Entrepreneurship in the Future: A Delphi Study of ETP and JBV Editorial Board Members

What will entrepreneurship look like in 2030? We conducted a Delphi panel study asking this question of editors and Editorial Review Board members of the two leading entrepreneurship journals, Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice in an attempt to lift the eyes of the field to the horizon, outside academe, if only briefly. Using thematic coding analysis, we identified close to 1000 first-order codes from the 175 scholars surveyed, which we categorized into 24 distinct themes. From this input in the first round, we generated 93 predictions, which were assessed by the panel in terms of likelihood in a second round. It is our hope that these themes and predictions might serve to inspire our present research, teaching, and entrepreneurial endeavors, and spur debate and discussions among (future) entrepreneurship scholars of future-relevant phenomena that can potentially be studied under the rubric of entrepreneurship

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

An opportunity to profit from recent entrepreneurship theory

We offer a brief rejoinder to a recent critique published in the Journal of Business Venturing Insights. We look past the unprofessional tone of the critique to seek opportunities to clarify the positions we took in our work and to explain the motivations behind them. We do so by articulating seven questions worthy of clarification. We conclude our rejoinder with a discussion about the notion of a “secret formula” for publishing novel theory and offer a few words of encouragement to other theorists interested in more constructive endeavors, such as building conceptual foundations for our field

"What is an opportunity?": From theoretical mystification to everyday understanding

Expressions about opportunities are used unproblematically in everyday contexts. Yet, the question “What is an opportunity?” has posed a difficult riddle in the academic study of entrepreneurship. Drawing on the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, we explain that such perplexities are common when words are removed from ordinary language and intellectuals try to grasp what they name. Approaching the opportunity riddle differently, we ask, “How do entrepreneurs use the word opportunity?” and elucidate an actualization theory of entrepreneurship attuned to the everyday understandings that underlie the meaningful use of the word. Bringing implicit understandings to the foreground contributes to (1) the dissolution of the mystification over the nature of “opportunity”, (2) the clarification of the conceptual foundations of entrepreneurship theory, and (3) the reorientation of the field toward more conceptually precise ways of thinking about Knightian uncertainty, entrepreneurial success, and the entrepreneurial process. This paper also contributes to the methodology of management studies, by demonstrating how attention to the logic of ordinary language can alert us to theoretical dead-ends and enable the development of theory that bridges academic and everyday understandings

“Clipping an angel’s wings”: on the value and limitations of philosophy in management research

Ramoglou and McMullen (2022) offers a logically rigorous extension and refinement of earlier work on the conceptual foundations of entrepreneurship theory – the actualization perspective of entrepreneurship. Leunbach (2023) and Mitchell, Israelsen, Mitchell & Hua (2023) have crafted two thoughtful and highly scholarly commentaries that help augment this theoretical perspective. The backbone of our rejoinder is the rebuttal of Leunbach’s criticism of our rejection of metaphysics. We clarify that there is nothing problematic with metaphysics in the sense of abstract theorizing, philosophical questions, or uncertain answers. What is nevertheless problematic is the metaphysics that emerge when linguistic confusions derail our academic imagination. In defending our approach, we further demonstrate that the practice of “clipping an angel’s wings” – i.e., the practice of disciplining our theoretical imagination by means of philosophical analysis – is not a purely destructive endeavor. Far from that: the analytic method has a highly constructive component as well: it helps us increase conceptual clarity by laying out the ground rules that prevent our theoretical developments from becoming “nothing but houses of cards” (Wittgenstein, 1958: 118)

Entrepreneurial Imaginativeness in New Venture Ideation

Although theories of entrepreneurial action regularly acknowledge the importance of imagination, the ability is rarely defined or measured, and thus effectively treated as uniform in degree and type. Using a creative problem-solving lens, we identify and measure three different cognitive skills—creative, social, and practical imaginativeness—that vary across individuals. Each skill combines the ability of imagination with the knowledge needed to mentally simulate various task-related scenarios used in generating and selecting ideas for new value creation. We then conduct a quasi-experiment to examine each skill’s relative effect on new venture ideation. We find that the three imaginativeness skills vary across individuals and that they predict new venture idea quantity and quality differently over and above the effects of motivation, knowledge, and experience. We conclude with implications for theory development in entrepreneurship and creative problem-solving

Encouraging Consensus-Challenging Research in Universities

Drawing from self-efficacy theory and transcriptions of in-depth interviews, we construct a conjoint experiment that we then administer to 54 tenure-tracked assistant professors from two Research-I universities in the United States. Findings from their 1728 nested decisions show that the administrative effectiveness of outcome expectations and time constraints in encouraging highly uncertain, consensus-challenging research depends on the research self-efficacy of scholars. As expected, we find that increases in anticipated credit are more effective at encouraging consensus-challenging research when scholars perceive themselves to be highly competent in the line of research being pursued. Surprisingly, however, we also find that increases in both blame and time pressures are more discouraging of consensus-challenging research when scholars perceive themselves to be highly competent in a research area. We conclude by discussing the findings and their implications for research and practice. Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2006.

Editorial: Enhancing quantitative theory-testing entrepreneurship research

The purpose of this editorial is to discuss methodological advancements to enhance quantitative theory-testing entrepreneurship research. As the impact of entrepreneurship scholarship accelerates and deepens, our methods must keep pace to continue shaping theory, policy, and practice. Like our sister fields in business, entrepreneurship is coming to terms with the replication and credibility crisis in the social sciences, forcing the field to revisit commonly-held assumptions that limit the promise and prospect of our scholarship. Thus, we provide suggestions for reviewers and editors to identify concerns in empirical work, and to guide authors in improving their analyses and research designs. We hope that our editorial provides useful and actionable guidance for entrepreneurship researchers submitting theory-testing papers to Journal of Business Venturing