Charting the future of entrepreneurship: a roadmap for interdisciplinary research and societal impact

Abstract

The entrepreneurship field is increasingly interlaced with diverse disciplines, tackling complex societal issues from sustainability to digitalization and family business dynamics. Recognizing the necessity to steer future research, the editorial team of Cogent Business and Management’s Entrepreneurship and Innovation section present ten research domains identified through collective expertise. These areas, ranging from corporate innovation to entrepreneurship education and transitional entrepreneurship, are critical for academic investigation and hold potential for significant societal impact. These domains are not intended to constitute a ‘top 10’ list, nor are they exhaustive; rather, they are intended to help guide scholars toward research domains we believe are ripe for exploration and with the potential to be highly impactful. These domains embody the field’s ever-evolving nature, encapsulating the entrepreneurial spirit as a quilt of interconnected patches rather than isolated pieces. They encourage an interdisciplinary approach, highlighting the need for a comprehensive understanding of entrepreneurial activity. As the entrepreneurship literature grows, its adaptability will be crucial for theoretical advancement and practical applications. The proposed research roadmap aims to ignite cross-disciplinary dialogue, driving the impact of entrepreneurship research beyond academic circles and into the realms of policy and practice.

Keywords:

• Corporate entrepreneurship
• open innovation
• entrepreneurship mindset
• digitalization
• family business
• transitional entrepreneurship
• gender
• public policy

JEL CLASSIFICATION:

• L26

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Len Tiu Wright, De Montfort University Faculty of Business and Law, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Introduction

As the field of entrepreneurship continues to evolve, it increasingly intersects with a wide range of disciplines and societal challenges, reflecting the complex and dynamic nature of entrepreneurial activity. Recent research trends span from sustainable and social entrepreneurship to digital transformation and family business (cf., Jocic et al., 2023; Muñoz & Cohen, 2018; Saebi et al., 2019; Santos et al., 2023), revealing the multifaceted impact of entrepreneurial ventures in the world today. As we look toward the future, research into entrepreneurship will unquestionably dive deeper into these areas, while also exploring emerging domains such as the gig economy, rural entrepreneurship and the health and well-being of entrepreneurs. This ongoing evolution ensures that entrepreneurship research remains not only relevant but also instrumental in shaping policy, practice and education in an increasingly interconnected and rapidly changing world.

To help guide scholars in deciding the focus of future entrepreneurship research, the editorial team of Cogent Business and Management’s section on Entrepreneurship and Innovation (E&I) presents ten domains we believe warrant further exploration. This ‘top 10’ list is not exhaustive and should not discourage work outside these domains; rather, it reflects our team’s consensus on areas with a pressing need for further research. Derived collaboratively among our editorial team, these domains represent our collective experiences as researchers, editors, editorial board members and reviewers for many of the leading journals in the field. Table 1 presents our 10 anticipated research domains for 2024.

Table 1. Research domains.

Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation  Gender  Entrepreneurship education and mindset  Personality and individual differences  The past informing the future  Digitalization  Impact of regulations and public policy  Family business  Entrepreneurship in the developing world  Transitional entrepreneurship

Domain 1: corporate entrepreneurship and innovation

Corporate entrepreneurs have traditionally looked to innovation initiatives to enhance customer value, competitiveness and performance (Corbett et al., 2007; Rosenbusch et al., 2011). However, corporate innovation efforts often fail due to a lack of an innovation strategy (Pisano, 2015). Pisano (2015) aptly states that ‘without an innovation strategy, innovation improvement efforts can easily become a grab bag of much-touted best practices’ (p. 44). These innovative technologies and approaches include big data analytics, open innovation, design thinking and crowdsourcing, to name a few. As a result, corporate entrepreneurs succumb to implementing the innovation ‘buzzwords’ of the day without much success. Recent research has argued that it is critical for companies to develop an innovation strategy and engage in deliberate innovative initiatives (Albats et al., 2023; Dobni et al., 2022; Pisano, 2019; Wilson et al., 2023; Wilson & Dobni, 2022). The same research has demonstrated the performance-enhancing benefits of an innovation strategy, including increased revenue, improved bottom line, enhanced overall performance and effective implementation of novel methodologies and technologies.

Research related to the consequences of an innovation strategy is accumulating, but more work needs to be conducted. Despite the understanding that an innovation strategy is most easily created in an innovative corporate culture (Pisano, 2019; Senge, 1990), innovation strategy antecedents are relatively unexplored. Corporate entrepreneurship/innovation research needs to continue to examine the various consequences of innovation strategies as well as examine how innovation cultures – required for effective innovation strategies – are created. Finally, future research needs to explore how to maximize the benefits of innovative practices defined in firms’ innovation strategies. Previous research (Audretsch & Belitski, 2023; Bhuian et al., 2005; Tang et al., 2008) has shown that strategic commitments and innovative practices often have non-linear relationships with performance outcomes, suggesting there may be limitations to innovation strategies and practices, underscoring the need to determine their appropriate strategic fit, resource allocation and outcome expectations. Given the need to better understand how to maximize innovation strategies in corporate entrepreneurship, we propose the following seven research questions as the central focus for this domain:

1. How can corporate entrepreneurs engender an innovation culture?

2. How do micro-, meso- and macro-environmental factors influence the creation of an innovation culture?

3. What are the antecedents of an innovation culture and strategy?

4. What are the consequences of an innovation culture and strategy?

5. How do micro-, meso- and macro-environmental factors influence the antecedents and consequences of an innovation culture and strategy?

6. How can corporate entrepreneurs assess the appropriateness of new innovative methodologies and technologies?

7. To what degree should corporate entrepreneurs implement and commit resources to new innovative methodologies and technologies?

Domain 2: gender

The persistent gender disparities in the entrepreneurial landscape demand a more profound exploration of the intricate relationship between gender and entrepreneurship (Ruiz et al., 2023; Welsh et al., 2023). Despite increasing appreciation of the significance of inclusivity and gender diversity in entrepreneurship, a notable gap persists in comprehending the nuanced ways in which gender influences entrepreneurial processes, outcomes and experiences (Marlow, 2020; Poggesi et al., 2020). This emphasizes the urgent need for more comprehensive research, considering that existing studies often overlook the intricate interplay of societal expectations, cultural factors and institutional barriers that mold the entrepreneurial journey differently for men and women (Allison et al., 2023).

Welter (2020) advocates for a deeper consideration of the gendering of contexts in research on entrepreneurship and gender, recognizing gender can shape context as well as be shaped by context. Understanding the context within which gender and entrepreneurship research is conducted is crucial, influencing the perceptions, choices and potential outcomes of survey respondents (Mustafa & Treanor, 2022). Marlow (2020) calls for scholars to acknowledge the importance of place, context and social standing in influencing the nexus of entrepreneurship and gender. This approach can provide a richer understanding of how various categories of social belonging can both enable and constrain women’s entrepreneurial activity (Mustafa & Treanor, 2022). Therefore, adopting context-sensitive approaches is a smart strategy sure to benefit researchers going forward.

In the gender and entrepreneurship literature, scholars argue for the need to redefine measures of success that better align with women entrepreneurs’ perspectives, such as building meaningful relationships with employees and customers and contributing to society (Ogundana, Simba et al., 2022; Poggesi et al., 2020). Examining how established women entrepreneurs define success, compared to men entrepreneurs, considering contextual features across micro-, meso- and macro-environments, could be insightful (Ogundana et al., 2022). Such a comparison is particularly valuable for the allocation of resources based on the unique needs of entrepreneurs and their enterprises, enhancing the impact of policy support mechanisms on enterprise development (Tiwari & Goel, 2020).

Addressing these gaps is not only essential for academic inquiry but also for advancing inclusive policies and practices in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Consequently, there is an urgent need for extensive research in gender and entrepreneurship. To guide this research, we propose ten potential research questions aimed at unraveling the multifaceted dimensions of gender-related challenges and opportunities within entrepreneurial endeavors:

1. How do societal expectations and cultural factors shape the entrepreneurial experiences of men and women differently?

2. What role do institutional barriers play in influencing the entrepreneurial journey for individuals of different genders?

3. In what ways does the gendering of contexts impact the perceptions and choices of entrepreneurs?

4. How does social belonging, considering context, place and social positionality, enable or constrain women’s entrepreneurial activity?

5. Can a comparative analysis of success definitions among established women and men entrepreneurs reveal gender-specific patterns and priorities?

6. How do micro-, meso- and macro-environmental factors contribute to variations in success definitions among women and men entrepreneurs?

7. To what extent do existing entrepreneurial support mechanisms hit on the unique needs and barriers women entrepreneurs are facing?

8. How does the intersectionality of gender with other social identity markers, such as race and ethnicity, influence entrepreneurial experiences and success rates?

9. How can policies be tailored to better support the diverse needs of women entrepreneurs and promote gender inclusivity in entrepreneurship?

10. How do networking and mentorship opportunities differ for men and women in entrepreneurship and how do these dynamics influence business outcomes?

By addressing these research questions, scholars can contribute valuable insights that not only advance academic understanding but also inform evidence-based policies promoting gender equality and inclusivity in the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Domain 3: entrepreneurship education and mindset

The entrepreneurship education and mindset domain combines two critical aspects of entrepreneurship: the educational frameworks that nurture entrepreneurial skills and the mindset required to execute entrepreneurial activities successfully. We adopt a broad conceptualization of education, inclusive of formal primary and secondary school courses and degree programs, but also co-curricular programs (mentorship programs, accelerators and incubators, etc.).

Entrepreneurial mindset refers to a ‘a cognitive perspective that enables an individual to create value by recognizing and acting on opportunities, making decisions with limited information, and remaining adaptable and resilient in conditions that are often uncertain and complex’ (Daspit et al., 2023, 17). The preponderance of prior research has explored these two topics in isolation (or, implicitly assumed mindset cultivation to be a byproduct of entrepreneurship education), but there remains much potential for further exploration of how educational programs, experiences and interventions contribute to the cultivation of the cognitive processes that inform entrepreneurial action. Furthermore, given the interdisciplinary nature of entrepreneurship, a diverse array of disciplines have begun exploring how an entrepreneurial mindset contributes to success in their industries.

Considering the rapid growth and expansion of entrepreneurship education programs across 3000+ institutions globally (Morris & Liguori, 2016) and a plethora of calls from researchers, policy makers and practitioners for the global populous to develop more entrepreneurial mindsets given the rapidly changing nature of the business environments in which we live and operate (cf., Elkaim, 2020; Lesonsky, 2019; Lozano Cadena & Pereira Laverde, 2021; Pidduck et al., 2023), there is a critical need for additional scholarship in this domain, especially scholarship that adopts an outcomes focus (Smolka et al., 2023). To help jumpstart that inquiry, below are ten research questions prime for further exploration:

1. What effect, if any, does modality (online vs. in-person, synchronous vs. asynchronous) have on fostering an entrepreneurial mindset?

2. How do different pedagogical approaches (problem- and challenge-based learning approaches, experiential learning, etc.) in entrepreneurship education programs influence entrepreneurial mindset development?

3. Can formal education and co-curricular program engagement interact to the development of entrepreneurial mindsets?

4. How young is too young to begin cultivating an entrepreneurial mindset in today’s youth?

5. Is there a dark side to mainstream entrepreneurship programming (entrepreneurship competitions, SharkTank)?

6. How should we tailor entrepreneurship education to account for the different mindset needs of underprivileged and/or underrepresented populations?

7. What entrepreneurship education’s role in cultivating mindsets to address social and sustainable entrepreneurship concerns?

8. How do cultural, geographic and/or religious factors influence entrepreneurship education program and entrepreneurial mindset cultivation effectiveness?

9. What is the role of time in the acquisition of entrepreneurship knowledge and cultivation of an entrepreneurial mindset?

10. What barriers and limitations exist to as entrepreneurship education programs in aim to prepare the global populous to face the challenges and realities of the modern business environment?

Domain 4: personality and individual differences

The domain of individual differences in entrepreneurship literature has historically gravitated toward trait theory, focusing on attributes that are generally stable and less susceptible to environmental contexts, such as situational factors (Brandstätter, 2011). Debate around this subject, particularly regarding aspects like personality, physical appearance and intelligence, has been among the most vigorous and polarizing within entrepreneurial studies. Part of this contention arose from an earlier emphasis on what has been dubbed the ‘Great Man Theory’, which posited that entrepreneurs were akin to heroic figures, endowed with extraordinary capabilities and drive (Hargadon, 2003; Laudone et al., 2015). Initial explorations into this concept often employed biographical methods that yielded questionable findings.

Another point of contention was the reliability and validity of measures within personality research, which cast doubt on the broad applicability of these findings. Such issues led to critiques of personality research as lacking in theoretical foundation, being restrictive and at times, dismissed as somewhat deceptive. Discussions around intelligence, for instance, have been especially divisive within the context of entrepreneurship (Muldoon, 2020). As a consequence of these challenges, scholarship shifted focus toward more tangible influences on entrepreneurship, like education, policy and economic incentives.

Nonetheless, personality research within entrepreneurship has undergone a revival over the past four decades. Discoveries of traits, notably the Big Five personality dimensions, have been shown to have predictive validity across a range of outcomes. This resurgence is attributed to methodological advancements, including the application of factor analysis, which facilitated the creation of more reliable and valid personality assessments (De Raad, 2000). Contemporary research now observes discernible differences in personality trait profiles between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs and has expanded beyond the Big Five to include constructs like proactive personality, the Dark Triad, Holland’s vocational models and emotional intelligence (cf., Liyanagamage et al., 2023; Postigo et al., 2021; Salmony & Kanbach, 2022).

Despite these developments, the study of individual differences and personality in entrepreneurship is still nascent, with a multitude of avenues remaining unexplored. Burgeoning topics in this field worthy of further scholarly attention include:

1. In high-pressure, risky environments, what individual differences contribute to entrepreneurial success?

2. How do cognitive differences such as creative thinking and problem-solving styles affect entrepreneurial innovation and opportunity recognition?

3. What is the interaction between personality and environmental factors (eg entrepreneurial ecosystem dynamics)?

4. What role, if any, do early educational experiences (eg creativity exercises) play in the shaping entrepreneurial traits?

5. Do the personal resilience and stress management strategies of the entrepreneur affect the adaptability and resilience of the venture?

6. To what extent does the population of interest influence individual difference scores? A sample individual difference score? Will a sample of working adults produce different results than one of students (see McLarty et al., 2023).

7. Can we identify specific personality profiles for individuals more prone to entrepreneurial exhaustion? How can we better design support systems based on personality?

8. How does our understanding of individual differences among entrepreneurs enable entrepreneurial education and training programs to be more customized?

9. How do individual differences interact with societal and cultural expectations with regard to influencing entrepreneurial intentions and behaviors?

10. Are there differences in traits between entrepreneurs? Does a high growth entrepreneur have a higher degree of proactivity than does a necessity entrepreneur?

Domain 5: the past informing the future

The integration of historical analysis in entrepreneurship research offers significant advantages. Acknowledging the interconnectedness of past, present and future is essential for a comprehensive understanding of entrepreneurship. As Deane (1996) aptly noted, ‘The past is never fully gone. It is absorbed into the present and the future. It stays to shape what we are and what we do’. This perspective is not new to academia; the field of management, for instance, has a well-established tradition of introspection. Scholars within this discipline have meticulously traced the evolution of management thought and practices, thereby enriching the domain through historical examination (Lamond, 2006). Similarly, entrepreneurial scholars engage in historical analysis by default; their reliance on longitudinal data and established theories inherently involves a historical dimension (Muldoon, 2023). Moreover, conducting literature reviews to discern the temporal shifts of a concept is, in itself, an important exercise in historical scholarship (cf., Kraus et al., 2022, 2023; Rao et al., 2023).

In addition, expanding on historical perspectives can significantly deepen our understanding of entrepreneurship. First, a historical lens equips scholars to more accurately grasp the theoretical and empirical foundations of current research, fostering a clearer comprehension of the origins and evolution of prevailing ideas (Muldoon, 2023). Contemporary academia is not immune to the misapplication or misunderstanding of theories; a historical review can clarify original meanings and intentions. Second, historical analysis can yield profound insights into the entrepreneurs themselves and their ventures. For instance, by examining the personality traits of entrepreneurs from previous eras or the strategies they employed, scholars can identify enduring patterns and novel divergences.

Third, the use of history is instrumental in the exploration of entrepreneurial ecosystems, as evidenced by current research (Spigel, 2020), and in understanding the role education has played in either facilitating or impeding entrepreneurial activities (Wadhwani & Viebig, 2021). Fourth, the historical approach has been a cornerstone in theoretical development within the field of entrepreneurship, as famously employed by Joseph Schumpeter. By revisiting historical theories, scholars can both verify and challenge existing paradigms. These points constitute a non-exhaustive list of the avenues where the infusion of history into entrepreneurship research can offer substantial scholarly value (Harvey et al., 2010).

The most profound benefit of historical awareness, particularly relevant to domains such as entrepreneurial ecosystems, policy and education, lies in the recognition that the fabric of life is intrinsically complex. Nations, cities, regions and peoples are not mere tabulae rasae; they possess distinctive histories that can either facilitate or impede policy implementation. It is therefore critical to resist the inclination to view these entities as interchangeable. This nuanced perspective has often been absent in the field of development economics, where there is a tendency to overlook the historical context and complexities that shape economic realities (Easterly, 2014).

Moreover, historical inquiry enables scholars to move beyond the confines of logical positivism, a philosophical stance that endorses universality and attempts to distill human interactions into fixed laws (Steinmetz, 2005). While logical positivism has its merits, it does not fully accommodate the intricate and, at times, chaotic nature of human life. For instance, Schumpeter’s investigation into the agents of economic growth in Europe and America revealed a stark contrast: the prominence of small businesses in Europe versus the dominance of large businesses in America. This example underscores the limitations of a one-size-fits-all approach and the importance of contextual and historical nuance in scholarly research.

In using history, we are building upon research that has been conducted, and entrepreneurship has historically rich and interdisciplinary foundations to build upon. Future research has no shortage of interesting questions to explore, including:

1. How has the definition of entrepreneur changed over time?

2. To what extent has entrepreneurship been part of the human experience?

3. How has the role of education in supporting or stifling entrepreneurial activity evolved throughout time?

4. To what extent, have we either missed insights or have gotten them wrong from past scholars? Likewise, to what extent have we gotten historical cases wrong?

5. How have perceptions of entrepreneurship differed across cultures and time periods and how can this inform entrepreneurship today and into the future?

6. What policies and conditions have led to economic growth in the past? How do we refine these historical ideas into such an edge that will lead to better outcomes?

7. How has diversity in a historical context led or hindered entrepreneurship? What were some of the unintended consequences of diversity.

8. Can historical case studies of entrepreneurial ventures influence contemporary theories and models of entrepreneurial behavior and decision-making?

9. How have events throughout history impacted the evolution of entrepreneurship theories?

10. Historically, is entrepreneurship always good?

Domain 6: digitalization

In the contemporary business landscape, the give and take of digitalization, entrepreneurship and innovation has attracted significant attention from scholars and practitioners (Appio et al., 2021; Nambisan et al., 2019; Shepherd & Majchrzak, 2022; Wetzels, 2021). This dynamic relationship, commonly known as ‘digitalization’, is reshaping the way industries and firms compete and has fundamentally altered the landscape of entrepreneurship.

The current digital age represents a profound shift from the traditional industrial economy to a digital one (Giustiziero et al., 2023). The transition to digital age has made large quantities of information and data readily and easily accessible, changing how firms operate and innovate. Specifically, digitalization signifies utilizing digital technologies into critical entrepreneurship processes, fundamentally changing how products and services are developed, promoted and delivered. Digitalization encompasses various types of digital technologies, such as blockchain, artificial intelligence (AI), digital platforms, machine learning, addictive manufacturing, robotics, cloud computing and more (Chalmers et al., 2021; Clarysse et al., 2022; Ko et al., 2021; Schou & Adarkwah, 2023).

The rapid evolution of digitalization is reshaping entrepreneurial decision-making, new venture creation and industry structures. Entrepreneurs leverage digital technologies to finance innovation, develop digital products and services, break down traditional internationalization barriers and access global markets (Audretsch et al., 2016; Fan et al., 2021). This shift to digital technology sparks novel opportunities, dismantling industry barriers and advancing innovation. Firms adopting digital technologies experience increased productivity and substantial cost reductions, particularly in manufacturing sectors (Coreynen et al., 2017). Moreover, embracing digital solutions helps reduce carbon emissions, contributing improved sustainability for the future (Upadhyay et al., 2021).

Beyond economic and social gains, digitalization reshapes industries and societies, fostering the emergence of digital platforms that create new markets and ecosystems (Berman et al., 2023; Verhoef et al., 2021). For instance, platforms like Airbnb and Uber demonstrate the transformation of traditional business models. Moreover, regions with high digitalization rates experience lower unemployment and increased prosperity. Cities like Copenhagen, Seoul and London, have become digital hubs, generating jobs and driving economic growth (Digital Cities Index, 2022). Contemplating the influence of digitalization on the transformation of industries, economies and societies, we call for in-depth research on various aspects of digitalization in entrepreneurship and innovation literature. In this regard, we propose following research questions:

1. How do digital technologies influence entrepreneurial decision-making processes?

2. What ethical issues emerge in the context of digital entrepreneurship, and how do entrepreneurs address these challenges?

3. What are the characteristics of successful entrepreneurial ecosystems in digitally advanced regions, and how do these ecosystems foster venture activities?

4. How does digital entrepreneurship influence job creation, innovation, economic growth, sustainability and societal well-being at regional, national and international-levels, and what policies and strategies could be employed to bolster these effects?

5. How do digital technologies and platforms facilitate the internationalization of entrepreneurial ventures, and what barriers do digital startups encounter in global markets?

6. What factors drive the formation and growth of digital startups, and how do these startups identify and exploit opportunities across domestic and international borders?

7. How do platform-based business models transform the landscape of entrepreneurship?

8. How do novel digital technologies change the way entrepreneurs search for and create new opportunities, solutions and innovation?

9. How does the integration of digital technologies and digital platforms within established organizations impact the strategies and practices of corporate entrepreneurship, and what are the key factors influencing the success of digital corporate entrepreneurship initiatives?

10. What challenges and opportunities come with integrating digital entrepreneurship into conventional business models, and how can firms adapt to this shift to maintain competitiveness in the digital era?

Domain 7: impact of regulations and public policy

The intersection of public policy and entrepreneurship has emerged as a dynamic and occasionally controversial arena for academic investigation. The current landscape of research in this area is notably interdisciplinary, engaging not only entrepreneurship scholars but also economists and political scientists. The diversity of disciplinary contributions leads to a rich, albeit contested, discourse, with each field bringing its own epistemological stance and sometimes producing conflicting results. For example, development economists may significantly differ in their views on the role of government compared to public choice economists (Mueller, 2003; Olson, 1982). Scholars such as Ostrom (1990) even argue that government might not be necessary for governance, suggesting that individuals can self-organize to manage their property and public goods, a stance that further diversifies the debate on the government’s role in entrepreneurship (Muldoon & Yonai, 2023).

The influence of public policy on entrepreneurship is multifaceted, encompassing areas like taxation, subsidies, trade barriers (eg licensing requirements), price controls, bankruptcy laws, brokerage services, legal protections (such as patents), infrastructure and education. A growing voice within the field of entrepreneurial ecosystems advocates for an industrial policy approach, termed the ‘entrepreneurial state’ (Mazzucato, 2013), where the government adopts an entrepreneurial role by providing resources, protections, tax incentives and other interventions critical in the entrepreneurial process. Despite the appeal of such policies, their implementation is fraught with challenges related to political dynamics and information asymmetries, keeping the debate alive and contentious (Wennberg & Sandström, 2022).

A blind spot identified among some entrepreneurship scholars is the assumption that public policy is inherently productive, overlooking the possibility of it being unproductive or destructive. The public choice literature warns of entrepreneurs engaging in rent-seeking, leveraging government for personal gain without contributing to economic growth, exemplified by licensing practices that restrict market entry and disproportionately benefit incumbents (Mueller, 2003). This body of work challenges the notion of politicians and bureaucrats as neutral agents, instead positing that they act out of self-interest, complicating the narrative of public policy’s impact on entrepreneurship.

This complexity notwithstanding, the field presents a fertile ground for research, with high stakes. Entrepreneurs are increasingly recognized as agents who might tackle societal challenges, such as sustainability and economic stagnation. Additionally, the purview of public policy and entrepreneurship extends to social entrepreneurship, where individuals initiate ventures to address issues like education, traditionally managed by the state. Accordingly, numerous areas at the intersection of public policy and entrepreneurship are ripe for further research:

1. What role does the notion of an entrepreneurial state have in stimulating entrepreneurship ecosystems?

2. What types of educational policies should a government pursue to increase entrepreneurship?

3. What are the contextual variables (eg culture/family) that strengthen or weaken entrepreneurial intent?

4. How do tax incentives and government subsidies impact startup lifecycles? What’s their net impact on the economy?

5. To what extent do property rights inhibit entrepreneurship? How long should patent rights last?

6. How can we minimize information asymmetries between policymakers and entrepreneurs?

7. How does the state encourage rent-seeking and unproductive entrepreneurship?

8. What governance mechanisms can reduce unproductive entrepreneurship?

9. What are the ethical implications when the government picks winners and losers?

10. How do differing epistemological perspectives (political scientists vs. economists vs. strategists) impact the interpretation of public policy’s impact on entrepreneurship?

Domain 8: family business

Twenty years ago Zahra and Sharma (2004: p. 331) noted that trends in family business research

include a continuing pursuit of a few research topics such as succession, a strong preference for practice-oriented research methods, a tendency to borrow heavily from other disciplines without giving back to these fields, and a strong preference to talk to other researchers conducting research on family firms—failing to communicate with scholars from other disciplines.

Yet despite two decades of time elapsing and a proliferation of further research into family businesses, many of these trends remain just as timely today.

Related, another thing that hasn’t changed significantly over the last 20 years is the fundamental impact family businesses play in driving the global economy. Often, family businesses serve as the backbone of developed and emerging markets alike, causing some scholars to refer to them as the ‘most ubiquitous form of business organization in any world economy’ (Rovelli et al., 2022: 1). A recent study by Pieper et al. (2021) suggests family businesses in the U.S. generate more than 50% of private sector gross domestic product ($7.7 trillion) and employ 59% of the private sector workforce marking their importance not just in economic terms but also as major job creators (viz., 83.3 million jobs).

Moreover, the influence of family businesses extends beyond mere financial metrics to encompass social and cultural capital, often making them anchors of stability and innovation. For these reasons further research into the complexities of family businesses is crucial for both theoretical advancement in entrepreneurship as well as to inform their behavior and ensure their continued success. Accordingly, the editorial team offers a non-exhaustive list of research questions we hope to see more research on going in 2024 and beyond:

1. Does family business succession planning differ from non-family business succession planning? How so? What are the key factors for success?

2. How do individual family dynamics impact overall strategy and decision-making of family businesses?

3. How do generational perspectives within family businesses influence firm openness to digitalization and globalization strategies?

4. What governance structures are most effective to ensure long-term sustainability?

5. How does family culture help shape the values and organizational culture of family businesses?

6. Do interpersonal conflicts between family members get managed differently that between non-family co-workers?

7. How is organizational resiliency best cultivated in family businesses? Does that process differ from non-family businesses?

8. What roles does gender play in family business leadership and succession?

9. How do family businesses navigate the tension between upholding tradition and embracing innovation, particularly in emerging industries?

10. What distinct challenges and opportunities exist for family businesses in developing economies relative to those in developed markets?

Domain 9: entrepreneurship in the developing world

In the dynamic landscape of the developing world, entrepreneurship emerges as a key driver of economic growth, social development and poverty alleviation (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2023). However, the need for more research in this realm is imperative to unravel the unique challenges and opportunities that characterize entrepreneurial endeavors in the developing economies regions (Chan & Mustafa, 2021). By delving into the intricacies of entrepreneurial ecosystems, cultural influences and institutional frameworks, researchers can provide valuable insights that go beyond the conventional narratives often rooted in developed economies (Ciambotti et al., 2023). The intricacies of cultural, institutional and infrastructural contexts shape the entrepreneurial ecosystem, necessitating a deeper understanding to foster sustainable and inclusive development (Ogundana et al., 2023). This deeper understanding is essential for crafting targeted policies, fostering inclusive growth, and empowering local entrepreneurs to drive economic transformation. Research questions in this domain could explore the impact of cultural factors on entrepreneurial success, investigating how cultural values and norms influence entrepreneurial behavior and decision-making in developing economies (Ogundana et al., 2022). Additionally, delving into the role of government policies and regulatory frameworks in either hindering or promoting entrepreneurship can provide valuable insights for policymakers (Omri, 2020).

Understanding the dynamics of access to finance in these contexts, particularly for marginalized groups, is crucial for devising inclusive strategies that empower a diverse range of entrepreneurs (Simba et al., 2023). Traditional banking systems often fall short in addressing the nuanced requirements of entrepreneurs in many developing economies such as those within the African region, leading to a stark financing gap that hinders economic progress at the grassroots level (OECD, 2023). Yet, there remains a notable continuous surge in entrepreneurial activities in many developing economies (OECD, 2023). This phenomenon prompts academic inquiries into the types of entrepreneurial finance deployed to foster such transformation and how entrepreneurs navigate challenges arising from political instability, social unrest, bureaucracy and institutional voids prominent in many developing contexts (Simba et al., 2023).

Furthermore, exploring the relationship between education, skill development and entrepreneurial outcomes can inform targeted interventions to enhance the capabilities of aspiring entrepreneurs in the developing world (Olutuase et al., 2023). Investigating the effectiveness of support structures, such as business incubators and mentorship programs, can shed light on the mechanisms that contribute to the success of entrepreneurial ventures in challenging environments (Ogundana et al., 2023). Other potential research questions could focus on the role of technology in shaping entrepreneurial landscapes, examining how digital platforms and e-commerce impact small and medium-sized enterprises in developing economies (Ibidunni et al., 2021). Exploring the gender dimensions of entrepreneurship in these regions can uncover barriers and opportunities for female entrepreneurs, contributing to the design of gender-inclusive policies (Ogundana et al., 2022). Investigating the resilience of entrepreneurs in the face of external shocks, such as economic crises or natural disasters, is crucial for designing strategies that enhance the adaptive capacity of businesses in vulnerable settings (Ibidunni et al., 2022). Moreover, studying the interplay between social entrepreneurship and community development can offer insights into innovative approaches that address societal challenges (Ciambotti et al., 2023).

We recommend that future researchers carefully consider the diverse manifestations of entrepreneurship and their manifestation in burgeoning economies (Chan & Mustafa, 2021). One notable example is the nascent field of sport entrepreneurship, which, despite its relevance in entrepreneurship research, has been largely overlooked in the context of developing economies, particularly in the African region (González-Serrano et al., 2019). There is a notable research gap in exploring topics such as agripreneurship in Africa, aquapreneurship in Middle-Eastern region, or eco-entrepreneurship in Asia, and investigating these areas is crucial for gaining distinctive insights into how various entrepreneurial forms can influence community and national development (Chan & Mustafa, 2021). In conclusion, the need for more research in entrepreneurship in the developing world is evident, given the complex interplay of factors that shape entrepreneurial activities in these regions. From the discussion above, we summarize ten potential research question recommendations:

1. How do cultural values and norms influence entrepreneurial behavior and decision-making in the context of developing economies, and what impact does this have on entrepreneurial success?

2. What is the role of government policies and regulatory frameworks in either hindering or promoting entrepreneurship in developing economies, and how can policymakers leverage this knowledge to catalyze entrepreneurial activities?

3. In the context of developing economies, what are the dynamics of access to finance, particularly for marginalized groups, and how can inclusive strategies be devised to empower a diverse range of entrepreneurs? What are the alternative funding mechanisms utilized by entrepreneurs in the developing economies?

4. How does the relationship between education, skill development and entrepreneurial outcomes unfold in the developing world, and what targeted interventions can enhance the capabilities of aspiring entrepreneurs in the developing economies regions?

5. What is the effectiveness of support structures such as business incubators and mentorship programs in contributing to the success of entrepreneurial ventures in challenging environments within developing economies?

6. In what ways does technology, including digital platforms and e-commerce, shape entrepreneurial landscapes for small and medium-sized enterprises in developing economies?

7. What barriers and opportunities do female entrepreneurs encounter in developing economies, and how can this knowledge inform the design of gender-inclusive policies?

8. How do entrepreneurs in developing economies demonstrate resilience in the face of external shocks, such as economic crises or natural disasters, and what strategies can enhance the adaptive capacity of businesses in vulnerable settings?

9. What is the interplay between social entrepreneurship and community development in developing economies, and how can innovative approaches address societal challenges?

10. How do different forms of entrepreneurship, such as sport entrepreneurship, agripreneurship, aquapreneurship, or eco-entrepreneurship manifest in the developing economy context, and what unique insights do they offer into community and national development?

Domain 10: transitional entrepreneurship

Transitional entrepreneurship has gained prominence in recent years as it addresses ‘the practices of entrepreneurs, from communities facing adversity, who navigate substantial life transitions as they launch and manage new ventures in response to various changes and challenges in their environment’ (Javadian et al., 2023, p. 2). Specifically, the concept of transitional entrepreneurship emerged in response to the remarkable journeys of entrepreneurs who overcome adversity, liability and stigma to establish and sustain businesses (Bruton et al., 2021; Nair & Chen, 2021; Pidduck & Clark, 2021). Transitional entrepreneurship includes a diverse range of entrepreneurs, including veterans, minorities, immigrants, refugees, women, historically marginalized groups and individuals from economically distressed communities. These entrepreneurs frequently encounter external challenges related to limited access to human capital, social capital, financial capital and the local entrepreneurship ecosystem. In essence, transitional entrepreneurship represents the resilience and adaptability of entrepreneurs who not only transform their own lives but also contribute to their communities’ growth and development (Khosravi et al., 2023).

Transitional entrepreneurs play a pivotal role in driving economic growth and social development and fostering regional prosperity (Bakker & McMullen, 2023; Santos et al., 2022). Therefore, it is important to advance our knowledge on this field. Recent statistics highlight the economic potential inherent in transitional entrepreneurship across various communities. For example, 40.5% of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Korea were owned by women CEOs in 2020 (Ministry of SMEs & Startups, 2023) and 21.5% of startups in Germany were established by migrant entrepreneurs in 2022 (Deutscher Startup Monitor, 2023).

Moreover, transitional entrepreneurship research has evolved to encompass a diverse array of groups, including undocumented immigrant entrepreneurs from the Central America (Arteaga-Fonseca et al., 2023), entrepreneurs set in the bottom of the pyramid, such as India and China (Chang & Xu, 2023), the USA veteran entrepreneurs with disabilities (Shaheen & Myhill, 2009), formerly incarcerated European entrepreneurs (Patzelt et al., 2014) and refugee entrepreneurs in the Middle East (Bizri, 2017). This expansion signifies a global interest in studying how entrepreneurship serves as a means of transformation in the lives of marginalized individuals. To advance the field of transitional entrepreneurship, we propose several research questions that can guide future investigations:

1. How does veterans’ military experience influence their entrepreneurial journey and what challenges do they face in transitioning from military service to self-employment?

2. What factors impact opportunity identification for immigrant and refugee entrepreneurs, and how do their networks within diasporas affect their success?

3. How does self-employment influence the quality of life for women and minority entrepreneurs, and how does it impact their economic and social status?

4. How can entrepreneurship contribute to advancing economically distressed communities out of poverty and fostering economic growth?

5. How can communities and institutions create ecosystems to support transitional entrepreneurs, and what are the most effective outreach or training programs to help them overcome adversities?

6. To what extent does the intersection of entrepreneurship and innovation under challenging transitional conditions contribute to inclusive growth and positive changes in communities?

7. How can transitional entrepreneurs craft innovative business models that not only generate profit but also address pressing ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) challenges, fostering a transition toward more sustainable and equitable economic systems?

8. What ethical dilemmas do transitional entrepreneurs face in their quest to create economic opportunities, particularly in regions with limited resources and political instability?

9. To what extent do political and policy decisions influence the ability of transitional entrepreneurs to create and sustain businesses? How do government regulations, support programs, and the formation of entrepreneurial communities interact within transitional contexts?

10. How can transitional entrepreneurs effectively integrate CSR (corporate social responsibility) initiatives into their business operations, contributing to both economic development and social well-being? What is the role of transitional entrepreneurs in building community trust, enhancing reputation and fostering job creation, especially in regions facing adversity and economic challenges?

Conclusion

The entrepreneurship literature has exponentially expanded over the last decade, demonstrating its capacity to span boundaries and embrace innovation and inclusivity. Continued adaptability remains essential not just for the advancement of theoretical frameworks but also to effectively inform practice, policy and education alike. Research into entrepreneurship remains a rich tapestry of domains at the nexus of societal, technological and economic transformation. The multifaceted nature of entrepreneurship necessitates interdisciplinary inquiry and the bridging of gaps in our current understanding of the field, much more akin to the notion of entrepreneurship as a quilt (as opposed to a puzzle; Neck, 2011).

We contend these ten domains are particularly well-poised for substantial academic inquiry and more importantly, that that inquiry has the potential to be disproportionately impactful. These areas encompass corporate entrepreneurship, gender disparities, educational paradigms, personality traits, historical insights, digitalization, regulatory impacts, family business dynamics and the emerging domain of transitional entrepreneurship. Reflecting back on these domains, their inherent interconnectivity and potential for cross-pollination among these varied facets of entrepreneurial research is obvious, and researchers should look not just within these domains, but also consider what synergies lie between them (eg intersection of policy and gender; intersection of digitalization and entrepreneurship education).

Ultimately, we hope these domains serve as a roadmap for such scholarly exploration, one that grabs the attention of, and stimulates dialogue between, academics, policymakers and practitioners, thus enriching the impact of research on society at large.

Author contributions

All authors contributed equally to this work, assume full responsibility for its content and approve of the submission of this work. Commonly accepted AI technology was used in the copy-editing phase of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

This work does not rely on any data. As such, there is no data to be made available.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Eric W. Liguori

Eric W. Liguori is Professor and Associate Dean for Research and External Relations in the Jim Moran College of Entrepreneurship at Florida State University. He is also a Past President and Fellow of the United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship and was named USASBE’s 2023 Entrepreneurship Educator of the Year.

Jeffrey Muldoon

Jeffrey Muldoon is an Associate Professor in the School of Business at Emporia State University. He presently serves as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Management History.

Oyedele M. Ogundana

Oyedele M. Ogundana is an Assistant Professor in Nottingham Business School at Nottingham Trent University.

Younggeun Lee

Younggeun Lee is an Assistant Professor in the College of Business and Economics at California State University. He presently serves as Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Entrepreneurship.

Grant Alexander Wilson

Grant Alexander Wilson is an Assistant Professor in the Hill and Levene Schools of Business at the University of Regina.