See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304346480

Entrepreneurship

Chapter · January 2017

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-7766-9.ch034

CITATIONS READS

0 1,092

1 author:

Mehmet Eryılmaz
Uludag University
57 PUBLICATIONS   138 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A Research on ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management System Implementation in a Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences of a Public University View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mehmet Eryılmaz on 23 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

For citation: Eryılmaz, M. (forthcoming). Entrepreneurship. In Khosrow-
Pour, M. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, 4th
edition. IGI Global.

Entrepreneurship

Mehmet Eymen Eryılmaz

Uludağ University, Department of Business Administration, Turkey

ABSTRACT
Many people will agree on the idea that entrepreneurship is one of the most important business
concepts in recent days. In addition, it is said that we are experiencing the fourth industrial revolution
(or “Industry 4.0). Information and communication technologies are one of the key elements of this
period. Therefore, some information about these two components, “entrepreneurship” and
“information and communication technologies”, are given and the possible and strong relationships
between them are discussed in this study.

INTRODUCTION
From the past to today, it has been discussed by scholars of various study of fields (for example in
strategic management (Barney, 2002; Booth, 1998; Eryılmaz, 2016), in organization theory (Davis &
Marquis, 2005) and in business history (Kurt, 2016)) that whether the field is transformed into an
academic discipline or not. In a similar vein, some early (e.g. Vesper, 1988) and recent (e.g. George &
Wadhwani, 2006; Urban, 2010) studies in the field asserted that entrepreneurship gained status of an
academic discipline.1 During this study, historical background of entrepreneurship discipline will be
examined. Then, some discussions and empirical studies on antecedents and consequences of
entrepreneurship will be shared with readers. The study will continue with a section that focuses on
the link between entrepreneurship and information and communication technologies. Then, the study
will give some information on recent developments and possible future trends in the field. Finally, the
study will be ended with a conclusion part.

BACKGROUND

A Brief History of Entrepreneurship and Some Definitions

According to some studies (e.g. Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990), the word of entrepreneurship was invented
by an Irish-French economists, Richard Cantillon (1680-1734). Cantillon derived the concept of
“entrepreneur” from French “entreprendre” which may be translated into English as “to undertake”
(Matlay, 2005). Besides, Cantillon who was named by Jevon as “The Cradle of Political Economy”
(Hayek, 2005) stated that entrepreneurial activity includes buying from a certain price and the risk that
is relating to selling from an uncertain price. In addition, the French economist Jean Baptiste Say

1
At this point, there are also some studies (e.g. Rauch & Frese, 2006) in the literature that have some doubts
about whether the field of entrepreneurship is a mature discipline or not.
(1767-1832) extended definition of Cantillon by adding the statement of “bringing factors of
production together” (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). Another important contributor to the field, English
political economist and philosopher, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) asserted that main element that
differentiates an entrepreneur from a manager is bearing of risk (Carland et al., 1984). As consistent
with this stream, Gartner (1989: 62) conceptualizes entrepreneurship as “the creation of new
organizations”. In addition, Francis Amasa Walker (1840-1897), an American economist and
educator, was another contributor to the field of entrepreneurship. According to him, an entrepreneur
was a person who is born with above average talent with respect to organization and coordination of
factors of production. According to him, investor who supplies needed funds and receives an interest
from uses of them, and entrepreneur who obtains profit from his/her managerial capabilities, are
different concepts (Balachandran & Sakthivelan, 2013).

An Austrian-born American economist, Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1883-1950), also brought a breath
of fresh air into the field. Schumpeter conceptualizes entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship as change
agents in an economy (Jones & Wadhwani, 2006) and as a situation respectively that economy totally
improves. According to him, there is innovation in the heart of concept of entrepreneurship. In
addition, Schumpeter defines enterprise as making new combinations. As a natural consequence of
this definition, entrepreneur is the person who creates these new combinations. At this point, he
seemed to feel a need to explain the concept of “new combination”. In term of his idea, there can be
various new combinations such as 1) putting a new good or service on market, 2) using a new method
of production, 3) entering into a new market that doesn’t have information about the good, 4) finding a
new source of input (e.g. raw material/half manufactured goods) and finally, 5) changing structure of
market by creating or breaking a monopoly in market (or industrial reorganization). For example, in
the previous year, a company announced that it will launch to produce electricity from bamboo in
Japan (Milliyet, 2015). This development may be accepted as an example of entrepreneurship in a
Schumpeterian manner. Schumpeterian stance differentiates business man and entrepreneur from each
other (Carland et al., 1984; Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990).

In 1985, an American entrepreneur, Gifford Pinchot III (1942 - ) coined the concept of
“intrapreneurship”. “Intrapreneurship can be defined as the development, within a large corporation, of
internal markets and relatively small autonomous or semiautonomous business units that produce
products, services, or technologies by employing the firm’s resources in a unique way” (Dollinger,
2008: 384 cited from Hisrich et al., 1985).

As it can be seen above, there are two mainstreams in conceptualizations of entrepreneur and
entrepreneurship. The first stream strongly links entrepreneurship with behavior of risk taking. In
addition, the second stream that Schumpeter takes the lead principally underlines innovative behavior
of entrepreneur. There are also some eclectic approaches in the literature that endeavor to combine
these two approaches as well. For example, Johnson (2001: 137) defines entrepreneur as “an
individual who takes agency and initiative; who assumes responsibility and ownership for making
things happen; is both open to and able to create novelty; who manages the risks attached to the
process; and who has the persistence to see things through to some identified end-point, even when
faced with obstacles and difficulties”. In a similar manner, for Shane and Venkataraman (2000),
entrepreneurship may associate with both new and extant organizations. According to the author of the
study, since behaviors of risk taking and innovation are associated with each other and complimentary,
a combination of these two streams to conceptualize entrepreneurship seems to be more appropriate.
Almost every innovation trial bears a risk. For example, pen phone of Siemens seems to attract less
attention than expected.

Antecedents and Consequences of Entrepreneurial Behavior

It seems that there are many triggers of entrepreneurial intent and causes of entrepreneurial success
and failure at macro and micro levels. Although it is sometimes criticized by some scholars; some
macro level factors such as culture, religion, trust, financial and educational systems, political and
legal institutions may have some impacts on entrepreneurship processes (De Clercq et al., 2013;
Gohman, 2012; Jones & Wadhwani, 2006; Valdez & Richardson, 2013). For example, De Clercq et al.
(2013) hypothesized that the relationship between two variables such as individual resources (e.g.
human, social and financial capital) and new business activity is moderated by formal institutions
(educational and financial systems) and informal institutions (culture and trust). Their findings showed
that the hypotheses are partially supported. In a similar vein, according to Hefner, success in business
of overseas Chinese may be explained by traditionally strong ties among members of Chinese families
and necessity of being successful as a minority group. In a similar manner, Walker showed us in her
study that how slavery and institutionalized racism in US before civil war limited entrepreneurial
opportunities of African Americans. The same study also indicated that African Americans performed
some entrepreneurial activities to delegitimize these institutions (Jones & Wadhwani, 2006 cited from
Hefner, 1998 & Walker, 1986). In a similar vein, Turkey is 51st and 56th in “2015-2016 The Global
Competitiveness Index” and innovation and sophistication factors subbranch of it respectively (Sala-i
Martin et al., 2015). According to the author, one of the most important factors for this relative failure
in innovation and entrepreneurship is some problems in higher education system.

On the other hand, another stream that mainly takes support from the field of psychology investigates
the relationship between micro factors such as personality traits2, gender etc. and entrepreneurial
intentions and success/failure (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). For example, Rauch and Frese (2007)
found a positive and significant relationship between entrepreneurial behavior and some personality
traits such as generalized self-efficacy, innovativeness, need for achievement, need for autonomy,
proactive personality and stress tolerance. In a similar vein, Engelen et al. (2015) investigated the
relationship between overconfidence of chief executive officer (CEO) and orientation of
entrepreneurship and they found a positive relationship that is moderated by market dynamism. Some
studies criticize the approach of personality traits to entrepreneurship. According to Gartner (1989),
there aren’t significant personality differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs.
Therefore, the correct question isn’t “who is an entrepreneur?” to reveal entrepreneurs. Instead, the
behavioral stance to entrepreneurship recommends that the question of “what does an entrepreneur
do?” should be asked. On the other hand, a meta-analytic research on links between personality traits
and entrepreneurial behaviors showed that personality of entrepreneurs is important. Some previous
studies couldn’t find a direct relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial intent,
behavior or success since some variables mediate to this relationship (Rauch & Frese, 2006). Finally,
family environment and child rearing style of a parent (even toys that are given to a child) may affect
future success of a child in entrepreneurship as well. For example, in many countries, majority of
parents often have an interfering style in their relationships with their children. This style may affect
decision making skills and future entrepreneurial capacity of children in a negative direction.

One group of factor without another one seems to be inadequate. For example, if only macro factors
were enough to understand entrepreneurship, how would we explain success differences in processes
of entrepreneurship of people who live in same conditions?. However, entrepreneurial behavior in
some countries that is supported by some macro level factors is stronger. Therefore, a combined set of
factors (macro and micro levels) may be the best alternative to examine and explain entrepreneurial
intents and behaviors (Rasmussen & Sorheim, 2006).

Again, entrepreneurial behaviors may have consequences at macro and micro levels. For example,
Schumpeter claimed that entrepreneurial activity is the essence of economical development of a
country (Carland et al., 1984; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). In a similar vein, some scholars discuss
or empirically support the impact of entrepreneurial activities on competitive advantage of a country
(Matlay, 2005). In addition, it may be expected that entrepreneurs may trigger productivity at national
level by augmenting competition (van Stel et al., 2005). Finally, various studies assume and

2
This stream seems to attribute a positive meaning to personality to a large extent. However, there are some
studies (e.g. Klotz & Neubaum, 2016) that attract our attentions to the darker sides of personality (such as
Machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism etc.) and their relationship with entrepreneurial consequences. In
addition, some scholars (e.g. Miller, 2015) discuss that some personality traits (such as being energetic and high
self confidence) that seems to be positive for entrepreneurship at the first point may transform into negative ones
(such as aggressiveness and narcissism) later.
empirically support that activities of entrepreneurship have some links with regional and local
economic development as well (e.g. Baptista et al., 2005; Malecki, 1993; Rasmussen & Sorheim,
2006). At a micro level, one of the possible consequences of a successful entrepreneurial activity is
personal accumulation of wealth.3 Indeed, wealth accumulation is used in academic research as an
indicator of entrepreneurial success (Jones & Wadhwani, 2006). Naturally, entrepreneurial behaviors
may generate good or bad personal reputation for their owners.

Information and Communication Technologies and Entrepreneurship

“Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)” can be defined as ‘electronic means of
capturing, processing, storing, and communicating information” (Heeks, 1999: 3). ICTs may be input,
output or a part of entrepreneurship processes. As an input, ICT may be used to increase
entrepreneurial competencies. For example, Sinkovics et al. (2004) suggest that candidates of
entrepreneurship need three different competencies such as intra-personal, inter-personal and
organizational competencies to be successful. Some ICT tools such as mobile phones, internet
discussion groups, video conferencing and computer simulations can enable competencies to be
gained by students. According to Sinkovics et al. (2004), uses of ICT tools in international
entrepreneurship education provide some benefits to students such as being familiar to values of
counterparts in other countries and being familiar to new ICT tools. In addition, ICTs can create new
business areas for entrepreneurs. For example, one of the newest concepts associated with ICT is
“nomophobia”. According to a definition, “nomophobia is the modern fear of being unable to
communicate through a mobile phone (MP) or the internet” (Yıldırım, 2014: 8 cited from King et al.,
2014: 28). Some health centers were founded in United States to treat addiction of people to mobile
phones (Karahasan, 2012).

In addition, ICTs may be a part of entrepreneurial process (or production technology). Extant
entrepreneurs can access data and information by ICT that they need to increase their performance.
For example, a foreign entrepreneur who plans to enter into Turkish market can collect data and
information about Turkish market and consumer behaviors from web. In parallel with this example,
after a literature review, Ongori and Migiro (2010) assert that uses of ICT ease to get into international
markets of small and medium sized organizations. ICTs are used by not only business organizations
but also social organizations. For example, many aiding organizations in Africa obtain benefits from
ICTs (Molony, 2007). Therefore, ICTs may be beneficial tools for social entrepreneurship as well.

Finally, ICT may be output of an entrepreneurial process as well. Some organizations may choose to
produce either tangible (components, computers and networks) or intangible (software, web pages)
ICTs as an output (Heeks, 1999). WhatsApp that were bought by Facebook in 2014 is a good example
of ICT as an output of entrepreneurial processes.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Continuous technological developments in internet economy cause emergence of new concepts in the
field of entrepreneurship such as “e-entrepreneurship” and “netpreneurship”. Today, everything slips
back to virtual environment. Wars, loves and so many things are experienced by people in virtual
environments now. Therefore, emergence of concepts such as netpreneurship in the field of
entrepreneurship is natural. Netpreneurs, they are sometimes called as “Ontrepreneurs”, are
entrepreneurs who have ability to run a business largely on internet (Balachandran & Sakthivelan,
2013). At this point, it can be investigated that whether candidates of netpreneurship need different
psychological traits and educational backgrounds from candidates of traditional entrepreneurship or
not. In addition, generation of people seems to be another important factor that may determine
netpreneurship tendency of people. Therefore, it can be researched that whether there are significant
differences between members of generation X and Y in terms of tendency of being netpreneur.

3
In effect, there also seems to be a reversed relationship between these variables as well. For instance, Kerr and
Nanda (2011) discuss that a desire for personal wealth may trigger the choice of being an entrepreneur.
In addition to the relationships of entrepreneurship and ICT, the field of entrepreneurship contains
some other points of development as well. When the “Management and Organization Studies (MOS)”
literature is examined, it can be observed easily that although a limited sensitivity on context has
emerged recently (for example in subfield of organizational behavior (Johns, 2006; Morgeson et al.,
2010)), the literature is largely context free. A similar evaluation is valid for the literature of strategic
entrepreneurship as well. Strategic entrepreneurship is a popular subfield that combines competitive
advantage seeking behavior of strategic management and opportunity seeking behavior of
entrepreneurship to reach desirable financial performance (Ireland et al., 2003). On the other hand,
scholars of the field seem to overwhelmingly focus on activities of strategic entrepreneurship in
developed countries. However, the findings of some previous studies showed us that behaviors of
strategic entrepreneurship in emerging economies have unique characteristics (Bruton et al., 2013).
Therefore, an increase in number of strategic entrepreneurship studies that are conducted in emerging
countries4 will be beneficial to understand this context and its effects on strategic entrepreneurship
better.

Another recent trend in the field of entrepreneurship seems to make a strong emphasis on emotions
(e.g. Cardon et al., 2012; Podoynitsyna et al., 2012; Wolfe & Shepherd, 2015). The studies of
entrepreneurship that focus on cognitive side of decision making processes largely has overlooked
impact of affect until recently. However, some scholars recently assert that entrepreneurship isn’t only
a cognitive act (Klein et al., 2013) and affects and cognition often shape processes of decision making
jointly.5 In parallel with this idea, Hayton et al. (2012) proposes that affects foster working memory
that stores information that is used as an infrastructure during entrepreneurial decisions. Therefore,
studies that discuss and investigate the roles of positive and negative affective situations on various
steps of entrepreneurial process will be interesting. In addition, face to face relationships of
entrepreneurs often ease to reflect emotions. At this point, consequences of virtual work environment
on moods of entrepreneurs may be investigated.

In social sciences, it is often mentioned that a linguistic turn (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000) is
experienced. With this turn, language seems to regain its importance that it lost in periods of
Enlightenment and Romanticism (Bonet & Saquet, 2010). According to the view, language isn’t solely
a basic tool to exchange ideas. It is also an instrument to build the reality. One of the sub branches of
this view is studies that focus on rhetoric. Rhetoric is “the ability of `seeing´ the available means of
persuasion” in terms of Aristotle (1991: 13). Entrepreneurs need to persuade themselves first and then,
some other different actors such as families, inner circles and investors (such as angel investors and
venture capitals). Even though various studies (e.g. Brooks et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2009) have
recently emerged in the literature that endeavor to link entrepreneurship with rhetoric, number of these
studies is still so limited. In addition to these, another research question may be in this point that how
and when will ICTs affect rhetorical capacities of entrepreneurs?.

Further, neurosciences are just beginning to create impact on the social sciences (Martin de Holan,
2014). In addition, there is a strong interest (both sides from critical and proponent)6 towards
neurosciences in MOS field. Many studies (e.g. Lindebaum, 2016; Mcdonald & Tang, 2014) that have
been published in prestigious MOS journals seem to support this claim to a large extent. Some of these
studies take a stand on proponents’ side; others express their doubts about neuroscience based MOS
studies. For example, Lindebaum and Zundel (2013) profess that some MOS researchers who try to
link MOS and neurosciences often adopt a very reductionist stance and endeavor to explain some very
complex phenomena (such as leadership, management development) with quite simple mechanisms.

4
According to the Spanish Bank BBVA, emerging countries isn’t a monolithic group. BBVA tends to divide
emerging countries into subgroups such as “EAGLEs” and “NEST” (Wassener, 2010). Therefore, research in
emerging countries may be conducted in terms of these subgroups.
5
In addition, entrepreneurs often experience a mixed of emotions during their decision making processes instead
of experiencing only one emotion (Podoynitsyna et al., 2012).
6
In effect, there is one another position in MOS field about neurosciences. Critical realist position (e.g. Healey
& Hodgkinson, 2014) seems to adopt an intermediate stance in this heated discussion.
In a similar vein, entrepreneurship researchers appear to begin fostering sympathy to the mind and its
workings. However, entrepreneurship researchers have largely focused on attributes and behavior of
entrepreneurs until very recently instead of what and how entrepreneurs think and which factors direct
entrepreneurs to think in that ways (Martin de Holan, 2014). Therefore, neuroscientific studies on
entrepreneurship that will take some limitations of using views of neurosciences in social sciences into
account will be interesting.

Finally, MOS has focused on couple who are working together in a common workplace. Recently,
some part of the literature of entrepreneurship has begun to show interest to copreneurs. According to
Greenhaus and Callanan (2006), copreneurs are couples who focus on the same entrepreneurial
activities. At this point, some studies that explore antecedents and (positive and negative)
consequences of copreneurship may be attractive.

CONCLUSION
In this study, the relationships between two popular concepts, “entrepreneurship” and “information
and communication technologies”, were discussed. According to the study, ICTs can be input, output
or as a part of entrepreneurial processes. On the other hand, when ICTs are used in a negative way,
they can be harmful for entrepreneurial success as well. Therefore, appropriate uses of ICTs must be
guaranteed.

REFERENCES
Alvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. (2000). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research:
challenges, responses, consequences. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 136-158.
Aristotle (1991). Aristotle on Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. New York: Oxford University
Press (Translated by George A. Kennedy).
Balachandran, V. & Sakthivelan, M.S. (2013). Impact of information technology on entrepreneurship
(e-entrepreneurship). Journal of Business Management & Social Sciences Research, 2(2), 51-56.
Baptista, R., Escaria, V. & Madruga, P. (2005). Entrepreneurship, regional development and job
creation: the case of Portugal. Max Planck Institute Discussion Papers on Entrepreneurship,
Growth and Public Policy. Retrieved 28 March, 2016 from https://papers.econ.mpg.de/egp/
discussionpapers/2005-06.pdf.
Barney, J. (2002). Strategic management: from informed conversation to academic discipline. The
Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), 53-57.
Bonet, E. & Sauquet, A. (2010). Rhetoric in management and in management research. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 23(2), 120-133.
Booth, C. (1998). The problems and possibilities of reflexivity in strategy. Electronic Journal of
Radical Organisation Theory, 4(1), Retrieved January 7, 2009 from
http://merlin.mgnt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/Vol4_1 /booth.pdf.
Brooks, A.W., Huang, L. Kearney, S.W. & Murray, F.E. (2014). Investors prefer entrepreneurial
ventures pitch by attractive men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111(12), 1-
5.
Bruton, G.D., Filatotchev, I., Si, S. & Wright, M. (2013). Entrepreneurship and strategy in emerging
economies. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7, 169-180.
Cardon, M.S., Foo, M., Shepherd, D. & Wiklund, J. (2012). Exploring the hearth: entrepreneurial
emotion is a hot topic. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, January, 1-10.
Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W.R. & Carland, J.A.C. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from
small business owners: a conceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 354-
359.
Chen, X., Yao, X. & Kotha, S. (2009). Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan
presentations: a persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding decisions. Academy of
Management Journal, 52(1), 199-214.
Davis, G.F. & Marquis, C. (2005). Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century:
institutional fields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16(4), 332-343.
De Clercq, D., Lim, D.S.K. & Oh, C.H. (2013). Individual-level resources and new business activity:
the contingent role of institutional context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, March, 303-
330.
Dollinger, M.J. (2008). Entrepreneurship: Strategies and Resources. Fourth Edition. USA, Illinois:
Marsh Publications.
Engelen, A., Neumann, C. & Schwens, C. (2015). “Of course I can: the effect of ceo overconfidence
on entrepreneurially oriented firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, September, 1137-
1160.
Eryılmaz, M.E. (2016). Bir araştırmacının naçizane gözlemleri: ilgili dergilerin editör ve hakemleri
stratejik yönetim alanı yazarlarından ne beklerler? [Humble reflections of a researcher: what do
editors and reviewers of relevant journals expect from authors of strategic management field?].
Turkish Journal of Management, 1(1), 9-22.
Gartner, W.B. (1989). “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Summer, 47-67.
Gohman, S.F. (2012). Institutions, latent entrepreneurship, and self-employment: an international
comparison. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, March, 295-321.
Green, S.E. (2004). A rhetorical theory of diffusion. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 653-669.
Greenhaus, J.H. & Callanan, G.A. (2006). Encyclopedia of Career Development. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Hayek, F.A. (2005). The Trend of Economic Thinking: The Essays of Political Economists and
Economic History. Routledge.
Hayton, J.C. & Cholakova, M. (2012). The role of affect in the creation and intentional pursuit of
entrepreneurial ideas. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, January, 41-67.
Healey, M.P. & Hodgkinson, G.P. (2014). Rethinking the philosophical and theoretical foundations of
organizational neuroscience: A critical realist alternative. Human Relations, 67(7), 765-792.
Heeks, R. (1999). Information and communication technologies, poverty and development. Institute
for Development Policy and Management. Working Paper Series, Paper No. 5. Retrieved 11
June, 2016 from, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPA
N015539.pdf.
Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A. & Sirmon, D.G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: the construct
and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963-989.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of
Management Review, 31(2), 386-408.
Johnson, D. (2001). What is innovation and entrepreneurship? Lessons for larger organisations.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 33(4), 135-140.
Jones, G. & Wadhwani, R.D. (2006). Entrepreneurship and business history: renewing the research
agenda. Harvard Business School Working Papers, 07-007. Retrieved 26 March, 2016 from
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/07-007.pdf.
Karahasan, F. (2012). Siz de nomofobi kurbanı olabilirsiniz. Milliyet, (March 13). Retrieved 10 July,
2015 from http://www. milliyet.com.tr/siz-de-nomofobi-kurbani-
olabilirsiniz/ekonomi/ekonomiyazardetay /13.12.2012 /1641067/default.htm.
Kerr, W.R. & Nanda, R. (2011). Financing constraints and entrepreneurship. In Audretsch, D.B.,
Falck, O., Heblich, S. and Lederer, A. (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Innovation and
Entrepreneurship (pp. 88-103). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Klein, P.G., Mahoney, J.T., McGahan, A.M. & Pitelis, C.N. (2013). Capabilities and strategic
entrepreneurship in public organizations. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7, 70-91.
Klotz, A.C. & Neubaum, D.O. (2016). Research on the dark side of personality traits in
entrepreneurship: observations from an organizational behavior perspective. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, January, 7-17.
Kurt, M. (2016). Bir disiplin olarak işletmecilik tarihi: doğuşu, gelişimi, Türkiye’de potansiyeli ve
zorlukları üzerine [Business history as a discipline: on its origins, progress, prospects and
challenges in Turkey]. Turkish Journal of Management, 1(1), 41-57.
Lindebaum, K. (2016). Critical essay: building new management theories on sound data? the case of
neuroscience. Human Relations, 69(3), 537-550.
Lindebaum, D. & Zundel, D. (2013). Not quite a revolution: scrutinizing organizational neuroscience
in leadership studies. Human Relations, 66(6), 855-877.
Malecki, E.J. (1993). Entrepreneurship in regional and local development. International Regional
Science Review, 16(1/2), 119-153.
Martin de Holan, P. (2014). It’s all in your head: why we need neuroentrepreneurship. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 23, 93–97.
Matlay, H. (2005). Researching entrepreneurship and education: Part 1: what is entrepreneurship and
does it matter?. Education + Training, 47(8/9), 665-677.
McDonald, P. & Tang, Y. (2014). Neuroscientific insights into management development: theoretical
propositions and practical implications. Group & Organization Management, 39(5), 475-503.
Miller, D. (2015). A downside to the entrepreneurial personality?. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, January, 1-8.
Milliyet, (2015). Japonlar Bambu Ağacından Elektrik Üretecek. Retrieved 5 August, 2015 from
http://www.milliyet.com.tr /japonlar-bambu-agacindan-
elektrik/ekonomi/detay/2092132/default.htm.
Molony, T. (2007). ‘I don’t trust the phone; it always lies’: trust and information and communication
technologies in Tanzanian micro-and small enterprises. Informational Technologies and
International Development, 3(4), 67-83.
Morgeson, F.P., Dierdorff, E.C. & Hmurovic, J.L. (2010). Work design in situ: Understanding the role
of occupational and organizational context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 351-360.
Ongori, H. & Migiro, S.O. (2010). Information and communication technologies adoption in SMEs:
literature review. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 93-104.
Podoynitsyna, K., Van Der Bij, H. & Song, M. (2012). The role of mixed emotions in the risk
perception of novice and serial entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, January,
115-140.
Rauch, A. & Frese, M. (2006). Meta-analysis as a tool for developing entrepreneurship research and
theory. Entrepreneurship: Frameworks and Empirical Investigations from Forthcoming Leaders
of European Research. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Volume 9,
29-51.
Rauch, A. & Frese, M. (2007). Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-
analysis on the relationship between business owners' personality traits, business creation, and
success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353-385.
Rasmussen, E.A. & Sorheim, R. (2006). Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation, 26,
185-194.
Sala-i-Martín, X., Crotti, R., Battista, A., Hanouz, M.D., Galvan, C., Geiger, T. & Marti, G. (2015).
Reaching Beyond the New Normal: 3 Findings from the Global Competitiveness Index 2015–
2016. In Schwab, K. and Sala-i Martin, X. (Ed.) The Global Competitiveness Report 2015-2016.
Retrieved 11 June, 2016 from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/gcr/2015-2016/Global_
Competitiveness_Report_2015-2016.pdf.
Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. The
Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Sinkovics, R.R., Bell, J. & Deans, K.R. (2004). Using information communication technology to
develop international entrepreneurship competencies. Journal of International
Entrepreneurship, 2, 125-137.
Stevenson, H.H. & Jarillo, J.C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management.
Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17-27.
Urban, B. (2010). Entrepreneurship as a discipline and field of study. In Urban, B. (Ed.). Frontiers in
Entrepreneurship (pp.33-62). Springer.
Valdez, M.E. & Richardson, J. (2013). Institutional determinants of macro-level entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, September, 1149-1175.
van Stel, A., Carree, M. & Thurik, R. (2005). The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national
economic growth. Max Planck Institute Discussion Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and
Public Policy. Retrieved 28 March, 2016 from http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/19995
/1/2005-04.pdf.
 Vesper, K.H. (1988). Entrepreneurial academics-how can we tell when the field is getting
somewhere?. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(1), 1-10.
Yıldırım, C. (2014). Exploring the Dimensions of Nomophobia: Developing and Validating a
Questionnaire Using Mixed Methods Research. Master of Science, Iowa State University.
Retrieved 11 June, 2016 from http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5012&
context=etd.
Wassener, B. (2010). New term for emerging economies is suggested. New York Times, November 15.
Retrieved 27 March, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/business/global/16eagles.
html? _r=0.
Wolfe, M.T. & Shepherd, D.A. (2015). What do you have to say about that? Performance events and
narratives’ positive and negative emotional content. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
July, 895-925.

ADDITIONAL READINGS
Alvarez, S.A. & Barney, J.B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial
action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1/2), 11-26.
Amit, R., Glosten, L. & Muller, E. (1993). Challenges to theory development in entrepreneurship
research. Journal of Management Studies, 30(5), 815-833.
Bailetti, T. (2012). Technology entrepreneurship: overview, definition, and distinctive aspects.
Technology Innovation Management Review, February, 5-12.
Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management
Review, 13(3), 442-453.
Crant, J.M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal
of Small Business Management, 34(3), 42.
Guth, W.D. & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Introduction to corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management
Journal, 11, 5-15.
Heeks, R. (1998). Management Information and Management Information Systems. London: School
of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Kollman, T., Kuckertz, A. & Stöckman, C. (2010). E-Entrepreneurship and ICT Ventures: Strategy,
Organization and Technology. Hershey, New York: IGI Global.
Kuriyan, R. (2008). Outsourcing Development: The State, Entrepreneurship, and Information
Technologies in India. California: University of California, Berkeley.
Mumba, D. (2014). Empowering Women Entrepreneurs in Africa: Investigating Information Access
and Use of Information and Communication Technologies by Women-Owned Enterprises in
Zambia. Canada, Ontorio: The University of Western Ontario.
Naude, W. (2013). Entrepreneurship and economic development: theory, evidence and policy. IZA
Discussion Paper, No. 7507. Retrieved 11 July, 2016 from http://ftp.iza.org/dp7507.pdf.

KEY TERMS
Copreneurs: They are couples who focus on the same entrepreneurial activities (Greenhaus &
Callanan, 2006).
Entrepreneurship (In a Classical Manner): It is associated with bringing factors of production
together and taking the risk that is stemmed from this activity (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990).
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT): It can be described as ‘electronic means of
capturing, processing, storing, and communicating information” (Heeks, 1999: 3).
Netpreneurs: They are people who have an ability to operate a business on internet to a great extent
(Balachandran & Sakthivelan, 2013).
Nomophobia: It is about a fear of being unable to communicate through a mobile phone or the
internet” (Yıldırım, 2014: 8 cited from King et al., 2014: 28).
Ontrepreneurs: They are entrepreneurs who are working online. This concept is often accepted as
synonym with netpreneur by many scholars in the field of entrepreneurship.
Schumpeterian Entrepreneurship: He defines enterprise as making new combinations.

View publication stats