This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]On: 09 October 2013, At: 13:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Asia-Pacific BusinessPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wapb20

A Conceptual Framework to StructureResearch in Strategic and SocialEntrepreneurshipAnne Hamby a , Meghan Pierce a & David Brinberg aa Virginia Tech University , Blacksburg, VirginiaPublished online: 12 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Anne Hamby , Meghan Pierce & David Brinberg (2010) A Conceptual Frameworkto Structure Research in Strategic and Social Entrepreneurship, Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 11:3,166-178, DOI: 10.1080/10599231.2010.500571

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10599231.2010.500571

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 11:166–178, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1059-9231 print/1528-6940 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10599231.2010.500571

ARTICLES

A Conceptual Framework to Structure Researchin Strategic and Social Entrepreneurship

ANNE HAMBY, MEGHAN PIERCE, and DAVID BRINBERGVirginia Tech University, Blacksburg, Virginia

Entrepreneurship can be characterized as consisting of two dis-tinct approaches: social and commercial orientation. We presentthe validity network schema (VNS) to better understand thesetwo orientations. The VNS is a framework that describes thecomponents, stages, and paths for conducting research. The com-ponents of research reflect three domains: methodological, concep-tual, and substantive. Social entrepreneurs generally begin theirresearch efforts in the substantive domain, whereas commercialentrepreneurs initiate research in the conceptual domain. The arti-cle delineates ways in which researchers and practitioners whosefocus is on one entrepreneurial orientation can learn from theother, draw insights from the VNS, and consequently enhance theirefforts.

KEYWORDS social entrepreneurship, commercial entrepreneur-ship, research paths

One sign of an evolving academic discipline is an increased question-ing of the theoretical, methodological, and substantive underpinnings ofresearch. Scholars in social psychology, for example, debated the appropri-ate theoretical/epistemological and methodological tools for academic andapplied research (e.g., Gergen, 1973; McGuire, 1973). A similar debate isoccurring in the areas of commercial (Krueger, 2002; Stevenson & Jarillo,

Address correspondence to Anne Hamby, Department of Marketing, Virginia TechUniversity, 2016 Pamplin Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061. E-mail: ahamby@vt.edu

166

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Structure Research 167

1990) and social entrepreneurship (Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2006;Peredo & McLean, 2005).

The intent of this article is to present a framework developed byBrinberg and McGrath (1985) to organize and then contrast two distinctforms of entrepreneurship, and provide suggestions on ways which theseorientations may benefit from a more expanded view of their activities.The framework (described as the validity network schema or VNS) iden-tifies the three domains/components of any research project, the stages ofresearch, different paths to conduct research, and validity issues associatedwith each stage of research. The VNS has been applied in several academicdisciplines. For example, Brinberg and Hirschman (1986) applied this frame-work to examine the academic/practitioner distinction in marketing. Coupey(1999) used the VNS to propose a research agenda for advertising on theweb. Holm (2007) applied this schema to virtual organizations and virtualorganizing.

The VNS provides a template to capture the activities of academicand practitioner efforts because its components clearly map the essen-tial features of both activities. As we present below, the VNS can beused to illustrate that differing entrepreneurial orientations commonly fol-low different paths to complete their efforts (and make implicit valuetrade-offs inherent in the path choice). We first present an overview ofthe VNS, show how the VNS can be used by researchers and practition-ers, and use this schema to provide some insights into similarities anddifferences among the forms of entrepreneurship. We conclude with sug-gestions on ways the VNS can provide insights into commercial and socialentrepreneurship.

THE VALIDITY NETWORK SCHEMA

Brinberg and McGrath (1985) presented a framework that describes thecomponents of the research process. The framework contains five features:

● Research involves three interrelated domains: conceptual, methodological,and substantive.

● Each domain contains three levels: elements, relations among thoseelements, and a context to understand the relations among the elements.

● Research involves three stages: a planning, action, and follow-up/

evaluation phase.● Validity has three distinct meanings, which is linked to each stage of

research.● Distinct paths emerge from the sequence in which the three domains are

combined.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

168 A. Hamby et al.

Domains

Conceptual domain. The elements in this domain are constructs, thatis, concepts or ideas such as propensity for risk taking or attitudes that pro-vide the “building blocks” for a theory or model. The relations among theseelements (constructs) reflect the theory or model that is applied to betterunderstand some phenomenon. The embedding system (or context) reflectsthe epistemological assumptions that underlie the theory or model. In thearea of entrepreneurship research, Schindehutte and Morris (2009) providedseveral examples of components in the conceptual domain. For example,they identified theories such as behavioral economics, transaction cost the-ory, and population ecology as relevant to the study of entrepreneurship.Each theory contains constructs, such a gains/losses (behavioral economics),idiosyncratic investments (transaction cost analysis), and competition (popu-lation ecology). These authors posited three distinct embedding systems (orcontexts) that underlie theories in entrepreneurship research: complexity,positivism, and postmodernism.

Methodological domain. The elements in this domain reflect the mea-sures used to represent the constructs in the conceptual domain. Forexample, self-report measures (such as Likert-type and Thurstone scales)are used widely to assess constructs such as risk taking and innovativeness.

The relation level in this domain allows the researcher to make designchoices to display/describe/demonstrate the relationships among the mea-sures (which represent the constructs from the conceptual domain); thatis, the methodological choices to study relations allow the researcher toevaluate the theories/models posited in the conceptual domain. A popularapproach in the entrepreneurship field is the observation of these relation-ships through interviews and other self-report measures, or through directobservations. For example, Hornsby, Kuratko, and Montagno (1999) usedself-report and interview methods to examine the entrepreneurship processand differences that may exist between the United States and Canada infostering entrepreneurship within their domestic organizations. A commonresearch strategy is the use of case studies to examine entrepreneurship(Kuznetsov & McDonald, 2000; Kirby, Jones-Evans, Futo, Kwiatkowski, &Schwalbach, 1996). For example, Greenwood and Suddaby (2006) per-formed case studies on five large accounting organizations to examineentrepreneurial change initiated from the center of a mature organizationalfield.

Substantive domain. Of the three domains, the substantive is the mostintangible and fundamental. It is what is “there” prior to, and indepen-dent of, a research undertaking. The elements of the substantive domainare phenomena, or states and actions of entities; for example, Leadbeater(1997) studied how social entrepreneurs act to fill market gaps (a substantiveconcern) left by the private and public sectors. Aspects of the substantive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Structure Research 169

domain tend to be discussed as they are conceptualized, or as they areobserved or experienced. The substantive domain involves ongoing, real-world systems that are of importance in the entrepreneurial context. Thecomponents of the substantive domain involve behaviors and results thathave social, economic, technological, political, and moral content.

The specification of a phenomenon identifies or describes the desir-able state for the system. What is viewed as “of worth” are those featuresof the system that are in accord with the investigators’ values and pref-erences. For example, Peredo (2003), focusing on contexts where socialentrepreneurship is most likely to succeed, found that this activity seems tothrive more in cultural settings where collective, rather than individualistic,thinking prevails.

Stages of Research

Stage 1. A researcher is likely to have an interest in, and a talentfor, development of one of the three domains. One set of people spendmuch of their time generating, developing, and clarifying material fromthe conceptual domain; for example, Politis (2005) developed a frameworkidentifying constructs/components that influence entrepreneurial learning:career experience, entrepreneurial knowledge, and recognizing and actingon entrepreneurial opportunities. Another set of people spend their timeand energy generating, developing, and clarifying methodological tools thatcan be used in a wide variety of content areas. These people are the so-called methodologists whose efforts provide tools for research and practice,including analytic and measurement procedures.

Substantive system experts are another group of people whose maininterests involve identifying, developing, and clarifying phenomena and theirpatterns within the substantive domain. For example, Leadbeater (1997)cited the substantively oriented study of an intervention in which sportspersonalities attempted to influence young people from low-income hous-ing away from drugs and crime. Regardless of area of expertise, Stage 1consists of finding or inventing elements and relations that are “of value” tothe researcher and practitioner.

Stage 2. In this stage, the researcher combines the elements and rela-tions from each domain. First, the researcher combines the elements andrelations from the domain of primary interest with the associated compo-nents in the second domain. For example, researchers could specify a model(i.e., constructs and their relations) from the conceptual domain with corre-sponding measures and a research design from the methodological domain.The remaining step in this instance is to implement this plan by selecting aphenomenon (actors behaving in a context) to test the proposed model andmeasures.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

170 A. Hamby et al.

Stage 3. In this stage, the researcher evaluates the robustness, general-izability, or credibility of the empirical findings. This effort is accomplishedby determining the scope and limits of the findings; that is, under what con-ditions the findings remain stable and under what conditions the findingschange. For example, are the empirical findings robust across different orga-nizations or different cultures? Or, are the results reproduced when differentmeasures or research strategies are used?

Research Paths

Any research effort involves elements and relations from all three domains.The order in which the material from these domains is combined reflects adistinct style, and the priorities of the researcher or practitioner. In the VNS,Brinberg and McGrath (1985) described three distinct research paths:

● An experimental path that places priority on understanding the modeldeveloped in the conceptual domain and has least concern about thesubstantive problem

● An empirical path, which places priority in solving a substantive problem,but is least concerned about the specific conceptual model used to explainthe solution

● A theoretical model that places similar value on the conceptual model andsubstantive problem, but less concern about the methods used to test thehypothesized relations.

Application of the VNS

The VNS is not a prescriptive framework on the “best” way to conductresearch. Instead, it describes the consequences of research choices andmay provide insights into conducting research from alternative perspectives.The VNS helps to identify research paths that are well travelled and thosethat are less travelled. This metaphor provides some insight into the poten-tial information gain from different approaches to research (and practice);that is, a researcher is likely to learn more about a phenomenon or hypothe-sized relationship by simply making choices that differ from the predominantparadigm in the discipline.

Practitioners may also benefit from using the VNS by applying itsstructure to assemble the components necessary to create and launch anentrepreneurial enterprise. For example, the schema can be used to identifythe key facets of an entrepreneurial problem: the vulnerable populations,the at-risk behaviors, and the context in which these behaviors occur. Whenused in this way, the VNS can serve as a guide for the creation of anentrepreneurial enterprise.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Structure Research 171

The VNS describes information on the trade-offs that occur among desir-able goals in each domain. For example, when addressing a substantiveproblem, there is a trade-off between system cost, effectiveness, and well-being. Efforts to improve well-being, for example, often increase the costof the enterprise. As entrepreneurs create enterprises, one considerationis to determine, a priori, the trade-offs among desirable goals, and whichdesiderata should receive priority.

USING THE VNS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND COMMERCIAL ANDSOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Commercial Entrepreneurship

There has been considerable debate in the literature on the appropriatedefinition of an entrepreneur. Joseph Schumpeter’s (1934) seminal defini-tion of entrepreneurship places an emphasis on innovations: new products,new production methods, new markets, and new forms of organization.Quinn (1983) claimed that the hallmark of an entrepreneur is the capacityto innovate, or introduce original solutions for new or identified needs.

Most definitions of an entrepreneur converge on this point; anentrepreneur is one who innovates, or generates successful ideas. Thecontent of these ideas may range dramatically. For example, one who intro-duces a more effective algorithm to assess risk is as likely to be calledan entrepreneur as one who reconceptualizes the boundaries of a marketand is able to identify a new niche. The process of innovation is one inwhich the entrepreneur creates new linkages between ideas and a partic-ular market need, and then applies business principles to launch a newventure.

One area of research in commercial entrepreneurial has focused onthe attributes that define an entrepreneur, building a conceptualization ofwhat an entrepreneur “looks like.” These attributes include an overwhelmingneed for achievement and a strong urge to build (McClelland, 1965), prag-matism and unwillingness to submit to authority (Collins & Moore, 1964),and extreme optimism in the decision-making processes (Cooper, Woo, &Dunkelberg, 1989). Comfort with uncertainty, ambiguity, and risk is anotheroverarching theme. The perspective underlying this approach is that certaintraits predispose one to be an entrepreneur.

A second area of research focuses on the process of innovation and the-orizes about the elements central to this process. Drucker (1985) describedthe seizure of opportunity as well as the assumption of risk as activitiescentral to entrepreneurial innovation. Stevenson (1985) drew attention tothe element of resourcefulness in defining entrepreneurs, asserting thatthey pursue opportunity without regard to the resources that they currentlypossess at a given time.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

172 A. Hamby et al.

A traditional commercial entrepreneur will scan the current market todetermine how best to connect the innovation to a specific market niche.This approach follows the theoretical path described by the VNS, but with astarting point in the conceptual domain. The methods to evaluate the impactof this innovation or new idea rely heavily on case studies and in-depthinterviews.

Social Entrepreneurship

Although definitions of social entrepreneurship vary, the term is usu-ally taken to refer to the phenomenon of recognizing a social problemand applying business expertise and market-based skills to understand oraddress this problem (Reis, 1999). Social entrepreneurs often work throughnonprofits, citizen groups, and in some government sectors. The centraldriver for social entrepreneurship is the social problem. One well knowncontemporary social entrepreneur is Muhammad Yunus, who was awardeda Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for the founding of the Grameen Bank. His workis a prime example of the theme endorsed by many social entrepreneurs,emphasizing that synergies and tangible benefits for individuals accrue whenbusiness principles are applied to social ventures.

Using the VNS, we view social entrepreneurship as focusing on thecomponents in the substantive domains: actors, typically seen as vulnerablepopulations (e.g., women and children), behaviors (e.g., at-risk behaviorssuch as unprotected sex, violence, drug abuse), and context (e.g., organiza-tions such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) whose mission is oftento aid vulnerable populations and to support the enhancement of “civil soci-eties”). These substantive concerns drive social entrepreneurship researchand practice to create social change through the innovative combinationand application of behavioral science concepts with business models foundin the conceptual domain, and then to apply methodological or businesstools to conduct research or launch the enterprise.

Social issues are “wicked” problems—as opposed to “tame” problems—that require a creative, problem-solving approach. These issues benefit fromcollaboration with a variety of stakeholders, as social problems are multi-faceted and rarely solved with an isolated approach (Conklin, 2006; Rittel& Webber, 1973). For example, Austin et al. (2006) suggested the particularorganizational form of a social enterprise should be based on what structureis most likely to mobilize the resources needed to address that problem.Likewise, Mair and Marti (2006) argued that the concept of embedded-ness helps explain the process of social entrepreneurship. More specifically,any social problem occurs within a specific community and social context,therefore a social entrepreneur must acknowledge the embedded natureof the social issue, consider the local culture, and obtain some degreeof community acceptance, involvement, or ownership to be successful.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Structure Research 173

Conceptualizing social entrepreneurship in this manner distinguishes it fromcharitable organizations that often neglect local cultures and fail to addressthe underlying causes of the social issue. Recognizing the embeddedness ofa social issue is a necessary initial starting point for the social enterprise tocreate social value.

Viewing Commercial and Social Entrepreneurship Through a VNSLens

The theoretical path of the VNS provides a perspective to view commercialand social entrepreneurship research and practice. For example, the VNSprovides insight into the value for commercial entrepreneurs to focus onkey facets/components in the substantive domain, that is, connecting theinnovation or idea tightly with the characteristics of specific market nichesand avoiding a “build it and they will come” approach. A secondary benefitfor commercial entrepreneurs, who focus on integrating innovations withactors performing behaviors in a specific market context, is the potentialto generate new ideas by identifying gaps between the current innovationand the market needs. For example, Blawatt (1995) detailed the emergenceof private enterprise activity in the newly-independent Baltic States duringthe 1990s. Entrepreneurs took the substantive approach of first identifyingthe needs in the context, which then served to inform their entrepreneurialactivity.

Commercial entrepreneurship researchers and practitioners may alsoborrow conceptual models from other disciplines to better understand theentrepreneurship process. For example, DeTienne (2010) viewed a paral-lel between an infant’s progression through the stages of childhood andthe development business ventures, from nascent stages to postemergenceactivities, an applied parenting metaphor to examine exit strategies in theentrepreneurship process. In effect, a conceptual perspective developed inanother discipline served to highlight an unexplored area in commercialentrepreneurship.

Social entrepreneurship researchers and practitioners may draw insightsfrom examining the ways other disciplines address substantive issues. Forexample, social entrepreneurs may draw direction from the management andleadership literatures and study the processes underlying leadership emer-gence in a community, the subsequent formation of social networks, and themanner in which information is transmitted through these networks. Theinformation gained from these efforts may provide insights into strategiesthat social entrepreneurs can use to disseminate information and servicesmore effectively throughout a network, for the purpose of changing at-riskbehaviors for a vulnerable population.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

174 A. Hamby et al.

Commercial and Social Entrepreneurship Can Learn from Each Other

The two orientations toward entrepreneurship have expertise in two distinctdomains: commercial entrepreneurs possess expertise in innovations (ideas)and social entrepreneurs possess expertise in substantive issues (social prob-lems). Yet innovations and an in-depth awareness of the complexity andcontextual embeddedness of the social concern are necessary for a bet-ter understanding of entrepreneurship research and practice. By viewingcommercial entrepreneurship through a substantive lens, entrepreneurshipresearch and practice may improve ability to determine the market complex-ities that contextualize innovation and commercial entrepreneurial practice.Similarly, examining social entrepreneurship through a conceptual lens mayallow researchers and practitioners to create better models and frameworksof social entrepreneurial practice. Both fields of entrepreneurial research andpractice involve complex, multifaceted ideas and phenomena that wouldbenefit from various perspectives, rather than one traditional paradigm.

Several researchers have expressed a similar concern that an entrepre-neurial perspective should extend beyond current traditional efforts. Forexample, Jennings and Beaver (2006) pointed to the erroneous attemptto generalize professional management techniques in larger firms to smallfirms, practiced on a reduced scale; that is, a failure to appreciate the uniquecultural, market context of smaller firms and the different skills and abilitiesneeded to manage these types of ventures. Hills (1985) found that com-mercial entrepreneurs who deemphasize the importance of in-depth marketinformation tend to have higher failure rates than entrepreneurs who con-duct such analyses. In essence, a common breakdown in the commercialentrepreneurial process is a failure to appreciate the complexity of subjectmatter or environment of interest.

Although commercial entrepreneurs draw from typical managerialpractices, social entrepreneurs often fail to think in terms of business.Commercial tactics and tools of marketing, such as branding, focus onthe customer, market segmentation, penetration pricing, franchising, word-of-mouth promotion, and sponsorships pertain to the ventures of socialentrepreneurs, yet their use and impact remain underexamined in thesocial entrepreneurial context (Bloom, 2009). For example, Pearce, Fritz,and Davis (2010) examined factors that influence the success of religiousorganizations with a commercial lens. Using the rational choice theory ofreligion (an economic perspective of religious competition), they foundthat the positive link between entrepreneurial orientation and organizationalperformance extends into the not-for-profit domain. Innovativeness, proac-tivity, competitive aggressiveness, risk taking, and autonomy contributed toincreased congregational attendance and financial contributions. By apply-ing a conceptual model from another discipline (in this case, commercial

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Structure Research 175

entrepreneurship), Pearce et al. highlighted a new source of competitiveadvantage for religious organizations.

In general, social entrepreneurial efforts can benefit by integrating theiranalysis of the social problem with one or more models developed in theconceptual domain. For example, social entrepreneurial projects often sufferfrom a lack of attention to sustainability concerns. The conceptually alignedcommercial entrepreneurship literature provides business models that mayimprove the likelihood of creating a sustainable effort. As a burgeoningfield, social entrepreneurship may benefit from the adoption of conceptualelements developed in the commercial entrepreneurial field.

Other Lessons from the VNS

When highlighting the methodological domain, the VNS provides anothersuggestion to expand commercial and social entrepreneurship. Coviello andJones (2004) noted the field of entrepreneurship research is too complex tobe accommodated by one methodological approach, yet, as described bySchade (2008), case studies and questionnaires are used almost exclusively.Other authors also highlight the tendency of entrepreneurial efforts to bemono-method (Yli-Renko, Autio, & Tontti, 2002). This observation highlightsthe need to consider a wider range of methodological tools, recognizing thata mono-method bias constrains and confounds empirical findings.

The VNS draws attention to the difference between creating variation(determining a variable’s impact on some outcome measures) and observingvariation, the latter of which seems to be most prevalent in entrepreneurialresearch. Creating variation can be accomplished through the use of lab orfield experiments in which the researcher introduces variation by assigningdifferent groups to different conditions.

Several studies highlight the use of experimental procedures. Chen,Yao, and Kotha (2009) manipulated entrepreneur passion and prepared-ness in a laboratory experiment and found that preparedness, not passion,positively affected decisions to fund ventures. Clouse (1990) conducted alaboratory experiment studying the effectiveness of entrepreneurial educa-tion. He investigated the decisions regarding a new venture made by a groupof entrepreneurship students through a simulation experience. This exercisewas administered at the beginning and the end of a semester, and analysesindicated that an introductory entrepreneurship course can have a signif-icant impact on the majority of students’ simulated new venture decisionbehavior.

CONCLUSION

This article uses the VNS, a framework developed by Brinberg and McGrath(1985), to identify and contrast two entrepreneurial orientations: commercial

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

176 A. Hamby et al.

and social. The framework describes three domains (conceptual, method-ological, and substantive), three stages of research, and multiple paths topursue entrepreneurial activities. One underlying distinction between socialand commercial entrepreneurship is that researchers and practitioners tendto pursue contrasting paths; commercial entrepreneurship seems to beginin the conceptual domain, with a focus on innovation, whereas socialentrepreneurship research starts in the substantive domain. This distinctionallows us to describe an approach in which both forms of entrepreneurshipare able to inform the other. Commercial entrepreneurship would be wellserved to better understand the complexity of the problem/market found inthe substantive domain; that is, the starting point for social entrepreneurs.On the other hand, social entrepreneurs would be well served to betterunderstand business models developed in the conceptual domain.

We realize the VNS provides a highly structured perspective and thatresearch and practice is unlikely to follow the sequence precisely the pathsand choices described in the schema. The logic of the system is intendedto highlight the consequences of making choices and is not a prescriptiveframework. We also recognize that a researcher’s training and preferencesmay result in strong mono-method, mono-theory biases. We believe, how-ever, that the application of the VNS to the fields of social and commercialentrepreneurial research can provide useful insights and suggestions as tohow the two can learn from each others’ efforts. This potential rapproche-ment between these two forms of entrepreneurship can lead to a diverse,refined set of research questions and enrichment of the field.

REFERENCES

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepre-neurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,30(1), 1–22.

Blawatt, K. R. (1995). Entrepreneurship in Estonia: Profiles of entrepreneurs. Journalof Small Business Management, 33(2), 74–79.

Bloom, P. N. (2009). Overcoming consumption restraints through social entrepre-neurship. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28(1), 128–134.

Brinberg, D., & Hirschman, E. C. (1986). Multiple orientations for the conduct of mar-keting research: An analysis of the academic/practitioner/distinction. Journal ofMarketing, 50(1), 161–173.

Brinberg, D., & McGrath, J. (1985). Validity and the research process. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

Chen, X., Yao, X., & Kotha, S. (2009). Entrepreneur passion and preparednessin business plan presentations: A persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’funding decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 199–214.

Clouse, V. G. H. (1990). A controlled experiment relating entrepreneurial educationto students’ start-up decisions. Journal of Small Business Management, 28(2),45–53.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Structure Research 177

Collins, O. F., & Moore, D. G. (1964). The enterprising man. East Lansing: MichiganState University.

Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wickedproblems. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Cooper, A., Woo, C., & Dunkelberg, W. (1989). Entrepreneurship and the initial sizeof firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(5), 317–332.

Coupey, E. (1999). Advertising in an interactive environment: A research agenda.In D. Schumann & E. Thorson (Eds.), Advertising and the world wide web(pp. 197–215). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Coviello, N., & Jones, M. (2004). Methodological Issues in internationalentrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(4), 485–508.

DeTienne, D. (2010). Entrepreneurial exit as a critical component of theentrepreneurial process: Theoretical development. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 25(2), 203–215.

Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row.Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology, science and history. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 2(4), 373–383.Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature

fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1),27–48.

Hills, G. E. (1985). Market analysis and the business plan: Venture capitalists’perceptions. Journal of Small Business Management, 23(1), 38–46.

Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Montagno, R. V. (1999). Perception of internalfactors for corporate entrepreneurship: A Comparison of Canadian and U.S.managers. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2), 9–24.

Holm, A. (2007). Virtual organizing of business activities: The intra-organizationaldimension (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Aarhus, Aarhus,Denmark.

Jennings, P., & Beaver, G. (2006). The managerial dimension of small businessfailure. Strategic Change, 4(4), 185–200.

Kirby, D. A., Jones-Evans, D., Futo, P., Kwiatkowski, S., & Schwalbach, J. (1996).Technical consultancy in Hungary, Poland and the UK: A comparative study ofan emerging form of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,20(4), 9–23.

Krueger, N. (2002). Entrepreneurship: Critical perspectives on business and manage-ment. New York: Routledge.

Kuznetsov, A., & McDonald, F. (2000). Entrepreneurial qualities: A case from Russia.Journal of Small Business Management, 38(1), 108–114.

Leadbeater, C. (1997). The rise of the social entrepreneur. London: Demos.Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation,

prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.McClelland, D. C. (1965). Achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 398–392.McGuire, W. (1973). The yin and yang of progress in social psychology: Seven koan.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(3), 446–456.Pearce, J. A., Fritz, D., & Davis, P. S. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation and the

performance of religious congregations as predicted by rational choice theory.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(1), 219–248.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

178 A. Hamby et al.

Peredo, A. M. (2003). Emerging strategies against poverty: The road less traveled.Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(2), 155–166.

Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review ofthe concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56–65.

Politis, D. (2005). Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 399–424.

Quinn, J. (1983). Technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategy. IEEEEngineering Management Review, 11(3), 13–23.

Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. PolicySciences, 4(2), 155–169.

Reis, T. (1999). Unleashing the new resources and entrepreneurship for the commongood: A scan, synthesis and scenario for action. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. KelloggFoundation.

Schade, C. (2008). Entrepreneurial decision making: A paradigm rather than a setof questions: Introduction to special section based on Lally–Darden–HumboldtYoung Entrepreneurship Scholars’ Retreat 2006. Journal of Business Venturing,25(2), 173–174.

Schindehutte, M., & Morris, M. (2009). Advancing strategic entrepreneurshipresearch: The role of complexity science in shifting the paradigm.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 241–276.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Stevenson, H. H. (1985). A perspective on entrepreneurship. In H. H. Stevenson,M. J. Roberts, & H. Grousebeck (Eds.), New business venture and theentrepreneur. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Stevenson, H., & Jarillo, J. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurialmanagement. Strategic Management Journal, 11(4), 17–27.

Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Tontti, V. (2002). Social capital, knowledge, and theinternational growth of technology-based new firms. International BusinessReview, 11, 279–304.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

013