Conceptual Critic of Entrepreneurial Triadic Approach

Samuel Temitope Ogbara; Salleh Din; Hanif Suhairi Abu Barker

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Conceptual Critic of Entrepreneurial Triadic Approach

Samuel Temitope Ogbara, Salleh Din, Hanif Suhairi Abu Barker

Published in American Journal of Operations Management and Information Systems (Volume 3, Issue 2)

Received: 26 February 2018 Accepted: 26 March 2018 Published: 28 April 2018

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

There is a general consensus among researchers that entrepreneurship has transmuted into a global phenomenon, thus demanding a global comprehensive understanding. Entrepreneurial concepts have metamorphosed over time and are inextricably connected with contemporary socio-economic development. The theoretical journey of entrepreneurship in relation to university-based entrepreneurial ecosystem development was traced and examined in this study using a sympathetic critical approach and the author plied a unique conceptual road map: Firstly, a broad spectrum approach was used to examine the conceptualization of the broad field of entrepreneurship as it evolves into entrepreneurial ecosystem. Secondly, criticism of entrepreneurship approach which aids in focusing and fine-tuning the substantive development of entrepreneurship is constructively significant for the development of ‘smart’ entrepreneurship. This study opens with the consideration and logical contemplation of the general entrepreneurship field, cardinal theories and current debates tailored to spur innovative entrepreneurial thought were dutifully delineated.

Published in	American Journal of Operations Management and Information Systems (Volume 3, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11
Page(s)	38-45
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2018. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Entrepreneurial, Entrepreneurial Ecosystem, Entrepreneurial Psychology and Substantive Theory

References

[1]	Berglund, K., Johansson, B., & Schwartz, B. (Eds.). (2012). Societal entrepreneurship: Positioning, penetrating, promoting. Edward Elgar Publishing.
[2]	Isenberg, D. (2014). What an entrepreneurship ecosystem actually is. Harvard Business Review, 5, 1-7.
[3]	Adu, J. T., & Cole, B. M. (2015, September). Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth Index in an Emerging Economy: Nigeria as a Case Study. In European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (p. 9). Academic Conferences International Limited.
[4]	Oziegbe, O. E., Oleabhiele, E. P., & Adeyemo, A. D. (2015). Entrepreneurship education and sustainable development. Academic Research International, 6(2), 279.
[5]	Ameh, A. A., & Udu, A. A. (2016). Social networks and entrepreneurship orientation among students in nigerian universities: a study of social network size and risk disposition. Business and Management Research, 5(2), 1.
[6]	Lombard, A. (2014). Entrepreneurship In Africa: Social Work Challenges For Human, Social And Economic Development1. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 39(3).
[7]	Addabbo, T., Modroño, P. R., & Muñoz, L. G. (2015). Analytical Summary. Revista de Economía Mundial, 41, 103-126.
[8]	Filion, L. J. (1998). From entrepreneurship to entreprenology: the emergence of a new discipline. Journal of enterprising culture, 6(01), 1-23.
[9]	Kaufmann, P. J., & Dant, R. P. (1999). Franchising and the domain of entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business venturing, 14(1), 5-16.
[10]	Redding, G., & Witt, M. A. (2015). Advancing indigenous management theory: Executive rationale as an institutional logic. Management and Organization Review, 11(2), 179-203.
[11]	Boettke, P. J., & Coyne, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurship and development: Cause or consequence?. In Austrian economics and entrepreneurial studies (pp. 67-87). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
[12]	Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). Change and the Entrepreneur. Essays of JA Schumpeter.
[13]	Gedeon, S. (2003). What is Entrepreneurship? Entrepreneurial practice review, 1(3), 18. Retrieved from: http://www.entryerson.com/epr/index.php/jep/article/viewFile/60/43.
[14]	Witt, M. A. (2008). Crossvergence 10 years on: Impact and further potential. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1), 47-52.
[15]	Hock-Beng, C., 1990. Schumpeterian and Austrian Entrepreneurship: Unity within Duality, Journal of Business Venturing 5 (6), 341-347.
[16]	Kirchhoff, B. A. (1994). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capitalism: The economics of business firm formation and growth. ABC-CLIO.
[17]	Baumol, William J. "Formal entrepreneurship theory in economics: Existence and bounds." Journal of business venturing 8, no. 3 (1993): 197-210.
[18]	Loasby, B. J. (2015). Ronald Coase's theory of the firm and the scope of economics. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11(2), 245-264.
[19]	Shane, S. A. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing.
[20]	Cope, J. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(4), 373-397.
[21]	McClelland, D. C. (1965). N achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 1(4), 389.
[22]	Frese, M., & Gielnik, M. M. (2014). The psychology of entrepreneurship. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 1 (1), 413-438.
[23]	Schumpeter, J. (1958), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
[24]	Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of management, 14(2), 139-161.
[25]	Timmons, J. A., Muzyka, D. F., Stevenson, H. H., & Bygrave, W. D. (1987). Opportunity recognition: The core of entrepreneurship. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, 7(2), 109-123.
[26]	Gibb, A. (2007). Creating the entrepreneurial university: do we need a wholly different model of entrepreneurship. Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education, 1, 67-103.
[27]	Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners' personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of work and organizational psychology, 16(4), 353-385.
[28]	Littunen, H. (2000). Entrepreneurship and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial personality. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 6(6), 295-310.
[29]	Zhao, F. (2005). Exploring the synergy between entrepreneurship and innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 11(1), 25-41.
[30]	Murnieks, C. Y., Mosakowski, E., &Cardon, M. S. (2014). Pathways of passion identity centrality, passion, and behavior among entrepreneurs. Journal of Management, 40(6), 1583-1606.
[31]	Elert, N., Andersson, F. W., &Wennberg, K. (2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education in high school on long-term entrepreneurial performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 111, 209-223.
[32]	McClelland, D. C., & Winter, D. G. (1971). Motivating economic achievement: Accelerating economic development through psychological training.
[33]	McClelland, D. C. (1987). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. The journal of creative behavior, 21(3), 219-233.
[34]	Åstebro, T., & Chen, J. (2014). The entrepreneurial earnings puzzle: Mismeasurement or real?. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 88-105.
[35]	Germak, A. J., & Robinson, J. A. (2014). Exploring the motivation of nascent social entrepreneurs. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 5-21.
[36]	Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: a network theory. Small Business Economics, 45(1), 103-128.
[37]	Shane, S., Kolvereid, L., & Westhead, P. (1991). An exploratory examination of the reasons leading to new firm formation across country and gender. Journal of business venturing, 6(6), 431-446.
[38]	Artinger, S., Vulkan, N., & Shem-Tov, Y. (2015). Entrepreneurs’ negotiation behavior. Small Business Economics, 44(4), 737-757.
[39]	Lüthje, C., & Franke, N. (2003). The ‘making’ of an entrepreneur: testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R&d Management, 33(2), 135-147.
[40]	Espíritu-Olmos, R., & Sastre-Castillo, M. A. (2015). Personality traits versus work values: Comparing psychological theories on entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1595-1598.
[41]	Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
[42]	Casson, M. (2003). Entrepreneurship, business culture and the theory of the firm. In Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 223-246). Springer, Boston, MA.
[43]	Stokes, D. (2000). Putting entrepreneurship into marketing: the processes of entrepreneurial marketing. Journal of research in marketing and entrepreneurship, 2(1), 1-16.
[44]	Liñán, F., & Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 907-933.
[45]	Tang, M., Chen, X., Li, Q., & Lu, Y. (2014). Does Chinese university entrepreneurship education fit students' needs? Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 6(2), 163-178.
[46]	Seilov, G. A. (2015). Does the adoption of customer and competitor orientations make small hospitality businesses more entrepreneurial? Evidence from Kazakhstan. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(1), 71-86.
[47]	Chen, M. H., Chang, Y. Y., & Lo, Y. H. (2015). Creativity cognitive style, conflict, and career success for creative entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 906-910.
[48]	Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits. Personality and individual differences, 63, 58-63.
[49]	Williams, C. C., Round, J., & Rodgers, P. (2009). Evaluating the motives of informal entrepreneurs: some lessons from Ukraine.Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 14(01), 59-71.
[50]	Tehseen, Shehnaz, and T. Ramayah. "Entrepreneurial competencies and SMEs business success: The contingent role of external integration." Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 6, no. 1 (2015): 50.
[51]	Stephan, U., Uhlaner, L. M., & Stride, C. (2015). Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(3), 308-331.
[52]	Rae, D., & Carswell, M. (2001). Towards a conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial learning. Journal of small business and enterprise development, 8(2), 150-158.
[53]	Atkinson, R., Atkinson, K., Hilgard, E., (1983). Introduction to Psychology; The role of Psychology in Research.
[54]	Bandura, A., 1982. Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. American Psychologist 37 (2), 122.
[55]	Sarasvathy, S., Kumar, K., York, J. G., & Bhagavatula, S. (2014). An effectual approach to international entrepreneurship: overlaps, challenges, and provocative possibilities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 71-93.
[56]	Cumberland, D. M., Meek, W. R., & Germain, R. (2015). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and firm performance in challenging environments: Evidence from the franchise context. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 20(01), 1550004.
[57]	Cacciotti, G., & Hayton, J. C. (2015). Fear and entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(2), 165-190.
[58]	Yu, L., Orazem, P. F., & Jolly, R. W. (2014). Entrepreneurship over the business cycle. Economics Letters, 122(2), 105-110.
[59]	Hisrich, R., Langan-Fox, J., & Grant, S. (2007). Entrepreneurship research and practice: a call to action for psychology.
[60]	Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 75-93.
[61]	Anderson, A. R. (2000). Paradox in the periphery: an entrepreneurial reconstruction?. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(2), 91-109.
[62]	Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: An economic theory. Rowman & Littlefield.
[63]	Burch, G. F., Batchelor, J. H., & Humphrey, R. H. (2013). Emotional labor for entrepreneurs: A natural and necessary extension. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 3(3), 331-366.
[64]	Galindo, M. Á., & Méndez, M. T. (2014). Entrepreneurship, economic growth, and innovation: Are feedback effects at work? Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 825-829.
[65]	Rosenbusch, N., Rauch, A., & Bausch, A. (2013). The mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation in the task environment–performance relationship: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 39(3), 633-659.
[66]	Alvarez, S. A., & Busenitz, L. W. (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of management, 27(6), 755-775.
[67]	Lawrence, T. B., Leca, B., & Zilber, T. B. (2013). Institutional work: Current research, new directions and overlooked issues. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1023-1033.
[68]	Su, J., Zhai, Q., & Landström, H. (2015). Entrepreneurship research in China: internationalization or contextualization?. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(1-2), 50-79.
[69]	Drucker, P. (2014). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Routledge.
[70]	Weber, M. (1905). 2002. The Protestant Ethic and the “Spirit” of Capitalism and Other Writings.
[71]	Hagen, E. E. (1962). On the theory of social change: How economic growth begins.
[72]	Haugh, H. (2005). A research agenda for social entrepreneurship. Social enterprise journal, 1(1), 1-12.
[73]	Fayolle, A., & Liñán, F. (2014). The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 663-666.
[74]	Ojo, S., Nwankwo, S., & Gbadamosi, A. (2013). Ethnic entrepreneurship: the myths of informal and illegal enterprises in the UK. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7-8), 587-611.
[75]	Alias, A. J., Mokhtar, A. Z., & Juri, A. H. (2005). Student-Centered Approach towards Technical, Learning, Social and Entrepreneurship Competencies at UniKL. In Proceedings of the 2005 Regional Conference on Engineering Education. Johor, Malaysia (pp. 163-167).
[76]	Jamaluddin, A. & Dickie, C. (2011).Decision-making related to business growth: Malay small business in Selangor. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(10), 284–296.
[77]	Osibanjo, O. (2006). Concept of Entrepreneurship: A paper presented at the workshop on entrepreneurship and innovation for 200 level students in the University of Ibadan.
[78]	Okojie, J. A. (2008, May). Policy framework and strategy for entrepreneurship development for Nigerian universities. In A Paper Presented at the National Sensitization Workshop On Entrepreneurship Development in Nigerian Universities Organized by National Universities Commission, Abuja (Vol. 21).
[79]	Olorundare, A. S., & Kayode, D. J. (2014). Entrepreneurship Education in Nigerian Universities: a tool for national transformation. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 29, 155-175.
[80]	Okumagba, P. O., & Okinono, O. (2016). Human Capability and Entrepreneurial Development in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Samuel Temitope Ogbara, Salleh Din, Hanif Suhairi Abu Barker. (2018). Conceptual Critic of Entrepreneurial Triadic Approach. American Journal of Operations Management and Information Systems, 3(2), 38-45. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Samuel Temitope Ogbara; Salleh Din; Hanif Suhairi Abu Barker. Conceptual Critic of Entrepreneurial Triadic Approach. Am. J. Oper. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2018, 3(2), 38-45. doi: 10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Samuel Temitope Ogbara, Salleh Din, Hanif Suhairi Abu Barker. Conceptual Critic of Entrepreneurial Triadic Approach. Am J Oper Manag Inf Syst. 2018;3(2):38-45. doi: 10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11,
  author = {Samuel Temitope Ogbara and Salleh Din and Hanif Suhairi Abu Barker},
  title = {Conceptual Critic of Entrepreneurial Triadic Approach},
  journal = {American Journal of Operations Management and Information Systems},
  volume = {3},
  number = {2},
  pages = {38-45},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajomis.20180302.11},
  abstract = {There is a general consensus among researchers that entrepreneurship has transmuted into a global phenomenon, thus demanding a global comprehensive understanding. Entrepreneurial concepts have metamorphosed over time and are inextricably connected with contemporary socio-economic development. The theoretical journey of entrepreneurship in relation to university-based entrepreneurial ecosystem development was traced and examined in this study using a sympathetic critical approach and the author plied a unique conceptual road map: Firstly, a broad spectrum approach was used to examine the conceptualization of the broad field of entrepreneurship as it evolves into entrepreneurial ecosystem. Secondly, criticism of entrepreneurship approach which aids in focusing and fine-tuning the substantive development of entrepreneurship is constructively significant for the development of ‘smart’ entrepreneurship. This study opens with the consideration and logical contemplation of the general entrepreneurship field, cardinal theories and current debates tailored to spur innovative entrepreneurial thought were dutifully delineated.},
 year = {2018}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Conceptual Critic of Entrepreneurial Triadic Approach
AU  - Samuel Temitope Ogbara
AU  - Salleh Din
AU  - Hanif Suhairi Abu Barker
Y1  - 2018/04/28
PY  - 2018
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11
T2  - American Journal of Operations Management and Information Systems
JF  - American Journal of Operations Management and Information Systems
JO  - American Journal of Operations Management and Information Systems
SP  - 38
EP  - 45
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2578-8310
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11
AB  - There is a general consensus among researchers that entrepreneurship has transmuted into a global phenomenon, thus demanding a global comprehensive understanding. Entrepreneurial concepts have metamorphosed over time and are inextricably connected with contemporary socio-economic development. The theoretical journey of entrepreneurship in relation to university-based entrepreneurial ecosystem development was traced and examined in this study using a sympathetic critical approach and the author plied a unique conceptual road map: Firstly, a broad spectrum approach was used to examine the conceptualization of the broad field of entrepreneurship as it evolves into entrepreneurial ecosystem. Secondly, criticism of entrepreneurship approach which aids in focusing and fine-tuning the substantive development of entrepreneurship is constructively significant for the development of ‘smart’ entrepreneurship. This study opens with the consideration and logical contemplation of the general entrepreneurship field, cardinal theories and current debates tailored to spur innovative entrepreneurial thought were dutifully delineated.
VL  - 3
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Samuel Temitope Ogbara

School of Business Innovation and Technopreneuship, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Perlis, Malaysia
Salleh Din

School of Business Innovation and Technopreneuship, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Perlis, Malaysia
Hanif Suhairi Abu Barker

School of Human Development and Techocommunication, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Perlis, Malaysia

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Samuel Temitope Ogbara, Salleh Din, Hanif Suhairi Abu Barker. (2018). Conceptual Critic of Entrepreneurial Triadic Approach. American Journal of Operations Management and Information Systems, 3(2), 38-45. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Samuel Temitope Ogbara; Salleh Din; Hanif Suhairi Abu Barker. Conceptual Critic of Entrepreneurial Triadic Approach. Am. J. Oper. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2018, 3(2), 38-45. doi: 10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Samuel Temitope Ogbara, Salleh Din, Hanif Suhairi Abu Barker. Conceptual Critic of Entrepreneurial Triadic Approach. Am J Oper Manag Inf Syst. 2018;3(2):38-45. doi: 10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11,
  author = {Samuel Temitope Ogbara and Salleh Din and Hanif Suhairi Abu Barker},
  title = {Conceptual Critic of Entrepreneurial Triadic Approach},
  journal = {American Journal of Operations Management and Information Systems},
  volume = {3},
  number = {2},
  pages = {38-45},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajomis.20180302.11},
  abstract = {There is a general consensus among researchers that entrepreneurship has transmuted into a global phenomenon, thus demanding a global comprehensive understanding. Entrepreneurial concepts have metamorphosed over time and are inextricably connected with contemporary socio-economic development. The theoretical journey of entrepreneurship in relation to university-based entrepreneurial ecosystem development was traced and examined in this study using a sympathetic critical approach and the author plied a unique conceptual road map: Firstly, a broad spectrum approach was used to examine the conceptualization of the broad field of entrepreneurship as it evolves into entrepreneurial ecosystem. Secondly, criticism of entrepreneurship approach which aids in focusing and fine-tuning the substantive development of entrepreneurship is constructively significant for the development of ‘smart’ entrepreneurship. This study opens with the consideration and logical contemplation of the general entrepreneurship field, cardinal theories and current debates tailored to spur innovative entrepreneurial thought were dutifully delineated.},
 year = {2018}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Conceptual Critic of Entrepreneurial Triadic Approach
AU  - Samuel Temitope Ogbara
AU  - Salleh Din
AU  - Hanif Suhairi Abu Barker
Y1  - 2018/04/28
PY  - 2018
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11
T2  - American Journal of Operations Management and Information Systems
JF  - American Journal of Operations Management and Information Systems
JO  - American Journal of Operations Management and Information Systems
SP  - 38
EP  - 45
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2578-8310
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajomis.20180302.11
AB  - There is a general consensus among researchers that entrepreneurship has transmuted into a global phenomenon, thus demanding a global comprehensive understanding. Entrepreneurial concepts have metamorphosed over time and are inextricably connected with contemporary socio-economic development. The theoretical journey of entrepreneurship in relation to university-based entrepreneurial ecosystem development was traced and examined in this study using a sympathetic critical approach and the author plied a unique conceptual road map: Firstly, a broad spectrum approach was used to examine the conceptualization of the broad field of entrepreneurship as it evolves into entrepreneurial ecosystem. Secondly, criticism of entrepreneurship approach which aids in focusing and fine-tuning the substantive development of entrepreneurship is constructively significant for the development of ‘smart’ entrepreneurship. This study opens with the consideration and logical contemplation of the general entrepreneurship field, cardinal theories and current debates tailored to spur innovative entrepreneurial thought were dutifully delineated.
VL  - 3
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download