In this essay, we argue that it is folly to stake the legitimacy and value of entrepreneurship research on the uniqueness of its theory. A better path is to orient around questions where we are uniquely positioned to create useful and important knowledge. To this end, we anchor on Venkataraman’s seminal definition and argue that entrepreneurship research should focus on understanding the outcomes of venture creation not just for founders, but also for other stakeholders and society as a whole. Moreover, we argue that generating robust insight into these questions requires contributions from multiple perspectives, and this makes our field’s theoretical diversity a great and under-appreciated asset. Drawing on the metaphor of “borderlands,” we argue that embracing and leveraging diversity can help to address important social and environmental problems while also laying a foundation for the unique identity so long sought by the members of our field.
AldrichHEFiolCM (1994) Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review19(4): 645–626.
2.
AlvarezSABarneyJB (2005) How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions of uncertainty?Journal of Management31(5): 776–793.
3.
AnzaldúaG (1987) Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books.
4.
ArendRJ (2020) Entrepreneurship: A theory for no theory for now. Strategic Organization. Epub ahead of print 14December. DOI: 10.1177/1476127020979041.
5.
AzoulayPJonesBKimJD, et al. (2020) Age and high-growth entrepreneurship. American Economic Review: Insights2(1): 65–82.
6.
BallesterosLUseemMWryTB (2017) Masters of disasters? An empirical analysis of how societies benefit from corporate disaster aid. Academy of Management Journal60(5): 1682–1708.
7.
BanerjeeADufloEGlennersterR, et al. (2015) The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomized evaluation. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics7(1): 22–53.
8.
BarnettMLHenriquesIHustedBW (2020) Beyond good intentions: Designing CSR initiatives for greater social impact. Journal of Management46(6): 937–964.
9.
BarneyJ (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management17(1): 99–120.
10.
BattilanaJCasciaroT (2021) Power, for All: How It Really Works and Why It’s Everyone’s Business:. New York: Simon & Schuster.
11.
BattilanaJDoradoS (2010) Building sustainable hybrids: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal53(6): 1419–1440.
12.
BattilanaJLeeM (2014) Advancing research on hybrid organizing– Insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals8(1): 397–441.
13.
BattilanaJOblojTPacheAC, et al. (2022) Beyond shareholder value maximization: Accounting for financial/social trade-offs in dual-purpose companies. Academy of Management Review47(2): 237–258.
14.
BaumolWJ (1990) Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy98(5): 893–921.
15.
BenfordRDSnowDA (2000) Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology26: 611–639.
16.
BerchicciLKingA (2021) Corporate sustainability: A model uncertainty analysis of materiality. Journal of Financial Reporting. Epub ahead of print 18May. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3848664.
17.
BurtonMDColomboMGRossi-LamastraC, et al. (2019) The organizational design of entrepreneurial ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal13(3): 243–255.
18.
BusenitzLWWestGPShepherdD, et al. (2003) Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions. Journal of Management29(3): 285–308.
19.
CardonMSFooMDShepherdD, et al. (2012) Exploring the heart: Entrepreneurial emotion is a hot topic. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice36(1): 1–10.
20.
CardonMSWincentJSinghJ, et al. (2009) The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Academy of Management Review34(3): 511–532.
21.
CloughDRFangTPVissaB, et al. (2019) Turning lead into gold: How do entrepreneurs mobilize resources to exploit opportunities?Academy of Management Annals13(1): 240–271.
22.
CobbJAWryTBZhaoEY (2016) Funding financial inclusion: Institutional logics and the contextual contingency of funding for microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal59(6): 2103–2131.
23.
ColomboMGGrilliL (2013) The creation of a middle-management level by entrepreneurial ventures: Testing economic theories of organizational design. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy22(2): 390–422.
24.
CongerMMcMullenJSBergmanBJ, et al. (2018) Category membership, identity control, and the reevaluation of prosocial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing33: 179–206.
25.
DoeringLWryTB (2022) The challenges of supporting necessity entrepreneurs: Understanding loan officer exit in microfinance. Journal of Business Venturing37(2): 106189.
26.
EberhartRNLounsburyMAldrichH (2022) Entrepreneurialism and Society: New Theoretical Perspectives:. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.
27.
EckhardtJTShaneSA (2003) Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management29(3): 333–349.
28.
ElsbachKDSuttonRI (1992) Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal35(4): 699–738.
29.
FauchartEGruberM (2011) Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal54(5): 935–957.
30.
FeinLC (2005) Symbolic boundaries and national borders: The construction of an Estonian Russian identity. Nationalities Papers33(3): 333–344.
31.
GargSEisenhardtKM (2017) Unpacking the CEO-board relationship: How strategy making happens in entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal60(5): 1828–1858.
32.
GeorgeGHoward-GrenvilleJJoshiA, et al. (2016) Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal59(6): 1880–1895.
33.
GilbertBAMcDougallPAudretschDB (2006) New venture growth: A review and extension. Journal of Management32(6): 926–950.
34.
GrimesMG (2018) The pivot: How founders respond to feedback through idea and identity work. Academy of Management Journal61(5): 1692–1717.
35.
GruberMMacMillanIC (2017) Entrepreneurial behavior: A reconceptualization and extension based on identity theory. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal11(3): 271–286.
36.
HambrickDC (2007) The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing?Academy of Management Journal50(6): 1346–1352.
37.
HambrickDCFredricksonJW (2005) Are you sure you have a strategy?Academy of Management Perspectives19(4): 51–62.
38.
HargadonABDouglasY (2001) When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly46(3): 476–501.
39.
HayekFA (1945) The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review35(4): 519–530.
40.
HayekFA (1968) Chapter 12: Competition as a discovery process. In: HayekFA (ed.) New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the History of Ideas. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 179–180.
41.
HaynieJMShepherdDAMcMullenJS (2009) An opportunity for me? The role of resources in opportunity evaluation decisions. Journal of Management Studies46(3): 337–361.
42.
HellmannTFSchurePHTergimanC, et al. (2019) Ownership dynamics within founder teams: The role of external financing. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal13(3): 256–287.
43.
HiattSRCarlosWC (2018) From farms to fuel tanks: Stakeholder framing contests and entrepreneurship in the emergent U.S. biodiesel market. Strategic Management Journal40: 865–893.
44.
HockertsKWustenhagenR (2010) Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids—Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing25(5): 481–492.
45.
JamesW (1907) Pragmatism, a New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking: Popular Lectures on Philosophy. Longmans, Green and Company.
46.
JinLMadisonKKraiczyND, et al. (2017) Entrepreneurial team composition characteristics and new venture performance: A meta-analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice41(5): 743–771.
47.
JonesJYorkJGVedulaS, et al. (2019) The collective construction of green building: Industry transition toward environmentally beneficial practices. Academy of Management Perspectives33(4): 425–449.
48.
KearneyM (1991) Borders and boundaries of state and self at the end of empire. Journal of Historical Sociology4(1): 52–74.
49.
KirznerIM (1979) Perception, Opportunity, and Profit. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
50.
KirznerIM (1997) Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature35(1): 60.
51.
KirznerIM (1999) Creativity and/or alertness: A reconsideration of the Schumpeterian entrepreneur. The Review of Austrian Economics11(1): 5–17.
KoschatzkyK (2000) A river is a river-cross-border networking between Baden and Alsace. European Planning Studies8(4): 429–449.
54.
LamontMMolnárV (2002) The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology28: 167–195.
55.
LauristinMVihalemmTTalloP (1997) Development of political culture in Estonia. Europe-Asia Studies48(2): 225–260.
56.
LeeBHHiattSRLounsburyM (2017) Market mediators and the trade-offs of legitimacy-seeking behaviors in a nascent category. Organization Science28(3): 447–470.
57.
LeitchCHillFNeergaardH (2010) Entrepreneurial and business growth and the quest for a “comprehensive theory”: Tilting at windmills?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice34(2): 249–260.
58.
LounsburyM (2001) Institutional sources of practice variation: Staffing college and university recycling programs. Administrative Science Quarterly46(1): 29–56.
59.
LounsburyMGlynnMA (2001) Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal22(6–7): 545–564.
60.
LounsburyMVentrescaMHirschPM (2003) Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: A cultural-political perspective on US recycling. Socio-Economic Review1: 71–104.
61.
LumpkinGBacqS (2019) Civic wealth creation: A new view of stakeholder engagement and societal impact. Academy of Management Perspectives33(4): 383–404.
62.
McDonnellMHKingBGSouleSA (2015) A dynamic process model of private politics: Activist targeting and corporate receptivity to social challenges. American Sociological Review80(3): 654–678.
63.
McMullenJSShepherdDA (2006) Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review31(1): 132–152.
64.
McMullenJSBrownellKMAdamsJ (2021) What makes an entrepreneurship study entrepreneurial? Toward a unified theory of entrepreneurial agency. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice45(5): 1197–1238.
65.
MairJMartíI (2006) Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business41(1): 36–44.
66.
MakkonenTWilliamsAWeidenfeldA, et al. (2017) Knowledge transfer and innovation in cross-border cooperation programmes between Finland and Russia. University-Industry Links: Coproducing Knowledge, Innovation & Growth277: 277–284.
67.
MargolisJDWalshJP (2003) Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly48(2): 268–305.
68.
MarkmanGDWaldronTLGianiodisPT, et al. (2019) E pluribus unum: Impact entrepreneurship as a solution to grand challenges. Academy of Management Perspectives33(4): 371–382.
69.
MurnieksCYMosakowskiECardonMS (2012) Pathways of passion: Identity centrality, passion, and behavior among entrepreneurs. Journal of Management40: 1583–1606.
70.
NavisCGlynnMA (2010) How new market categories emerge: Temporal dynamics of legitimacy, identity, and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly55(3): 439–471.
71.
O’NeilIUcbasaranD (2016) Balancing “what matters to me” with “what matters to them”: Exploring the legitimation process of environmental entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing31(2): 133–152.
72.
O’NeilIUcbasaranDYorkJG (2022) The evolution of founder identity as an authenticity work process. Journal of Business Venturing37(1): 106031.
73.
PachecoDFYorkJGHargraveTJ (2014) The coevolution of industries, social movements, and institutions: Wind power in the United States. Organization Science25(6): 1609–1632.
74.
PetersooP (2007) Reconsidering otherness: Constructing Estonian identity. Nations and Nationalism13(1): 117–133.
75.
PhanPHWrightMUcbasaranD, et al. (2009) Corporate entrepreneurship: Current research and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing24(3): 197–205.
76.
PlummerLAAcsZJ (2014) Localized competition in the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing29(1): 121–136.
77.
PowellEEBakerT (2014) It’s what you make of it: Founder identity and enacting strategic responses to adversity. Academy of Management Journal57(5): 1406–1433.
78.
PowellEEBakerT (2017) In the beginning: Identity processes and organizing in multi-founder nascent ventures. Academy of Management Journal60(6): 2381–2414.
79.
PrattG (1992) Spatial metaphors and speaking positions. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space10(3): 241–244.
80.
PrattML (2007) Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. New York: Routledge.
RawhouserHCummingsMNewbertSL (2019) Social impact measurement: Current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice43(1): 82–115.
83.
RindovaVBarryDKetchenDJ (2009) Entrepreneuring as emancipation. Academy of Management Review34(3): 477–491.
84.
RodriguesSChildJ (2003) Co-evolution in an institutionalized environment. Journal of Management Studies40(8): 2137–2162.
85.
RosenkopfLNerkarA (2001) Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal22(4): 287–306.
86.
RuefM (2000) The emergence of organizational forms: A community ecology approach. American Journal of Sociology106(3): 658–714.
87.
SantosFPacheACBirkholzC (2015) Making hybrids work: Aligning business models and organizational design for social enterprises. California Management Review57(3): 36–58.
88.
SantosFMEisenhardtKM (2009) Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal52(4): 643–671.
89.
SarasonYDeanTJ (2019) Lost battles, Trojan horses, open gates, and wars won: How entrepreneurial firms co-create structures to expand and infuse their sustainability missions in the acquisition process. Academy of Management Perspectives33(4): 469–490.
90.
SarasvathySD (2001) Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review26(2): 243–263.
91.
SarasvathySDRameshA (2019) An effectual model of collective action for addressing sustainability challenges. Academy of Management Perspectives33(4): 405–424.
92.
SarasvathySDDewNVelamuriSR, et al. (2005) Three views of enterpreneurial opportunity. In: AcsZJAudretschDB (eds) Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction, Vol. 1. New York: Springer, pp. 141–160.
93.
SchumpeterJA (1934) The Theory of the Economic Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ScottWR (1995) Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
96.
SeoMGCreedWED (2002) Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review27(2): 222–247.
97.
ShaneS (1996) Explaining variation in rates of entrepreneurship in the United States: 1899-1988. Journal of Management22(5): 747.
98.
ShaneSVenkataramanS (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review25(1): 217–226.
99.
ShepherdDAPatzeltH (2022) A call for research on the scaling of organizations and the scaling of social impact. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice46: 255–268.
100.
SineWDLeeB (2009) Tilting at windmills? The environmental movement and the emergence of the U.S. Wind Energy Sector. Administrative Science Quarterly54: 123–155.
101.
SineWDHavemanHATolbertPS (2005) Risky business? Entrepreneurship in the new independent-power sector. Administrative Science Quarterly50: 200–232.
102.
SorensonOStuartTE (2008) 12 Entrepreneurship: A Field of Dreams?Academy of Management Annals2(1): 517–543.
103.
SouleSA (2012) Social movements and markets, industries, and firms. Organization Studies33(12): 1715–1733.
104.
ThelenK (1999) Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science2(1): 369–404.
105.
ThorntonPHOcasioWLounsburyM (2012) The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
106.
TripplM (2010) Developing cross-border regional innovation systems: Key factors and challenges. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie101(2): 150–160.
107.
VedulaSKimPH (2019) Gimme shelter or fade away: The impact of regional entrepreneurial ecosystem quality on venture survival. Industrial and Corporate Change28(4): 827–854.
108.
VedulaSDoblingerCPachecoD, et al. (2022) Entrepreneurship for the public good: A review, critique, and path forward for social and environmental entrepreneurship research. Academy of Management Annals16(1): 391–425.
109.
VenkataramanS (1997) The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research. In Seminal Ideas for the Next Twenty-Five Years of Advances. Emerald Publishing Limited.
110.
WadhwaniRDKirschDWelterF, et al. (2020) Context, time, and change: Historical approaches to entrepreneurship research. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal14(1): 3–19.
111.
WaldronTLFisherGNavisC (2015) Institutional entrepreneurs’ social mobility in organizational fields. Journal of Business Venturing30(1): 131–149.
112.
WaldronTLFisherGPfarrerM (2016) How social entrepreneurs facilitate the adoption of new industry practices. Journal of Management Studies53: 821–845.
113.
WaldronTLMcMullenJSPetrenkoO, et al. (2022) Entrepreneur-investor rivalry over new venture control: The battle for Balcones Distilling. Journal of Business Venturing37(4): 106225.
114.
WaldronTLNavisCAronsonO, et al. (2019) Values-based rivalry: A theoretical framework of rivalry between activists and firms. Academy of Management Review44(4): 800–818.
115.
WeberKHeinzeKLDeSouceyM (2008) Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in the movement for grass-fed meat and dairy products. Administrative Science Quarterly53: 529–567.
116.
WeidenfeldA (2013) Tourism and cross border regional innovation systems. Annals of Tourism Research42: 191–213.
117.
WelterF (2011) Contextualizing entrepreneurship—Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice35(1): 165–184.
118.
WhittingtonKBOwen-SmithJPowellWW (2009) Networks, propinquity, and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Administrative Science Quarterly54(1): 90–122.
119.
WiklundJShepherdD (2005) Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing20(1): 71–91.
120.
WryTBHaughH (2018) Brace for impact: Uniting our diverse voices through a social impact frame. Journal of Business Venturing33(5): 566–574.
121.
WryTBYorkJG (2017) An identity-based approach to social enterprise. Academy of Management Review42(3): 437–460.
122.
WryTBYorkJG (2019) Blended colors or black and white? Avoiding dichotomous thinking in identity and entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review44(1): 215–219.
123.
WryTBCobbJAAldrichHE (2013) More than a metaphor: Assessing the historical legacy of resource dependence and its contemporary promise as a theory of environmental complexity. The Academy of Management Annals7(1): 441–488.
YorkJGLenoxMJ (2014) Exploring the sociocultural determinants of de novo versus de alio entry in emerging industries. Strategic Management Journal35(13): 1930–1951.
126.
YorkJGVenkataramanS (2010) The entrepreneur–environment nexus: Uncertainty, innovation, and allocation. Journal of Business Venturing25: 449–463.
127.
YorkJGHargraveTJPachecoDF (2016) Converging winds: Logic hybridization in the Colorado wind energy field. Academy of Management Journal59(2): 579–610.
128.
YorkJGVedulaSLenoxM (2018) It’s not easy building green: The impact of public policy, private actors, and regional logics on voluntary standards adoption. Academy of Management Journal61(4): 1–32.
129.
ZahraSA (2005) Entrepreneurship and disciplinary scholarship: Return to the fountainhead. In: AlvarezSAAgarwalRRSorensonO (eds) Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. London: Springer, pp. 253–268.
130.
ZahraSA (2007) Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing22(3): 443–452.
131.
ZottCHuyQN (2007) How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly52(1): 70–105.
