning to the findings, clarify the field���s contestable boundaries, and enhance the overall research quality. A sub- stantive shift such as we envision will require reframing the field, not simply relying on incre- mental research filling known research gaps and voids. Studies that fill such gaps typically address particular and often well-defined research issues. These studies serve the field well and reflect the growing maturity of the entrepreneurship field and the move toward ���normal science.��� This rep- lication and extension research fails to challenge, however, taken-for-granted assumptions about en- trepreneurship and entrepreneurs, making it diffi- cult to engage in path-breaking (consensus- changing) research. This has led McMullen and Shepherd (2006b) to lament the reluctance of senior faculty to engage in consensus-changing research. To make a contribution, papers need to do more than fill in the potholes in a well-trodden path (Barley, 2006). This emphasis on incremen- tal, rather than consensus-changing, research seems to assume that we know what the bound- aries of the field look like and tends to dissuade examination of new areas outside this matrix (Clark & Wright, 2009). We also need studies that give meaning to the field, challenge its assumptions, define fundamen- tal research questions, and frame its fundamental foci. These studies will have to transcend partic- ular gaps, redrawing the field anew by raising new issues with the potential to shape the evolution and nature of scholarship. This is likely to entail a process of ���creative reconstruction��� because a new frame of reference is necessary to bring about the substantive shift we envision. Even with the field���s legitimacy so firmly estab- lished and our working knowledge of entrepre- neurial activities improved, questions persist about the cumulative value of research findings and the future direction of this research (Sorenson & Stuart, 2008). Some lament the absence of ���engaged scholarship,��� as researchers do not suffi- ciently examine the behavior of real entrepreneurs (Meyer, 2009). They also note that entrepreneur- ship research remains fragmented, probably because of the persistent debates about the definition of the field and the absence of a coherent and widely ac- cepted conceptual framework. This often limits con- versations within the field to smaller and fragmented groups whose members ���talk��� to a few others rather than engaging with a broader audience. Drawn from numerous disciplines, entrepreneurship scholars continue to espouse different assumptions, perspec- tives, and theoretical traditions (Zahra & Newey, 2009). Some have suggested that entrepreneurship scholars should follow what strategy researchers have done to grow their field. Other researchers have expressed concern that following the evolu- tionary growth path adopted by strategy scholars would render the entrepreneurship field a great disservice by obscuring its distinctiveness (Meyer, 2009). They propose that strategy research has become rigorous by sacrificing relevance, adopting a narrow focus, and studying a small number of dependent variables. Further, they claim that strategy research ignores the complex issues orga- nizations face. We do not share these ill-founded fears and see much in common between these two disciplines, which both have benefited from ���ac- ademic arbitrage��� by applying theories from other fields. Entrepreneurship research can grow by pur- suing creative and important questions while in- creasing its attention to methodological rigor that starts by paying careful attention to the context of 68 November Academy of Management Perspectives

research to identify relevant questions and factor in the nature of the context when developing theory and methods. Equally important, to pro- mote creativity and rigor, researchers need to re- vise their notions regarding the measures used to gauge entrepreneurship, an issue we discuss next. RicherIndicatorsofEntrepreneurshipand EntrepreneurialActivities Eassociated ntrepreneurial activities are complex and ex- hibit considerable variation in the processes with them and their outcomes (Iversen, J��rgensen, & Malchow-M��eller, 2007). This suggests a need for a richer set of indicators of these variables than commonly used in current research. We believe that the persistent debate about the domain of entrepreneurship has over- shadowed attention to its systematic measure- ment. Differences in measures reflect the disciplinary heritage of entrepreneurship researchers, with economists using measures that differ significantly from those used by researchers in the psychology field (Westhead, Wright, & McElwee, 2011). Economists typically assume that entrepreneurs differ in their ability, and as a result economics- based measures usually emphasize occupational choices of different individuals, and their analyses tend to focus on cost and production functions. In addition, economists focus more on the risk-bear- ing abilities of entrepreneurs and differences in perceptions of the risks associated with entrepre- neurship. Psychologists also have tackled the issues asso- ciated with risk taking by entrepreneurs, but gen- erally focus more on individual differences such as self-efficacy, need for achievement, locus of con- trol, and tolerance for ambiguity (Cardon, Win- cent, Singh, & Drnovsek, 2009 McMullen & Shepherd, 2006a Rindova, Barry, & Ketchen, 2009). Despite the abundance of empirical studies covering these issues in several countries and nu- merous populations over a 30-year span, the dia- logue between psychology-based and economics- based entrepreneurship research has been minimal. Fortunately, greater care is being exer- cised today in using economic as well as psycho- logical theories to study entrepreneurs and their behaviors (Foo, Uy, & Baron, 2009). Differences in theoretical foundations aside, re- cent research has used multiple indicators of en- trepreneurship within and across countries (for a review, see Iversen et al., 2007). These measures provide only a glimpse into the intensity of entre- preneurial activities performed by individuals or in a society. Since the entrepreneurial process is complex and usually unfolds over time, some re- searchers have focused on capturing intentions to engage in entrepreneurship and related attitudes (Iversen et al., 2007). In contrast, other research- ers have emphasized the consequences of entre- preneurial activities, like the share of these firms in gross domestic product (GDP) and changes in this share over time. This variety of definitions reflects the diverse intellectual roots of the entrepreneurship field, differences in entrepreneurial motives, the plural- ity of the theoretical and empirical perspectives used within the field, and the complexity and multidimensionality of the entrepreneurial pro- cess itself. Given these fundamental differences, it is not surprising that these measures are not sig- nificantly related to each other or even are nega- tively associated (Iversen et al., 2007). Further, popular measures do not pay sufficient attention to the entrepreneurial process itself, the actors involved, the context of these activities, or the results achieved. For instance, the type of opportunities that entrepreneurs might recognize (Shane & Venkataraman, 2001) is often ignored when constructing these measures. Researchers also overlook the variety of opportunities that could be recognized from a single discovery or invention. They also fail to appreciate that pro- gression along the various stages of opportunity articulation can yield rich and important insights that could become the foundation of new firm creation. Researchers often neglect the contribu- tions of entrepreneurial discovery and exploita- tion in existing companies (Narayanan, Yang, & Zahra, 2009 Phan, Wright, Ucbasaran, & Tan, 2009) or those that follow the acquisition of a firm by an entrepreneur or incumbent management (Meuleman, Amess, Wright, & Scholes, 2009 Wright, Hoskisson, Busenitz, & Dial, 2000). 2011 69 Zahra and Wright