The re-birth of IJEBR

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Volume 15, Issue 1

This issue represents a very significant event in the development of IJEBRas it is the first time that the journal has been published in hardcopy. IJEBRwas conceived as an electronic journal as that was expected to become the standard format for all journals. While it is true that most libraries are switching from hardcopy to electronic journals – there is still a stigma attached to those that are published only in electronic format. Therefore, I think that this event signifies substantial progress for the journal – as well being an indicator of the health of the broader research community associated the field of entrepreneurship and small business. In each of the last three years we have published 20 papers (six issues per annum) with an acceptance rate of approximately 20 per cent. There have been a number of interesting special issues including social enterprise (Vol. 14 No. 5) and immigrant entrepreneurs (Vol. 14 No. 6) in 2008. We will publish two further special issues in 2009: one has papers from the entrepreneurship track at the 2007 British Academy of Management conference and the other focuses on technical entrepreneurship in Taiwan (editor Ming-Huei Chen). Currently, there are a further three special issues in the pipeline (to be published in 2010 and 2011):family business (editor Claire Seaman), University-HEI engagement (Nigel Lockett), and enterprising individuals (Lynn Martin).

In my first editorial (Vol. 11 No. 5) I carried out a brief review of papers that had been published in preceding issues of IJEBR. One objective during my tenure is to retain the diversity of topics which typified those first ten years under the editorship of John Pheby, who founded the journal, and Sue Marlow. I believe that the papers, which have been published subsequently,represent a good balance of those that deal with core issues in the entrepreneurship literature such as opportunity identification (Sanz-Velasco),environmental munificence (Tang) and entrepreneurial orientation (Kropp, Lindsay and Shoham). The more esoteric topics are represented by, for example, the influence of Buddhism on entrepreneurs (Valliere), subsistence entrepreneurship in a fishing community (Smith) and a critique of research on social enterprise(Curtis). As stated in my first editorial, it is my intention that IJEBRcontinues to publish the best possible papers dealing with a wide range of issues related to entrepreneurship and small firms. In this issue we have five papers which vary from an analysis of web-based procurement using structural equation modelling, a detailed qualitative analysis of alliances between micro firms, and a paper which sets out the case for a social contructionist agenda in entrepreneurship research.

Hernadez-Ortega, Jimeniz-Martinez and Martin-DeHoyos attempt to establish the extent to which previous experience with information technologies, influences the adoption of web-based procurement. The study is based on a sample of 258 small Spanish firms with an average of seven employees. It reveals that use of information technologies such as electronic data interchange (EDI) and the Internet facilitates adoption of subsequent web procurement software. This research demonstrates that previous experience of IT enhances a small company’s“absorptive capacity” for adoption of newer technologies.

Lindgren and Packendorff set out to develop a social contructionist approach to research in entrepreneurship. The authors begin with a review of current methodological debates in entrepreneurship and this is followed by an outline of a social constructionist approach together with the theoretical and methodological implications. This view is put forward as a challenge to what the authors describe as “traditional perspectives, theories and empirical work in entrepreneurship”. It is claimed by the authors that there is a lack of literature which examines the underlying scientific assumptions in the entrepreneurship field. While this claim may be accurate there is certainly a substantial amount of research on entrepreneurship, which is firmly located with the social constructionist “paradigm”.

The study of alliances between micro-firms is definitely a topic that has not received a great deal of academic attention. Jaouen and Gundolf carry out a detailed qualitative survey of 20 alliances between firms in the Languedoc-Roussillon region of France. Based on their qualitative data, the authors develop a typology of governance modes between micro-firms. This typology has two axes: the first is concerned with the distinction between a“self-centred” or a “co-development logic”. The second axis distinguished between alliances which are “activity-oriented”and those that are “product-oriented”. All firms participating in alliances were driven by a desire to seek access to complementary resources. Also, common was the rejection of formal agreements between partners as these were seen to symbolise lack of trust.

A topic which has certainly grown in importance during the lifetime of IJEBRhas been interest in the study of entrepreneurial education. The paper by Pittaway, Hannon, Gibb and Thompson investigates the nature of assessment practices related to entrepreneurship in Higher Education. The study was based on focus groups, comprising 40 academics, during the 2005 conference of the Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship (ISBE). Discussions were organized around seven learning outcome developed for the National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurs. Pittaway et al. demonstrate the sheer complexity of issues associated with assessment practice and provide insight into challenges that educators should take into account when considering assessment. Certainly, it is very clear that there is a need for much greater research on assessment practices in enterprise education.

Finally, Williams criticises the long-standing distinction between necessity-driven and opportunity-driven entrepreneurs. He suggests that more recent views indicate that there are temporal changes in motivation, which transcend this crude dichotomy. The study is based on a household survey of“informal” entrepreneurs comprising 313 households in various districts of Moscow. The data indicate that these representatives of the “shadow”economy are similar to mainstream entrepreneurs in the coexistence of necessity and opportunity-driven reasons for starting a business.

Oswald Jones