The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effectuation As Ineffectual? Applying the 3E Theory-Assessment Framework to a Proposed New Theory of Entrepreneurship
Abstract
Effectuation is a proposed new theory of entrepreneurship, with insufficient empirical testing and critical analysis. Drawing on a new, comprehensive set of theory-building criteria—sourced from and complementing those of Robert Dubin and others—we provide the first formal assessment of effectuation as a theory. We highlight its strengths and weaknesses, leveraging the former to address the latter in five different directions that would build on the existing work to improve this theory. The assessment exercise also displays the value of our assessment framework in guiding the evaluation and development of other existing and future theories in entrepreneurship and management.
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
Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279003 · Cited by 13,338
Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008
Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1990.4310758 · Cited by 1,426
Longitudinal Field Research Methods for Studying Processes of Organizational Change
van de Ven, A. H., & Huber, G. P. (1990) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1.3.213 · Cited by 832 · cited 2×
“…lab-based, think-aloud protocol that centered on simulation of a set of decisions facing a hypothetical start-up manager, while useful in generating data, appears to have violated the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for observing real processes because it directed them (Van de Ven & Huber, 1990).”
BackgroundMethodOptimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules
Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.2009.54.3.413 · Cited by 804
Comments on “What theory is not”
DiMaggio, P. J. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393790 · Cited by 488
Assessing the dynamic capabilities view: spare change, everyone?
Arend, R. J., & Bromiley, P. (2009) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127008100132 · Cited by 413
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Arend, R. J., Sarooghi, H., & Burkemper, A.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2015-10
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 630-651
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3807
- OpenAlex
- W2136653441
- Cited by
- 321
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 59.65
- 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.
