Call For Papers: Evidence-Based Entrepreneurship
“Many companies and leaders show little interest in subjecting
their business practices and decisions to the same scientific rigor
they would use for technical or medical issues” (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006, p. 12)
Call for Submissions
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice: Special Issue on
Evidence-based Entrepreneurship (EBE): Empirical Base, Promises and Prospects to Enhance Cumulative Science and Evidence-Informed Practice
Guest Editors: Michael Frese, Denise M. Rousseau, Johan Wiklund
The Special Issue will appear March 2014 issue (vol. 38-2)
Deadline for Submission of Manuscripts: 15th of November 2012
Papers should be submitted via
the S1/MC website for the journal after October 1, 2012
Evidence-based entrepreneurship ( EBE) pursues a science-informed practice of entrepreneurship and systematic accumulation and interpretation of entrepreneurship’s body of evidence (Rauch & Frese, 2006). EBE incorporates insights from evidence-based management, which is influenced by evidence-based approaches in medicine and other fields. At the same time we must ask whether entrepreneurship can make use of the controversial ideas of evidence-based management. This special issue takes stock of EBE and the opportunities and limits of modeling itself on other areas of evidence-based practice.
Entrepreneurship research continues to pursue knowledge accumulation and related evidence-based approaches (Brinckmann, Grichnik, & Kapsa, 2010; Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009; Zhao & Seibert, 2006). Meta-analysis is one approach to the accumulation of knowledge in the field, offering the empirical literature’s best estimate of the existence, strength and consistency in the relationship(s) between practically useful variables (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). How can evidence-based entrepreneurship make better use of meta-analyses, of systematic reviews of both quantitative and qualitative research and of empirically well-established theories?
A question concerns the beneficiaries of evidence-based entrepreneurship (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). We envisage that practicing entrepreneurs, consultants, and policy makers all represent important potential target groups for evidence-based entrepreneurship.
An important purpose of research is to generate new knowledge that can inform the decisions, processes, and activities of practice (Stokes, 1997). Knowledge useful to practice must be accessible, allowing the busy practitioner to benefit from the full body of relevant evidence. Entrepreneurship as a field needs to identify and evaluate models of evidence-based approaches, examining whether and how it can learn from such fields as medicine and organizational psychology. Addressing these issues, we seek to inform the conversation in Entrepreneurship regarding the notion of science-informed practice of entrepreneurs, consultants, and policy makers.
To inform and advance the EBE debate, this special issue seeks empirical studies from an array of methodologies, theoretical accounts, synthetic reviews and critiques related to evidence-informed entrepreneurship.
Some potential topics:
1) What constitutes evidence in entrepreneurship? How can more accumulative evidence be developed?
2) Do meta-analyses and systematic reviews help practitioners of entrepreneurship and policy makers? If so, how can this best be done?
3) How might meta-analyses and systematic reviews of quantitative as well as qualitative studies contribute to entrepreneurship research with its emphasis on new approaches and radical departure from common practices?
4) How might practitioners of entrepreneurship best acquire knowledge from entrepreneurship research? How might entrepreneurship research be adapted to contribute effectively to practice?
5) Who are the beneficiaries of EBE – consultants, entrepreneurs themselves, policy makers and what kind of evidence can they use?
6) How are entrepreneurs using evidence developed in their own companies? How might such evidence be best used? Can entrepreneurship research contribute to this use of evidence?
7) Considering methodological issues associated with entrepreneurship research, would it be possible to evaluate interventions with the help of controlled randomized experiments (the “gold standard” in evidence based medicine)? What is the role of the comparative case studies? How can qualitative approaches of study contribute to evidence-based entrepreneurship?
8) Use of evidence is tied to how stakeholders in the entrepreneurship field make decisions. What research on entrepreneurial decision making and knowledge use might inform the development of evidence for practice?
9) Evidence based intrapreneurship – can corporate entreprenership be based on the development of company-specific evidence?
10) How can meta-analytic evidence and other systematic reviews inform evidence-based practice and evidence-based policy regarding entrepreneurship?
Empirical studies and theoretical contributions are encouraged regarding:
1) How knowledge translates into entrepreneurial action (knowing-doing gap)
2) The organization, structure, and nature of entrepreneurial knowledge – Does it include evidence-based knowledge and how might it do so?
3) Case studies of theory-guided interventions to promote evidence-informed entrepreneurship practice by entrepreneurs, consultants, and policy makers
4) Randomized controlled experiments that test the efficacy of evidence in entrepreneurship
5) Meta-analyses or other systematic reviews on entrepreneurial issues (using qualitative or quantitative studies)
6) Model development and translation issues in making theoretical models more useful for practice
7) Evidence-based policy making and consulting – how do policy makers and consultants use evidence (cognitive, motivational, issues of knowledge accessibility)?
8) Knowledge and practice as taught in university entrepreneurship courses and how it affects actual entrepreneurial practice
9) Models of how practice and theory can communicate to develop better evidence
Brinckmann, J., Grichnik, D., & Kapsa, D. (2010). Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business planning–performance relationship in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 24-40.
Hunter, J. A., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2006). Meta-analyses as a tool for developing entrepreneurship research and theory. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Economic Growth, 9, 29-51.
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: Cumulative empirical evidence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 761-787.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's Quadrant - Basic Science and Technological Innovation. New York: Brookings Institution Press,.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology of developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207-222.
Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 259-271.