1
Introduction

Reflecting on our philosophical journey

Stratos Ramoglou, Mine Karatas-Ozkan and Alain Fayolle

As entrepreneurship researchers, we also adhere to some fundamental assumptions about the nature of the entrepreneurial phenomenon (ontological assumptions) and ways of knowing it (epistemological assumptions). Moreover, the multidisciplinary nature of entrepreneurship research entails that there is no single set of such assumptions. Different philosophical traditions are silently affecting the evolution of academic debate – regardless of whether we are ever aware of them or the exact ways through which they facilitate or constrain our scholarly imagination (Wittgenstein, 1958).

In fact, even the most “hardcore” empirical researcher – keen to dismiss the relevance of philosophy – would philosophize in her very dismissal of philosophy (van Fraassen, 1995). The only genuine difference is that her conclusions would be the result of unexamined philosophical preoccupations. She would also be a philosopher, yet unreflective of the precise nature of her philosophical preoccupations and the manner in which they affect her research practice.

Philosophy is inescapable. The only genuine choice lies in the kind of philosophies that we will trust in our scholarly journey. This volume emerged from an invitation to entrepreneurship researchers to detect and reflect upon prevalent philosophical assumptions underlying scholarly practice. The motivation for this invitation emerged from the conviction that our field cannot make sufficient progress without standing back to seriously and patiently reflect upon the most fundamental assumptions underpinning empirical research. There is no doubt that empirical inquiry is fundamental for the possibility of scientific progress (Alvarez, Barney, McBride, & Wuebker, 2017; Davidsson, 2016). However, it is doubtful that headway can be made without sufficient reflection about the direction of the empirical journey. There are fundamental questions that simply cannot be tackled by means of empirical scrutiny (Ramoglou & Tsang, 2017a, 2017b). These are philosophical questions that can be addressed only by means of careful reflection and argumentation.

Needless to say, the philosophical journey does not have a final stop in sight. So long as we are interested in the thoughtful study of entrepreneurial phenomena, it is inescapable that conceptual confusions will emerge and profound questions will beg our attention. Yet this does not mean that it is not a journey worth traveling. Actually, even the dead-ends of such a journey should be welcomed. For the least of reasons, they alert us to the wrong turns that future scholarship should better avoid. More importantly perhaps, we cannot avoid taking this journey for the reason that we are already on this journey. And enhancing the levels of reflexivity may only help us improve the “philosophical maps” guiding the direction of the travel.

Against this backdrop, the second chapter opens the debate on philosophy and the social sciences. McBride raises some fundamental questions that we must consider before beginning the examination of philosophical assumptions and approaches to entrepreneurship. He suggests that the foundational building block of the social sciences is that they are inherently social and distinctive from physical phenomena, to discuss the implications that the explicit appreciation of this distinction entails regarding the explanatory frameworks that should guide entrepreneurship research. McBride concludes his chapter confronting entrepreneurship scholars with a fundamental social ontological question: how do beliefs blend in a social environment such that one becomes established and “real”? It is answers to such fundamental questions that should form the foundation of a well-grounded understanding of the social sciences in general, and entrepreneurship in particular.

In the third chapter, Arend critically examines the idea of progress in entrepreneurship research by testing recently proposed theories (bricolage, effectuation and creation opportunities). Arend’s verdict is that they are not sufficiently new. He argues that entrepreneurship, as a relatively nascent and vulnerable field, lacks a strong, sufficiently different and indigenous theory. In addition, Arend demonstrates that entrepreneurship research tends to attract the kind of theories that are not necessarily new and novel but presented as such. This practice hinders the healthy development of the field; thus, Arend calls for more responsible scholarship that relies on more critical analyses of allegedly “new” theories. By critiquing the already popular theories of “bricolage”, “effectuation” and “creation opportunities” Arend provides us the means for testing the originality and contribution of more “novel” theories to come, and urges us to take more seriously the process of theory development in entrepreneurship research.

The fourth chapter by Pittaway, Aïssaoui and Fox presents social constructionism as a meta-theory and defends its philosophical potential for entrepreneurship research. Pittaway et al. critique the overwhelming nature and use of functionalist approaches in the study of entrepreneurship. They argue that such assumptions create various problems, e.g., they solidify the conviction that entrepreneurship is an individual rather than societal phenomenon. Applying a social constructionist approach to studying entrepreneurial opportunity as a specific domain of entrepreneurship research, Pittaway et al. try to delineate how the opposing camps (the discovery versus creation perspective of opportunities) are linked to different dimensions of social constructionist epistemology. In doing so, they argue that social constructionism can accommodate diverse views and forms of entrepreneurship.

In the fifth chapter, Martin and Wilson put forward a competing meta-theoretical perspective that stresses the value of realist philosophy. They make the case for serious realist philosophical approaches that, inter alia, demonstrate theory and practice inconsistencies and facilitate action. Their point of departure is that whilst entrepreneurship is a distinctively pragmatic domain, it is incorrect to think that matters of doing (making it work) should be prior to theoretical matters (understanding why it works). They especially draw attention to the under-theorized “entrepreneurial project” as the means through which entrepreneurial opportunities are realized, and highlight how understanding the conditions that enable such projects to develop can form the basis of an applied theory of entrepreneurial opportunity development. Moreover, Martin and Wilson make a convincing case of the practical value of realist theorizing in providing the background structure necessary for informed decisions about entrepreneurial projects.

Reinforcing the case for critical realism made by Martin and Wilson, in the sixth chapter, Kitching proposes critical realism as a philosophically superior approach to the major alternatives, viz., positivism, social constructionism and pragmatism. He explains that critical realism is a facilitating philosophy for entrepreneurship and small business research as it channels attention to the condition of possibility of particular business practices. More specifically, Kitching points out the distinctive value of critical realist research in allowing for generating insights into entrepreneurship as experienced by disadvantaged groups. A key point stemming from a critical realist approach of identity and entrepreneurship is the emphasis on entrepreneurs’ positioning within particular social relations.

The seventh chapter, authored by Kaasila-Pakanen and Puhakka, takes the debate further by reflecting on the use of postcolonial deconstruction for enhancing our understanding of the diverse meanings and sides of entrepreneurship. They argue that as entrepreneurship scholars, we should be prepared to take responsibility of our complicity in webs of power through the explicit acknowledgement of our epistemological positioning. Taking a postcolonial deconstructionist view entails self-reflexivity as to the role of the researcher and author in sustaining dominant social relations. It also implies questioning deeper philosophical underpinnings of entrepreneurship research as to the nature of entrepreneurship, the borders and taken for granted assumptions of entrepreneurship research, as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria to be applied.

In the eighth chapter, Slutskaya, Mallett and Borgerson explore entrepreneurial attachment to success ethics (i.e. a system of legitimation that prioritizes norms and actions consistent with institutionalized notion of success) as generated by a cluster of promises of the enterprise culture. Drawing on empirical insights, their chapter reveals a dark side of entrepreneurship. They especially highlight the role of cruel optimism in the context of failure as a result of the pressure towards entrepreneurial success along with the demand for entrepreneurial identities to function smoothly. Their findings reveal that entrepreneurs demonstrate a paradoxical desire to belong to and participate in the very normative entrepreneurial culture that has failed them. This chapter makes an important contribution to ongoing debates on reflexivity in entrepreneurship research through the problematization of the concept of failure through a novel critique of the ideological underpinnings of the normative enterprise culture.

The ninth chapter applies this reflexivity to the concept of “entrepreneurial imagination”. Thompson points out that, though the concept has a long history in heterodox economics and is recurrently used in references to the entrepreneurial process, we lack a critical review of the uses of the concept – let alone a reflective analysis of the philosophical underpinnings of perspectives of the “entrepreneurial imagination”. This chapter therefore presents an important contribution on this front. Thompson brings to the open common assumptions underlying the use of imagination in entrepreneurship research. He puts forward a three-pronged critique that touches on the processual, relational and aesthetic aspects of imagination; to explain how extant conceptualizations constrict the potential of the concept to illuminate the entrepreneurial process in a more complete and dynamic manner. This critique offers the springboard on which Thompson turns to redirect entrepreneurship research toward renewed theoretical perspectives that benefit from hitherto unutilized developments in the philosophy of imagination.

In the tenth chapter, Nicolopoulou and Samy address some of the noted gaps in the established philosophical outlooks of entrepreneurship by incorporating perspectives from the social sciences. In particular, they examine the concepts of cosmopolitanism and orientalism as part of the conceptualization of disposition and context in entrepreneurship research. This chapter helps us delve into complex social science-informed constructs and flesh out potential implications for the further development of the field. The authors maintain that such an interdisciplinary focus can facilitate the emergence of multiple lines of inquiry, narrative and interpretation toward the creation of pathways that can inform help us address the contemporary “grand challenges”.

In the eleventh chapter, Gordon and McBride take us through a scholarly journey suggesting that we should rethink some of our core assumptions, definitions and constructs in entrepreneurship studies. They study the nature of the firm in entrepreneurship research, and highlight the importance of getting the ontology right. Without sufficient clarity about the nature of the firm as an organized social entity, we simply cannot generate meaningful theories and explanations. Given that a necessary component of any entrepreneurial venture is the dynamic, ongoing effort to design and build the vehicle that creates and captures economic and social value – the firm – Gordon and McBride offer us a reconceptualization of this vehicle through a deontic architecture view.

Our final chapter, authored by Dimov, encourages us to rethink basic assumptions. Entrepreneurship is action in the face of uncertainty, and this mantra is routinely repeated in entrepreneurship research. Dimov stands back to reflectively wonder what we mean when we say that entrepreneurs bear uncertainty. In fact, through an original analysis of the concept he is led to the conclusion that “those who truly bear the uncertainty, do not really exist”, to suggest that uncertainty-bearing is essentially an academic construct, detached from the realities of acting entrepreneurs. Against this backdrop, he moves to ground uncertainty firmly in the real-world experience of enterprise. In this effort, Dimov guides us through colorful thought experiments, excursions in process philosophy, and autobiographical accounts, to recommend that we should fundamentally reconsider the nature of entrepreneurship. Instead of ruminating that entrepreneurship is action in the face of uncertainty, Dimov concludes that, at a deeper ontological level, entrepreneurship is the enactment of purpose. It is the attachment to this that, in turn, generates uncertainty – though, in the absence of philosophical reflexivity, it is tempting to frame the bearing of uncertainty as the essence of entrepreneurship.

We trust that the chapters of this volume contain some potentially valuable contributions in the direction of improving the levels of our collective reflexivity on some of the most important questions animating entrepreneurship research.

References

Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., McBride, R., & Wuebker, R. (2017). On opportunities: Philosophical and empirical implications. Academy of Management Review, forthcoming.

Davidsson, P. (2016). Researching entrepreneurship: Conceptualization and design (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2017a). In defense of common sense in entrepreneurship theory: Beyond philosophical extremities and linguistic abuses. Academy of Management Review, in press.

Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2017b). Accepting the unknowables of entrepreneurship and overcoming philosophical obstacles to scientific progress. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8, 71–77.

van Fraassen, B. C. (1995). Against naturalized empiricism. In P. Leonardi & M. Santambrogio (Eds.), On Quine (pp. 68–88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.