دانلود رایگان مقاله تاملاتی درعدم اطمینان در مورد "از بین بردن" ساختار فرصت

Wood (2017; this journal) recently expressed three misgivings about what he sees as an unfortunate “dismantling” of the opportunity construct. First, he argues that because of the recent critiques (e.g., Davidsson, 2015; Dimov, 2011; Foss and Klein, 2012; Kitching and Rouse, 2016) authors now face a “validity police” of reviewers and editors when trying to publish. To this I would say that it is neither a bad nor a novel idea that editors and reviewers demand that researchers define their central concepts and then use them accordingly (Bacharach, 1989; Suddaby, 2010). The critiques have made reviewers and editors more aware of problems with (some uses of) the opportunity construct. This is a sign of scholarly progress, and pointing to historical examples of similar developments pertaining to other constructs does not demonstrate that there is anything wrong with it. Of course, rejection of papers based on pet peeves, kneejerk reactions, politics or ideologies is and always was a potential problem, but it is not particular to venture creation research. Second, Wood thinks we should stick to “opportunity” because it is the language used by those who we study. I do not think any critics have suggested that “opportunity” should be abolished from our conversations with students and practitioners or that they have much problem with use of “opportunity” as an “umbrella concept” (cf. Wood, 2017: 21, 24). However, it is unlikely that practitioners would spontaneously provide us with all the terminology we need for our research purposes. Our expertise and role as scholars arguably includes developing theoretically and practically useful language beyond what practitioners come up with themselves (Davidsson, 2002). Practitioners—knowingly or not—appear to appreciate it when we do (think disruptive innovation, absorptive capacity, dynamic capabilities, business model canvas, etc).