"Who is an entrepreneur?" Is it still the wrong question?

Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, Jan, 2007 by Brian McKenzie, Steve D. Ugbah, Norman Smothers

Understanding of the process of opportunity identification is useful in shedding light on ethical problems associated with the acceptance of innovation (Dees & Starr, 1992, p.100) and understanding the use of powers of persuasion to overcome the resistance to change (Rogers, 1995, pp.272-274). Similarly, an understanding of the process of adoption of new technology (C. M. Christensen, 1997; von Hippel, 1988) is essential to the process of commercialization of scientific discovery (Samsom, 1990, p.4). Understanding the nature of opportunities can serve scientific development by uncovering ethical, process and societal issues surrounding the adoption of new technology.

Entrepreneurial Capacity

Fundamental to research into the process of entrepreneurship is a desire to increase entrepreneurial capacity. Increased entrepreneurial capacity has been found to be associated with a focus on the future (Baron, 1998, p.286), parsimonious planning and analysis (Bhide, 1994, pp.157-159; Lumpkin et al., 1998, p.6), and the maintenance of a positive attitude through avoidance of counterfactual thinking (Baron, 1999, p.86). Techniques from a number of business management areas have been adapted to increase entrepreneurial capacity: business planning (Covello & Hazelgren, 1995; Touchie, 1989), risk management (Brockhaus, 1980; Dickson & Giglierano, 1986; McGrath, 1999) and networking (H. Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Stewart, 1989).

Political scientist, Thomas Homer-Dixon (1995), claims increasing entrepreneurial capacity is an important challenge facing today's society. Homer-Dixon (2000, pp.101-120) has called for increased social ingenuity to solve the increasing complexity and inter-dependency of the global political climate. Homer-Dixon's (2000, p.21) definition of ingenuity: "ideas applied to solve practical technical and social problems", is a construct parallel, if not identical to, the broad definition of entrepreneurship developed in this paper. Understanding of entrepreneurial capacity can serve political institutions by developing new and practical solutions to social problems.

CONCLUSION

This paper addressed two basic questions: Is entrepreneurship limited to the business context? Can concepts from the field of entrepreneurship be applied to other fields of endeavor such as the arts, science, and social development? Based on the alternative framework of entrepreneurship we have presented and tested using multiple scenario analyses, we suggest that entrepreneurship should not be viewed exclusively to business contexts. Further, we suggest that entrepreneurship concepts can be used to study phenomena in other disciplines.

A maxim from the practice of entrepreneurship is that it is better to have a small piece of a large pie than to hold on to a large piece of a small pie (Timmons, 1999, p.229). This paper suggests that the time has come for entrepreneurship scholars to follow this maxim by increasing the size of the entrepreneurship research 'pie'. The advantage of doing so is the opportunity to make a significant intellectual contribution to other fields of endeavor such as the arts, science and social development. To accomplish this, entrepreneurship researchers must be prepared to share custody of the domain of entrepreneurship research. Perhaps 'Who is the entrepreneur?' is no longer the wrong question.