Entrepreneurship research has grown rapidly in its scope, rigor, and impact. By every measure, our field now enjoys considerable academic acceptance and legitimacy as a scholarly discipline. However, several forces around the globe are demanding greater attention to (and perhaps redefinition of) relevance. We discuss what relevance means, how the field can achieve it, and how to best communicate it to the diverse stakeholders of our field.
AguinisH., RamaniR. S., AlabduljaderN., BaileyJ. R.LeeJ. (2018). A pluralist conceptualization of scholarly impact in management education: Students as stakeholders. Academy of Management Learning and Education. doi:10.5465/amle.2017.0488.
2.
AutioE.NambisanS.ThomasL.WrightM. (2018) Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal12(1): 72–95.
3.
BagozziR. P.GopinathM.NyerP. U. (1999) The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science27(2): 184–206.
4.
BanksG. C.PollackJ. M.BochantinJ. E.KirkmanB. L.WhelpleyC. E.O'BoyleE. H. (2016) Management's science–practice gap: A grand challenge for all stakeholders. Academy of Management Journal59(6): 2205–2231.
5.
BennisW. G.O'tooleJ. (2005) How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review83(5): 96–104.
ChandlerG.LyonD. (2001) Issues of research design and construct measurement in entrepreneurship research: The past decade. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice25(4): 101–113.
8.
Community for Responsible Research in Business and Management, TsuiA.GlickB. (2017). A vision of responsible research in business and management: Striving for useful and credible knowledge (Community for Responsible Research in Business and Management White Paper). Retrieved August 4, 2018, fromhttps://rrbm.network/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/White_Paper.pdf.
9.
DavidssonP.WiklundJ. (2001) Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current research practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice25(4): 81–99.
10.
FreseM.BauschA.SchmidtP.RauchA.KabstR. (2012) Evidence-based entrepreneurship: Cumulative science, action principles, and bridging the gap between science and practice. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship8(1): 1–62.
11.
FreseM.RousseauD. M.WiklundJ. (2014) The emergence of evidence–based entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice38(2): 209–216.
12.
FurmanJ.OrszagP. (2015, October16). A firm-level perspective on the role of rents in the rise in inequality. Presentation at “A Just Society” Centennial Event in Honor of Joseph Stiglitz, Columbia University, New York, NY.
13.
GhoshalS. (2005) Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education4(1): 75–91.
14.
GreenhowC.RobeliaB.HughesJ. E. (2009) Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?. Educational Researcher38(4): 246–259.
15.
HenreksonM.SanandajiT. (2017) Schumpeterian entrepreneurship in Europe compared to other industrialized regions. International Review of Entrepreneurship16(2): 157–182.
16.
KellardN.SliwaM. (2016) Business and management impact assessment in research excellence framework 2014: Analysis and reflection. British Journal of Management27: 693–711.
17.
KezarA.GehrkeS. (2014) Why are we hiring so many non-tenure-track faculty?. Liberal Education100(1): 1–9.
18.
LandströmH.HarirchiG. (2018) The social structure of entrepreneurship as a scientific field. Research Policy47(3): 650–662.
19.
MakriM.HittM.LaneP. (2010) Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal31: 602–628.
20.
McGrathR. (2007) No longer a stepchild: How the management field can come into its own. Academy of Management Journal50: 1365–1378.
21.
McQuaigL.BrooksN. (2013) The trouble with billionaires, London: Oneworld.
22.
McMullenJ. S. (2011) Delineating the domain of development entrepreneurship: A market–based approach to facilitating inclusive economic growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice35(1): 185–215.
23.
MillerD.Le Breton-MillerI. (2017) Underdog entrepreneurs: A model of challenge-based entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice41(1): 7–17.
24.
MoschieriC.SantaloJ. (2018). The impact of professors' research performance on students' evaluations on strategy professors in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0109.
25.
PhanP.SiegelD.WrightM. (2016) Alternative forms of economic organization: Be careful what you wish for. Academy of Management Perspectives30: 117–122.
26.
PikettyT. (2014). Capital in the 21st century. Boston: Harvard University Press.
27.
PiddM.BroadbentJ. (2015) Business and management studies in the 2014 research excellence framework. British Journal of Management26: 569–581.
RoslingH.RönnlundA. R.RoslingO. (2018) Factfulness: Ten reasons we're wrong about the world––and why things are better than you think, New York, NY: Flatiron Books.
30.
SalvatoC.SharmaP.WrightM. (2015) Learning patterns and approaches to family business education around the world—issues, insights and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning and Education14(3): 307–321.
31.
SarasvathyS. D. (2001) Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review26(2): 243–263.
32.
SarasvathyS. D.VenkataramanS. (2011) Entrepreneurship as method: Open questions for an entrepreneurial future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice35(1): 113–135.
33.
ShepherdD. (2015) Party on! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive, activity based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial. Journal of Business Venturing30: 489–507.
34.
ShortJ.KetchenD.CombsJ.IrelandD. (2010) Research methods in entrepreneurship: Opportunities and challenges. Organizational Research Methods13: 6–15.
35.
StarkeyK.MadanP. (2001) Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management12: 3–26.
36.
StarrJ. A.MacMillanI. C. (1990) Resource cooptation via social contracting: Resource acquisition strategies for new ventures. Strategic Management Journal11: 79–92.
37.
StoreyD. (1998) Six steps to heaven: Evaluating the impact of public policies to support small businesses in developed economies, Oxford, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 176–193.
38.
Van de VenA. (2007) Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research, Oxford: OUP.
39.
Wallin AndreassenT.LindestadB. (1998) Customer loyalty and complex services: The impact of corporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with varying degrees of service expertise. International Journal of Service Industry Management9(1): 7–23.
40.
WebbJ.IrelandD.TihanyiL.SirmonD. (2009) You say illegal, I say legitimate: Entrepreneurship in the informal economy. Academy of Management Review34(3): 492–510.
41.
WiklundJ. (2016). Re-search = me-search. InAudretschD.LehmannE. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to the makers of modern entrepreneurship (pp.233–253). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
42.
WiklundJ.DavidssonP.AudretschD. B.KarlssonC. (2011) The future of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice35(1): 1–9.
43.
WooY. Y. J. (2008) Engaging new audiences: Translating research into popular media. Educational Researcher37(6): 321–329.
44.
ZahraS.KaulA.Bolivar RamosM. (2018) Why corporate science commercialization fails: Integrating diverse perspectives. Academy of Management Perspectives32(1): 156–176.
45.
ZahraS.NeweyL. (2009) Maximizing the impact of organization science: Theory-building at the intersection of disciplines and/or fields. Journal of Management Studies46(6): 1059–1075.
46.
ZahraS. A.WrightM. (2011) Entrepreneurship's next act. Academy of Management Perspectives25(4): 67–83.
47.
ZahraS.WrightM. (2016) Understanding the social value of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies53: 610–629.
48.
ZottC.HuyQ. (2007) How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly52(1): 70–105.
