The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Narrative Perspective on Entrepreneurial Opportunities
Abstract
There continues to be considerable interest in entrepreneurial processes, as evidenced in recent reflection pieces in AMR (Shane, 2012; Venkataraman, Sarasvathy, Dew, & Forster, 2012). Of particular interest are questions about the sources of entrepreneurial opportunities. For instance, are entrepreneurial opportunities a result of a process of discovery or one of creation? Should we locate agency in specific individuals, or should we conceptualize entrepreneurs as part of a larger process where agency is distributed and emergent? To address these questions, Shane (2012) distinguishes between "opportunities" and "business ideas" to account for both entrepreneurial failures and successes and to advance a notion of entrepreneurial agency emerging at the nexus of individuals and opportunities. Opportunities, for Shane, are objectively given, ones that individuals can seize by generating business ideas that are interpretations "of how to recombine resources in a way that allows pursuit of that opportunity" (Shane, 2012: 15). Venkataraman et al. (2012) take a different route, embracing Simon's (1996) sciences of the artificial. Building on Davidson's (2001) "tripod" consisting of interactions among objective, subjective, and intersubjective, the authors conceptualize entrepreneurial opportunities as being both "made" and "found" in and through such interactions. We are sympathetic to the progressive shift in the conceptualization of entrepreneurial agency—from one that considers it to be located in specific individuals to one that considers it to be an outcome of an ecology of interactions between humans and artifacts. Yet there are unaddressed issues pertaining to the location of boundaries that are germane to entrepreneurial opportunities. Boundaries, after all, are not given but, rather, a key ontological variable constituting entrepreneurial agency. As a way to address this issue and add to this dialogue, we propose a "narrative perspective" that is informed by actor-network theory (Callón, 1986; Latour, 2005). Such a perspective subscribes to a relational ontology, one where what is "in" and what is "out" is not given but instead emerges in and through actions and interactions (Garud, Kumaraswamy, & Karnöe, 2010). An additional advantage of taking a narrative perspective is that it endogenizes time (Garud & Gehman, 2012), thereby allowing one to examine issues around temporal agency, a facet that Venkataraman et al. (2012) allude to in their review but leave unexplored. Finally, a narrative perspective emphasizes "meaning making" (e.g., Bruner, 1990) as a core driver of the process and provides yet another vantage point on the nature and scope of entrepreneurial opportunities and agency.
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
Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory
Latour, B. (2005) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001 · Cited by 16,778
Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes
Campbell, D. T. (1960) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0040373 · Cited by 2,329
Cited by
Service innovation in the digital age: Key contributions and future directions
Barrett, M., Davidson, E., Prabhu, J., & Vargo, S. L. (2015) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2015/39:1.03 · Cited by 956
The Lean Startup Framework: Closing the Academic–Practitioner Divide
Shepherd, D. A., & Gruber, M. (2021) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1177/1042258719899415 · Cited by 459
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
- Garud, R., & Giuliani, A. P.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2013-01
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 157-160
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3807
- OpenAlex
- W2044425702
- Cited by
- 268
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 23.27
- 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.