Per Davidsson, Ted Baker and Julienne Marie Senyard
The majority of emerging and young firms work under resource constraints. This has made researchers highlight the importance of resourcefulness. Perhaps the most important…
Abstract
Purpose
The majority of emerging and young firms work under resource constraints. This has made researchers highlight the importance of resourcefulness. Perhaps the most important theoretical development in this context is the emerging, behavioral theory of entrepreneurial bricolage. However, although academic interest is increasing, research on entrepreneurial bricolage has been hampered by the lack of robust instruments that allow large-scale theory testing. The purpose is to help fill this void. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development and contents of a novel measure of entrepreneurial bricolage behavior and assesses its validity. The measure is intended to be applicable in broadly based, quantitative studies.
Design/methodology/approach
The instrument was developed as a unidimensional, reflective measure. Standard protocols for scale development were followed. The validation uses primary, longitudinal data from four samples of nascent and young firms as well as published, cross-sectional evidence from another four samples representing different contexts and variations to the data collection procedure.
Findings
Promising results are reported concerning the reliability as well as the discriminant and nomological validity of the measure. Based on the pre-testing and validation experiences guidelines are also provided for attempts at further improvements.
Originality/value
This paper presents a novel measure developed by the authors, which holds promise for being a useful tool for future research on the prevalence, antecedents, and consequences of entrepreneurial bricolage. Previously, no established measure of entrepreneurial bricolage behavior existed, and the few partial measures appearing in the literature have not been comprehensively evaluated. Thus, we offer a comprehensive and elaborate presentation of a measure only briefly introduced in Davidsson (2016) and Senyard et al., (2014).
Details
Keywords
Alessio Ishizaka, David Pickernell, Shuangfa Huang and Julienne Marie Senyard
The purpose of this study is to examine the portfolio of knowledge transfer (KT) activities in 162 UK higher education institutions. In doing so, this study creates an index and…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to examine the portfolio of knowledge transfer (KT) activities in 162 UK higher education institutions. In doing so, this study creates an index and ranking, but more importantly, it identifies specific groupings or strategic profiles of universities defined by different combinations and strengths of the individual KT activities from which the overall rankings are derived. Previous research, concentrating on entrepreneurial universities, shows that individual knowledge transfer (KT) activities vary substantially among UK universities. The broad portfolio of universities' KT activities, however, remains underexplored, creating gaps in terms of the relative strength, range, focus and combination of these activities, and the degree to which there are distinct university strategic KT profiles. By examining KT activities and grouping universities into KT “types”, this research allows universities and policymakers to better develop and measure clearer KT-strategies.
Design/methodology/approach
The present study applied the Preference Ranking Organization Method for the Enrichment of Evaluations (PROMETHEE) to rank universities based on their portfolio of KT activities. It utilised data from the 2015–2016 Higher Education Business and Community Interaction Survey dataset.
Findings
Findings show that universities differ substantially in their portfolios of KT activities. By using PROMETHEE, a new ranking of universities is generated, based on their KT portfolio. This paper also identifies four distinct types or groups of universities based on the diversity and intensity of their KT activities: Ambidextrous, broad, focused and indifferent.
Originality/value
The study contributes to the entrepreneurship literature, and more specifically entrepreneurial activities of universities through new knowledge generated concerning university KT activity. The research extends the existing literature on university archetypes (including those concerned with the Entrepreneurial University) and rankings using a new technique that allows for more detailed analysis of the range of university KT activities. By applying the PROMETHEE approach, results illustrate a more nuanced definition of university KT activities than before, by simultaneously evaluating their overall strength, range, focus and combination, allowing us to identify the universities' strategic profiles based on their KT portfolios. Implications of the findings for key stakeholders include a potential need for government higher education policymakers to take into account the different mixes of university archetypes in a region when considering how best to support higher education and its role in direct and indirect entrepreneurship promotion through regional policy goals.
Details
Keywords
Gareth H. Thomas, Evan J. Douglas, Jin-Ichiro Yamada and Julienne Senyard
The strategic entrepreneurship (SE) literature exists at the intersection of the strategy and entrepreneurship literatures and has grown rapidly over the past two decades. This…
Abstract
Purpose
The strategic entrepreneurship (SE) literature exists at the intersection of the strategy and entrepreneurship literatures and has grown rapidly over the past two decades. This study aims to document the proliferation of research papers and identifies the major thematic clusters of topics and other summary information for the SE research domain.
Design/methodology/approach
This is a systematic bibliometric review of 586 articles published over the period 2009–2019 in 143 journals. The inductive quantitative assessment of these articles uses meta-data driven techniques that prioritize reproducibility and rigor in the process of literature analysis.
Findings
This study identifies six main themes in the strategic literature, namely, Sustainable Competitive Advantage; Knowledge Management; Ecosystems; Strategy; Entrepreneurialism; and Organization and Management. It also reports data on a variety of issues including research techniques, country of data, co-author count and trends and differences between journals based on their journal impact factors and calls for more research in key areas.
Originality/value
An innovative original analytical tool was developed to facilitate the analysis of research papers in this growing field. This online tool allows multiple tags to be attached to each paper by multiple authors working simultaneously to identify keywords and other aspects that were subsequently used to identify six main thematic areas within the SE literature. This paper highlights emerging research trends and identifies gaps in the literature that provide opportunities for further research in this field.
Details
Keywords
David Pickernell, Alessio Ishizaka, Shuangfa Huang and Julienne Senyard
Prior research shows that universities differ in the knowledge exchange (KE) activities they pursue, but little is known about universities’ strategies regarding their portfolio…
Abstract
Purpose
Prior research shows that universities differ in the knowledge exchange (KE) activities they pursue, but little is known about universities’ strategies regarding their portfolio of KE activities. The purpose of this paper is to explore the KE strategy of UK universities in specific relation to their portfolio of KE activities with small- and medium-sized enterprises.
Design/methodology/approach
Based on the 2015–2016 Higher Education Business and Community Interaction Survey data set, this study employs the Preference Ranking Organisation METHod for the Enrichment of Evaluations to assess the KE activities from 162 UK higher education institutions.
Findings
The study reveals that entrepreneurial universities valorise university knowledge assets through five SME-focussed KE activities most beneficial to measuring the entrepreneurial university. It also uncovers four different archetypal categories (groupings) of universities based on their strategic focus of KE activities.
Originality/value
This study contributes to the entrepreneurial university literature by considering universities’ overall KE portfolio rather than examining individual KE activity in isolation. It provides a clearer understanding of universities’ KE strategies that help define and delineate entrepreneurial universities regarding their range, focus and the combination of KE activities.
Details
Keywords
David Pickernell, Julienne Senyard, Paul Jones, Gary Packham and Elaine Ramsey
The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether new and young firms are different from older firms. This analysis is undertaken to explore general characteristics, use of…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether new and young firms are different from older firms. This analysis is undertaken to explore general characteristics, use of external resources and growth orientation.
Design/methodology/approach
Data from the 2008 UK Federation of Small Businesses survey provided 8,000 responses. Quantitative analysis identified significantly different characteristics of firms from 0‐4, 4‐9, 9‐19 and 20+ years. Factor analysis was utilised to identify the advice sets, finance and public procurement customers of greatest interest, with ANOVA used to statistically compare firms in the identified age groups with different growth aspirations.
Findings
The findings reveal key differences between new, young and older firms in terms of characteristics including business sector, owner/manager age, education/business experience, legal status, intellectual property and trading performance. New and young firms were more able to access beneficial resources in terms of finance and advice from several sources. New and young firms were also able to more easily access government and external finance, as well as government advice, but less able to access public procurement.
Research limitations/implications
New and young firms are utilising external networks to access several resources for development purposes, and this differs for older firms. This suggests that a more explicit age‐differentiated focus is required for government policies aimed at supporting firm growth.
Originality/value
The study provides important baseline data for future quantitative and qualitative studies focused on the impact of firm age and government policy.