The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Beyond Creative Destruction and Entrepreneurial Discovery: A Radical Austrian Approach to Entrepreneurship
Abstract
Although Schumpeter's theory on `creative destruction' and Kirzner's on `entrepreneurial discovery' dominate current entrepreneurship research in organization studies, one of the most fundamental debates in modern Austrian economics is that between Kirzner and Lachmann. Using Low and MacMillan's (1988) key specifications as a rubric, we introduce organizational entrepreneurship scholars to Lachmann's work, identify the direction in which his radical subjectivist approach would lead the field, and encourage exploring important questions from, and adopting methods consistent with, his provocative perspective. This unique disequilibrium perspective, which takes into account institutional contexts and multiple levels of analysis, offers new theoretical insight into how entrepreneurs create opportunities through expectations of an imagined future and exploit opportunities through continuous resource combination and recombination. Conceptualizing time as subjective and heterogeneous, it facilitates the examination of patterns in entrepreneurial activity, especially when combined with longer time frames. And it offers hermeneutics and ideal-types as alternatives to statistical models, for developing a theoretically sophisticated understanding of how entrepreneurial processes unfold.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Burt, R. S. (1992) · doi:10.4159/9780674029095 · Cited by 9,093
Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008
Structural Holes and Good Ideas
Burt, R. S. (2004) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/421787 · Cited by 5,642
Network-based research in entrepreneurship
Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(02)00081-2 · Cited by 2,302 · cited 5×
“…gives Lachmann’s capital theory the potential to provide a much-needed theoretical foundation for network-based research in entrepreneurship (Hoang and Antoncic 2003) and to inform studies such as Garud and Karnøe’s (2003), which found that entrepreneurs create technologies using multiple…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Cited by
Power law distributions in entrepreneurship: Implications for theory and research
Crawford, G. C., Aguinis, H., Lichtenstein, B., Davidsson, P., & McKelvey, B. (2015) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.01.001 · Cited by 195
Ramoglou, S. (2021) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106090 · Cited by 106
Capturing action from within: the use of personal diaries
van Burg, E., & Karlsson, T. (2020) · Research Handbook on Entrepreneurial Behavior, Practice and Process · doi:10.4337/9781788114523.00017 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Chiles, T. H., Bluedorn, A. C., & Gupta, V. K.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-04
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 467-493
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W2124450391
- Cited by
- 370
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 31.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.