Abstract
This edited book with 13 chapters by 18 leading entrepreneurship academics and a short two-page reading list adds uniquely to the ongoing debate on how to consider context in entrepreneurship research by offering cutting-edge insights developing the field. A dialogue between Welter, Gartner and Wright offers a different introduction: they reflect on their learning, discussing significant publications on entrepreneurship and context, the reason for the emerging interest and how to contextualise theories and practice. This review focuses on cross-themes and unique contributions to the debate.
Focusing our attention on the dependency of entrepreneurial cognitions on contexts (Chapter 2), Brännback and Carsrud explore how cognitions influence entrepreneurial processes. Of particular interest is the impact of cognitive maps for contextual meaning development, which offer orientation while simultaneously limiting our capacity for innovation. Steyaert’s distinguished contribution (Chapter 3) offers a nuanced critical deconstruction and reconstruction of the context discussion, whereas most other chapters focus on the what and how of context consideration. He adds the dimensions of language and texts to the analysis (see also Chapter 2) and highlights – as do Drakopoulou Dodd, Pret and Shaw – the need to integrate the contextualisation of the role of the researcher’s impact into the co-creation of interview outputs.
Baker and Powell (Chapter 4) reiterate a continued need for emancipatory research to deconstruct further inequality of opportunity. Reviewing existing research findings, they conclude that currently the two bodies on inequality of opportunity (‘outside’ and ‘inside’) often do not integrate the insights of the other viewpoint. They recommend building on insights from sociology and social psychology and applying a life course perspective or comparative work across opportunity contexts; for example, applying theories of identity to founder identity research could bridge outside and inside perspectives.
One cross-theme is the discussion of ‘time’. Lippmann and Aldrich (Chapter 5) remind the reader of the unspoken assumption of linear measurable time, often brought along by researchers when (re-)constructing meaning to messy processes. Highlighting the heterogeneity and multiplicity of contexts and the ‘real time emergence of entrepreneurial processes’, Fletcher and Selden (Chapter 7) recommend a relational conceptualisation of context. This approach allows to link agency and context and explains how real-time processes constitute actions with help of relational causality attributing contexts causal responsibility for event emergence. Stam’s contribution offers meta-theoretical foundations (constructive realism, methodological interactionism and relationalism with a behavioural approach) and three lenses rooted in sociology and geography for a contextual approach to entrepreneurship. Time geography, evolutionary and institutional analysis allow the conceptualisation of socio-material time-specific contexts in unique ways (Chapter 8).
Drakopoulou Dodd, Pret and Shaw (Chapter 10) discuss time as an integral part of their Bourdieu-informed take on entrepreneurial embeddedness. In this view, research needs to unpack how time is an intricate part of context. They suggest different research methods that allow researchers to experience entrepreneurial processes in the time-related ways that the researched entrepreneurs do. The authors reiterate Steyaert’s requests for answering different epistemological questions with methods that embed the researcher into the life-world of entrepreneurs. Research findings gain temporal qualities as researcher and research participants co-create them.
Wadhwani (Chapters 6 and 11) offers suggestions for unlocking the potential of historical context (and time). Entrepreneurship research applications using historical contextualisation could answer questions on how new industries emerge and the impact of entrepreneurship on structural industry changes or on how entrepreneurial teams interpret their specific historical contexts. Chapter 11 explores methodological opportunities and challenges based on the evidence available during a study. The author highlights the need to combine evidence, analysis methods and forms effectively to provide the best possible answers. Forms in this discussion mainly vary between historical narrative and known social scientific forms, such as tests of validity of historical claims (checking authenticity of resources and their trustworthiness and relevance for the research question).
Chlosta (Chapter 9) focuses attention on the need to portray entrepreneurial reality as a process and makes practical suggestions for context-sensitive research including reflection on the impact of the researcher’s role and methodologies—echoing Steyaert’s and Drakoupoulou Dodd’s contributions on the need for researchers to embed themselves into the worlds of entrepreneurs (Johannisson, 2014). Gartner reflects lightheartedly on reader, writer, text and the field via his own development journey, which allows readers to understand the mindset of one of the field’s leaders (Chapter 12). The subsequent visionary research agenda (Chapter 13 by Welter and Gartner) maps out essential research streams allowing provision of accessible actionable research, extending existing views (Anderson, 2015).
In summary, this edited book should be on the reading list of all those interested in learning more about entrepreneurship and context. Its reflection on the history of the discussion of entrepreneurship and context, the exploration of various time aspects and reflections on cognition and post-context lead to the outline of a research agenda shaping this research field for years to come. Combined with practical features, Chapters 2–12 offer brief annotated bibliographies for further reading to deepen knowledge of the topics, and the two-page reading list in Chapter 14 lists predominantly academic journal articles since 1989. Therefore, the book is a worthy recommendation for everyone seeking background knowledge on the debate.
What I would have appreciated is a greater diversity of authors and applications to primary research for newcomers to the field, to see how the valuable suggestions can be operationalised in research practice and/or developing applied conceptual frameworks.