http://isb.sagepub.

com/
International Small Business Journal
http://isb.sagepub.com/content/30/2/107
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0266242611432793
2012 30: 107 originally published online 5 January 2012 International Small Business Journal
Mike Wright and Susan Marlow
Entrepreneurial activity in the venture creation and development process

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: International Small Business Journal Additional services and information for

http://isb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://isb.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

http://isb.sagepub.com/content/30/2/107.refs.html Citations:

What is This?

- Jan 5, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Mar 8, 2012 Version of Record >>

at Curtin University Library on August 11, 2012 isb.sagepub.com Downloaded from
International Small Business Journal
30(2) 107 114
The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0266242611432793
isb.sagepub.com
Small Firms
is
b
j
432793ISB30210.1177/0266242611432793Wright and MarlowInternational Small Business Journal
2011
Corresponding author:
Mike Wright, Centre for Management Buy-out Research, Imperial College Business School, Exhibition Road, London,
SW7 2AZ, UK
Email: mike.wright@imperial.ac.uk
Entrepreneurial activity in the
venture creation and development
process
Mike Wright
Imperial College Business School, UK and University of Ghent, Belgium
Susan Marlow
University of Birmingham, UK
Abstract
This special edition editorial notes the complex and dynamic nature of the new venture creation
process. Although the growing body of work which explores discrete elements of this process is
acknowledged, in-depth analyses of the black box of new venture creation remain scarce. Thus,
this special edition features articles that recognize and explore how entrepreneurial actors and
their ventures progress within and between the various phases necessary to establish viable new
firms within differing and uncertain contexts. Three articles are featured offering a diverse range
of perspectives upon the challenges encountered during new venture creation and the strategies
adopted to address these issues. Drawing from these articles, a more nuanced processual view
of entrepreneurial activity in the venture creation and development process is presented and in
addition, pathways are suggested for future research to develop this debate.
Keywords
entrepreneurship, new venture creation and development
Introduction
An important feature of economic change is the diffusion of entrepreneurship across cultures,
economies and continents. The entrepreneurial process is essential to this diffusion: this includes
the personal, sociological and organizational factors that influence the birth of enterprises and their
ensuing development. It encompasses a number of key stages including pre-start, start up, reorien-
tation, establishment of legitimacy, professionalization, growth, initial public offering, etc. Despite
discrete elements of this process being subject to theoretical and empirical scrutiny (see for
example, work by De Clercq and Voronov (2009) on entrepreneurial legitimacy), models of the
Article
at Curtin University Library on August 11, 2012 isb.sagepub.com Downloaded from
108 International Small Business Journal 30(2)
entrepreneurial process remain fragmented (Moroz and Hindle, 2011) and often lack explicit theo-
retical and empirical underpinnings (Ucbasaran et al., 2001). While there may be calls to harmo-
nize models of the entrepreneurial process rather than attempt a universalistic synthesis (Moroz
and Hindle, 2011), there remains a need to develop coherent understanding of the heterogeneity of
the entrepreneurial process and the context in which it occurs.
Entrepreneurial processes are likely to differ across the various phases of development, with major
challenges to be addressed when moving across and between these phases (e.g. Vohora et al., 2004);
failure to recognize and address this complex and dynamic process may frustrate and constrain sub-
sequent development. In addition, it is becoming apparent that entrepreneurial ventures may grow in
different ways. Some firms seek to build revenue, some may seek first to develop their technological
capability before introducing products to the market which may only occur after initial public offer-
ing or strategic sale, and others may adopt hybrid strategies (Clarysse et al., 2011). Although there has
been some attention focused on different measures of entrepreneurial firm growth and performance,
and on the economic impact of different types of support programmes or initiatives (Davidsson et al.,
2009; Delmar et al., 2003), theorizing and exploration of the processes behind these different growth
paths is lacking. Entrepreneurial activities may take place in both new firms and established firms,
such as those recently listed on a stock market, private equity-backed leveraged buy-outs, mature
corporations and social enterprises. Finally, the contexts in which entrepreneurial activities take place
are heterogeneous (Zahra and Wright, 2011), differing in the manner in which they facilitate or con-
strain entrepreneurship; for example, there are variations across both developed and emerging econo-
mies in the nature and extent of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs may need to adopt different processes
to deal with these institutional contingencies which are, as yet, little understood.
This special issue centres on the entrepreneurial process with a particular focus upon contributing
to the understanding of various dimensions of the heterogeneity of entrepreneurial activity in ven-
ture creation and development. We commence by providing an overview of the contribution of each
article to the special issue, then outline suggestions for a future research agenda aimed at better
understanding the role of entrepreneurial activity in the venture creation and development process.
Articles in this special issue
Following a general call, 22 submissions were received and seven authors were invited to revise
and resubmit their work; from these, three papers were accepted for publication. Each submission
was reviewed according to standard ISBJ procedures; Table 1 summarizes those which success-
fully negotiated this process.
The articles each encompass a particular aspect of the role of entrepreneurs in the venture cre-
ation and development process, adopting a variety of theoretical perspectives. For example, Corner
and Wu draw upon the notion of dynamic capabilities and Perks and Medway utilize a resource-
based perspective. These approaches contribute to an emerging literature that considers the origins
of resources and in addition, how they are assembled (Barney et al., 2011; Sirmon et al., 2011). In
contrast, Greenman adopts a pragmatist perspective on entrepreneurial activity, exploring how
founders use occupational resources to support their legitimacy.
In their recent review of the entrepreneurship field, Blackburn and Kovalainen (2009) note the
need for greater methodological pluralism and longitudinal work to generate greater insight into
how processes unfold over time and within specific contexts. These articles offer a valuable con-
tribution to addressing this particular gap in the contemporary research agenda as they adopt a
variety of methodological approaches to enhance our understanding of the venture creation
and development process. Importantly for process research, there is a prevalence of longitudinal
at Curtin University Library on August 11, 2012 isb.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Wright and Marlow 109
T
a
b
l
e

1
.

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
A
u
t
h
o
r
(
s
)
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
T
h
e
o
r
e
t
i
c
a
l

p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
D
a
t
a

a
n
d

m
e
t
h
o
d
s
K
e
y

f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
G
r
e
e
n
m
a
n
H
o
w

d
o
e
s

e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e

d
e
r
i
v
e
d

f
r
o
m

o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s

e
n
a
b
l
e

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
a
l

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
?
P
r
a
g
m
a
t
i
s
t

v
i
e
w

o
f

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p
E
t
h
n
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
a
l

s
t
u
d
y

o
f

o
w
n
e
r
-
f
o
u
n
d
e
r
s

o
f

m
i
c
r
o
-

a
n
d

s
m
a
l
l

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
e
s

o
v
e
r

t
w
o

y
e
a
r
s
T
h
e

s
e
a
r
c
h

f
o
r

o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
u
t
o
n
o
m
y
,

o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

c
e
n
t
r
a
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

l
e
g
i
t
i
m
a
c
y

a
n
d

a
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g

f
o
r

t
h
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

D
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
n
g

a
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

d
e
v
e
l
o
p

a
n

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

o
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y

w
o
r
k

t
h
a
t

i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
a
l

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
C
o
r
n
e
r

a
n
d

W
u
W
h
a
t

s
u
b
-
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s

a
r
e

u
s
e
d

t
o

e
n
s
u
r
e

n
e
w

v
e
n
t
u
r
e

s
u
r
v
i
v
a
l

a
n
d

e
n
a
b
l
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

t
o

r
e
a
p

t
h
e

b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s

o
f

t
h
e
i
r

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
?
D
y
n
a
m
i
c

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
a
l

c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
,

q
u
a
l
i
t
a
t
i
v
e

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

c
a
s
e

s
t
u
d
y

i
n

C
h
i
n
a
,

1
8

c
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
,

e
m
a
i
l
s
,

a
r
c
h
i
v
a
l

d
a
t
a

a
n
d

t
h
e
o
r
y
-
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

t
o

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

i
n

i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

s
e
t
t
i
n
g
s

t
h
a
t

a

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
l
y

u
n
t
r
i
e
d

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

m
i
g
h
t

s
o
l
v
e

b
e
f
o
r
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
R
e
v
e
a
l
i
n
g

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

o
p
e
n
l
y

s
h
a
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

s

f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s

w
i
t
h

p
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

j
o
i
n
t
l
y

d
e
s
i
g
n

p
r
o
t
o
t
y
p
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
R
e
v
e
a
l
i
n
g

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

h
e
l
p
e
d

e
n
s
u
r
e

n
e
w

v
e
n
t
u
r
e

s
u
r
v
i
v
a
l
,

i
n

c
o
n
t
r
a
s
t

w
i
t
h

c
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

w
i
s
d
o
m
,

t
h
a
t

l
i
n
k
s

f
i
r
m

s
u
r
v
i
v
a
l

t
o

i
n
s
u
l
a
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
n
g

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
P
e
r
k
s

a
n
d

M
e
d
w
a
y
W
h
a
t

i
s

t
h
e

n
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
-
b
a
s
e
d

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

n
e
w

v
e
n
t
u
r
e
s
,

i
n

t
h
e

c
o
n
t
e
x
t

o
f

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

d
u
a
l
i
t
y

w
h
e
r
e

a

n
e
w

v
e
n
t
u
r
e

i
s

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d

a
l
o
n
g
s
i
d
e

a
n

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
?
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
-
b
a
s
e
d

p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

c
a
s
e

s
t
u
d
y

(
1
0

c
a
s
e
s
)
,

w
i
t
h

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s

a
n
d

s
o
m
e

l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l

a
s
p
e
c
t
,

f
a
r
m
i
n
g
,

t
h
e
o
r
y
-
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

t
i
e
s
,

a
s
s
e
m
b
l
y

a
n
d

d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

c
o
r
e

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

s
u
b
-
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s

v
a
r
y

o
v
e
r

t
h
e

f
o
u
r

s
t
a
g
e
s

o
f

t
h
e

n
e
w

v
e
n
t
u
r
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
C
o
n
s
c
i
o
u
s

e
x
p
l
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

t
i
e
s

c
a
n

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

a
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,

b
u
t

l
a
t
e
r
-
s
t
a
g
e

e
x
p
l
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

m
u
s
t

b
e

a
c
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
d

b
y

p
l
a
n
n
e
d

a
n
d

c
a
r
e
f
u
l

a
d
a
p
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

b
o
t
h

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s

t
o

e
n
a
b
l
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
R
a
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

e
x
p
a
n
d
i
n
g

n
e
t
w
o
r
k
s

i
n

a
n

a
d

h
o
c

f
a
s
h
i
o
n
,

a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

p
a
i
d

t
o

c
h
o
o
s
i
n
g

s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

n
e
t
w
o
r
k
s

f
r
o
m

b
o
t
h

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

n
e
w
l
y
-
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d

n
e
t
w
o
r
k

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.

T
h
e
r
e

a
r
e

t
h
r
e
e

g
e
n
e
r
i
c

a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s

t
o

m
a
n
a
g
i
n
g

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
-
b
a
s
e
d

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

n
e
w

v
e
n
t
u
r
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

f
a
r
m
i
n
g

s
e
c
t
o
r
:

h
o
l
i
s
t
i
c

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
o
r
s
,

r
e
a
c
t
i
v
e

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
o
r
s

a
n
d

c
a
u
t
i
o
u
s

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
o
r
s
at Curtin University Library on August 11, 2012 isb.sagepub.com Downloaded from
110 International Small Business Journal 30(2)
studies with multiple respondents in each case. Greenman presents rich insights using an ethno-
graphical approach over a two-year period and Corner and Wu and Perks and Medway adopt a
multiple case study design, with Corner and Wu employing a longitudinal perspective.
Themes for a future research agenda
In Table 2, we offer an overview of potential themes for a future research agenda. In compiling
these suggestions, we note how discrete thematic pathways might be articulated through specific
approaches which acknowledge differing contexts and units of analyses (the firm, the entrepre-
neur). In addition, we outline particular issues underpinning entrepreneurial opportunities which
might be pursued and developed through the exploration of these themes.
Contexts
The context in which entrepreneurial ideas, activities and ambitions are formulated is heteroge-
neous (Zahra and Wright, 2011), and is critical in shaping the venture and laying the foundations
for future sustainability and growth. For example, as Welter (2011) argues, the institutional context
that prevails in transitional economies is fundamental to shaping entrepreneurial orientation and
new venture creation. Indeed, in order to illustrate this argument, Welter goes further in developing
an intersectional analysis, drawing upon the influence of gender on womens entrepreneurial activ-
ities within a context of relative subordination within Uzbekistan. Thus, context as a boundary
made recognizable through institutional norms is vital in shaping the entrepreneurial process.
There is much scope here for future research, particularly in developing work that challenges the
US/Eurocentric assumptions which underpin much of mainstream theorizing. The growing influ-
ence of China and emerging Middle East economies offer new and challenging opportunities to
evaluate dominant assumptions concerning the processes necessary to frame, exploit and commer-
cialize entrepreneurial opportunities (Greene et al., 2011).
Related to institutional context, we have identified the influence of the market environment as
crucial in shaping the entrepreneurial process. Clearly, the market reflects broader contextual influ-
ences; however, in the current volatile climate there are both many opportunities and serious chal-
lenges to positioning new ventures. In addition, perceptions of and propensity towards risk within
such volatile markets are of considerable importance in critically analysing the future potential for,
and opportunities available to, new ventures. This is of particular interest in an era when the pre-
vailing neo-liberal perspective suggests that entrepreneurship holds many solutions to creating a
more innovative and vibrant economy, but at the same time, market volatility represents an increas-
ing threat to entrepreneurs engaged with new venture creation (Harvey, 2010). Thus, how opportu-
nities are perceived, learning to exploit these opportunities and understanding the risks attached
within diverse and dynamic market environments, offer much potential for future work.
Of perennial interest within the venture creation and growth process is the temporal context
associated with the analysis of business life cycles (Phelps et al., 2007). Consequently, while high-
lighting this issue is not a new departure, we do suggest that clearer acknowledgement of the
diversity of entrepreneurial activities must be recognized, in order to gain a more robust and
informed picture of dynamic life cycles (Storey, 2011).
Firms
A number of important areas need to be developed in understanding the heterogeneity of the new
venture creation process at the firm level. Increasing recognition is now given to the notion that
at Curtin University Library on August 11, 2012 isb.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Wright and Marlow 111
market entry may relate not only to generating revenue in the product market, but also that firms
may enter the market for technology (Clarysse et al., forthcoming, 2011). Similarly, firms may
engage in exploration or exploitation activities. Over time, it is evident that firms may pursue one
Table 2. Suggested themes for a research agenda on the venture creation and development process
Context Firm Individual Entrepreneurial
opportunity
How do
entrepreneurial
activities in the
venture creation and
development process
vary according to the
institutional context?
How do entrepreneurial
activities vary between
the process of exploration
and of exploitation?
How do entrepreneurs
build legitimacy for their
ventures? To what extent
is this heterogeneous
according to sector, phase
of development, etc.?
What processes are
involved in the stages of
framing and exploiting
opportunities to
commercialize technology?
How do
entrepreneurial
activities in the
venture creation and
development process
vary according to the
nature of competition
in the market, the
power of incumbents
and the maturity of the
market?
How do entrepreneurial
firms develop their market
entry strategies and
attract customers and
suppliers?
What factors influence
whether entrepreneurs
develop their own skills
in the venture creation
process or acquire them,
by either bringing in team
members, recruiting staff
or obtaining consultancy
advice?
How does entrepreneurial
learning influence the
process of opportunity
identification and
exploitation?
What challenges arise
in evolving the venture
creation process over
the different phases of
the venture life-cycle
over time, and how
and to what extent are
these overcome?
What processes are
adopted to develop
organisational structures,
culture and human
resource management?
How does the process
of venture creation
and development differ
between portfolio, serial,
novice and nascent
entrepreneurs?
How does the ownership
of formal intellectual
property rights versus
informal affect the process
of framing and exploitation
of opportunities?
How does the venture
creation process differ
between different
ownership and
sectoral and spatial
contexts (e.g. family vs
non-family firms)?
How does the process
of venture creation differ
with respect to social
ventures and sustainable
ventures?
What processes do
entrepreneurs adopt to
leverage resources in
the venture creation and
development process?
How are they affected by
the cognitive attributes of
entrepreneurs?
How is the process of
framing opportunities
for domestic versus
international markets
linked to the development
of relevant capabilities?
How do entrepreneurial
firms develop their
market orientation and
decide whether this is the
market for technology
or products, and how
do they change between
these different markets?
How do entrepreneurs
build communication to
key stakeholders in order
to signal their legitimacy?

at Curtin University Library on August 11, 2012 isb.sagepub.com Downloaded from
112 International Small Business Journal 30(2)
strategy initially, but then change to another or indeed adopt a dual strategy approach. The process
by which strategy choice is made, and how changes in such occur over time as the venture identifies
and adopts a viable configuration, are little understood and so, are worthy of further analysis.
Growing debate is focusing upon the complementarities and contrasts between social and profit-
focused enterprises. The former are attracting much greater attention, particularly in the light of politi-
cal optimism that during times of economic recession, they will deliver many services previously
provided by the public sector (Thompson, 2011). Yet, relatively little attention has been afforded to the
processes underpinning the creation and growth of social enterprise and, indeed, to what extent they
may or may not differ from their commercially focused counterparts (Westhead et al., 2011). Again,
there is much scope here for future research to explore and critically evaluate any such differences.
Individuals
Further research that focuses on the role of individuals in the venture creation process has the
potential for further development as the cognition and behaviour of individuals drives opportunity
recognition, as well as the accumulation and configuration of resources to exploit such opportuni-
ties. These microfoundations of entrepreneurship are being recognized now (Abell et al., 2008),
but there is considerable scope for further analysis. The processes adopted by entrepreneurs in the
venture creation process to leverage their resources and skills and to build legitimacy are little
understood. In addition, integrating the recognition of differing cognitive approaches adopted by
diverse groups entrepreneurs may help to highlight variations in these processes. When exploring
the confidence levels of portfolio, serial and novice entrepreneurship, Ucbasaran et al. (2010) dem-
onstrate how different ownership profiles critically influence entrepreneurial ambitions and activi-
ties. Consequently, future work needs to recognize how ownership structures profoundly affect the
development of the venture. As noted by Westhead and Wright (2011), the majority of new firms
are started by partners, families or teams, so much greater exploration of the dynamics and tensions
that inform these relationships, and their impact on both venture creation and development, is
required.
Opportunities
Opportunity recognition and framing is central to venture creation yet, the process through which
this occurs in different contexts warrants further analysis. In addition, as we have noted already,
entrepreneurs may have created previous ventures an important consequence of this being that
they may have learnt how to recognize and frame opportunities. Future studies could shed light on
this process but also identify how biases in learning may affect whether and how subsequent efforts
display adaptation in the process, in light of prior experience. Further sources of variety concern
whether the opportunity is based upon formal or informal intellectual property, and whether the
opportunity relates to a domestic or foreign venture. The extent to which these factors influence dif-
ferences in the process of framing opportunities warrants additional research.
Data and method
Our suggestions here represent but a few pathways that will progress the diverse and encompassing
field of new venture creation and development. In addition to such substantive issues, we would
suggest that there is considerable scope to adopt a range of methodological approaches to illustrate
and analyse the complexity and volatility of new venture creation and growth. Within this special
at Curtin University Library on August 11, 2012 isb.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Wright and Marlow 113
edition, we have included articles using longitudinal work and ethnographic approaches; we would
suggest that research drawing upon methodologies that facilitate a more detailed and nuanced
exploration of the processual nature of creation and growth are essential to progress understanding.
For example, Rasmussen et al. (2011) provide a longitudinal study of the venture emergence pro-
cess in the context of academic spin-offs. Equally, comprehensive datasets that offer accurate and
detailed accounts of creation and growth over time and within specific contexts are essential to
inform future work. Of course, compiling such datasets is challenging but would enable the empiri-
cal testing of conceptual insights.
In conclusion, this special edition focuses on an issue of fundamental importance to the realiza-
tion of entrepreneurial ambitions to create and develop new ventures. Axiomatically, this process
is subject to considerable volatility and a myriad of uncertainties, but at the same time it is critical
to future economic wealth creation, innovation and social development. Accordingly, developing
robust evidence and generating sound theoretical insights to analyse this process is essential to
inform future understanding of how entrepreneurial opportunities are translated into new ventures
which, in turn, become sustainable enterprises.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit
sectors.
References
Abell P, Felin T and Foss NJ (2008) Building microfoundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance
links. Managerial and Decision Economics 29(3): 489502.
Barney JB, Ketchen D and Wright M (2011) The future of resource-based theory: Revitalization or decline?
Journal of Management 37(5): 12991315.
Blackburn R and Kovalainen A (2009) Researching small firms and entrepreneurship: Past, present and
future. International Journal of Management Reviews 11(1) 127148.
Clarysse B, Bruneel J and Wright M (2011) Explaining growth paths of young technology-based firms: Struc-
turing resource portfolios in different competitive environments. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal
48(6): 14201442.
Davidsson P, Steffens P and Fitzsimmons J (2009) Growing profitable or growing from profits: Putting the
horse in front of the cart? Journal of Business Venturing 24(4): 388406.
De Clercq D and Voronov M (2009) Toward a practice perspective entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial legiti-
macy as habitus. International Small Business Journal 27(4): 395419.
Delmar F, Davidsson P and Gartner WB (2003) Arriving at the high-growth firm. Journal of Business Ventur-
ing 18(2): 189216.
Greene F, Han L and Marlow S (2011) The influence of maternal stereotypes upon daughters entrepreneurial
propensity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35(6): 652669.
Harvey C (2010) The Enigma of Capital and the Crisis of Capitalism. London: Profile Books.
Moroz P and Hindle K (in press, 2011) Entrepreneurship as a process: Toward harmonizing multiple perspec-
tives. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
Phelps R, Adams R and Bessant J (2007) Life cycles of growing organizations: A review with implications for
knowledge and learning. International Journal of Management Reviews 9(1): 130.
Rasmussen E, Mosey S and Wright M (2011) The evolution of entrepreneurial competencies: A longitudinal
study of university spin-off venture emergence. Journal of Management Studies 48(6): 13141346.
at Curtin University Library on August 11, 2012 isb.sagepub.com Downloaded from
114 International Small Business Journal 30(2)
Sirmon D, Hitt MA, Ireland RD et al. (2011) Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth,
depth and life cycle effects. Journal of Management 37(5): 13901412.
Storey DJ (2011) Optimism and chance: The elephants in the entrepreneurship room. International Small
Business Journal 29(4): 303321.
Thompson J (2011) Reflections on social enterprise and the Big Society. Social Enterprise Journal 7(3):
219223.
Ucbasaran D, Westhead P and Wright M (2001) The focus of entrepreneurial research: Contextual and process
issues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 25(1): 5780.
Ucbasaran D, Westhead P and Wright M (2010) The nature of entrepreneurial experience business failure and
comparative optimism. Journal of Business Venturing 25(6): 541555.
Vohora A, Wright M and Lockett A (2004) Critical junctures in spin-outs from universities. Research Policy
33(1): 147175.
Welter F (2011) Contextualising entrepreneurship: Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneur-
ship Theory and Practice 35(1): 165184.
Westhead P and Wright M (2011) David Storeys optimism and chance perspective: A case of the Emperors
New Clothes? International Small Business Journal.
Westhead P, Wright M and McElwee G (2011) Entrepreneurship: Perspective and Cases. London: Pearson.
Zahra S and Wright M (2011) Entrepreneurships next act. Academy of Management Perspectives.
Mike Wright is Professor of Entrepreneurship and Director of the Centre for Management Buy-out Research
at Imperial College Business School, Visiting Professor at the University of Ghent, editor of Strategic
Entrepreneurship journal and Chair of the Academy of Management Entrepreneurship Division. His publica-
tions on various aspects of entrepreneurial mobility have appeared in leading journals such as Academy of
Management Review, Academy of Management Journal, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of
Management Studies, etc. His most recent book is Entrepreneurship: Perspectives and Cases (with Paul
Westhead and Ged McElwee, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, 2011).
Susan Marlow is Professor of Entrepreneurship at the University of Birmingham, Visiting Professor at the
University of Leeds, Editor of the International Small Business Journal and Vice President for Research at
the Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Her research interests focus on the diverse range of
issues influencing entrepreneurial behaviours and small firm management; she has published extensively in
US and UK journals and is the co-editor, along with Colette Henry of the Routledge series of Mastertexts in
Entrepreneurship and the Emerald/ISBE series of entrepreneurship texts.
at Curtin University Library on August 11, 2012 isb.sagepub.com Downloaded from