Abstract
The Entrepreneurial Process is a dynamic and multidimensional phenomenon involving the identification or creation of opportunities, the development of entrepreneurial ideas, the mobilisation of resources, and the establishment and growth of new ventures. Opportunities constitute a central construct in entrepreneurship research because they connect individual characteristics, creativity, imagination, environmental conditions, and entrepreneurial action. Although traditional perspectives often conceptualise entrepreneurship as a linear progression from idea generation to venture creation and growth, contemporary theories emphasise uncertainty, social interaction, experimentation, and the evolving relationship between entrepreneurs and their environments. In particular, the distinction between opportunity discovery and opportunity creation has generated considerable scholarly debate. This article examines the entrepreneurial process through the perspectives of opportunity recognition, creativity, entrepreneurial imagination, effectuation, bricolage, social construction, and dynamic capabilities. It argues that entrepreneurial opportunities should be understood not merely as objectively existing market conditions or subjective ideas, but as phenomena that may emerge through interactions between entrepreneurs, stakeholders, resources, and changing institutional environments.
Keywords: entrepreneurial process, entrepreneurial opportunities, opportunity recognition, opportunity creation, entrepreneurship theory, entrepreneurial imagination, creativity, new venture creation, effectuation, entrepreneurial action.
1. Introduction
Entrepreneurship is widely recognised as a process through which individuals identify or create opportunities, organise resources, and develop new products, services, organisations, and markets. Within entrepreneurship research, the concept of opportunity occupies a central position because it provides a basis for explaining why some individuals pursue entrepreneurial activities while others do not, and why similar ideas may lead to different venture outcomes.
Shane and Venkataraman (2000) conceptualised entrepreneurship as the study of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated, and exploited. Their perspective established the importance of examining both the individual entrepreneur and the opportunity, rather than treating entrepreneurship exclusively as a study of personal characteristics or organisational outcomes.
Nevertheless, the operationalisation of entrepreneurial opportunities remains theoretically challenging. Opportunities are not always clearly identifiable before entrepreneurial action, and their emergence may depend on how entrepreneurs interpret environmental changes, imagine alternative futures, and interact with stakeholders. Consequently, the relationship between opportunity discovery and opportunity creation continues to be an important debate in entrepreneurship scholarship.
Traditional models often represent the entrepreneurial process as a progression from idea generation and opportunity identification to resource acquisition, venture establishment, and organisational growth (Churchill & Lewis, 1983). Although such models help explain venture development, they may insufficiently capture the uncertainty, experimentation, and iterative learning that characterise entrepreneurial activity.
Creativity and imagination further complicate this process. Creativity involves producing ideas that are both novel and useful (Sternberg & O’Hara, 1999), but the generation of an idea does not automatically establish its commercial feasibility or entrepreneurial significance. Ward (2004) explains that people may generate pre-inventive ideas that have not yet developed into complete or useful creative outcomes. Entrepreneurial activity therefore involves more than idea generation: it requires evaluating, developing, testing, and potentially transforming ideas into viable opportunities.
Against this background, this article develops an integrated understanding of the entrepreneurial process by examining established theoretical perspectives and explaining how opportunity recognition, imagination, resource mobilisation, social interaction, and venture development contribute to entrepreneurial outcomes.
2. Conceptualising the Entrepreneurial Process
The entrepreneurial process refers to the interconnected activities through which individuals and groups identify or construct opportunities, evaluate their potential, mobilise resources, develop business models, establish ventures, and pursue sustainable growth. It is not simply a sequence of managerial decisions; it is also a process of learning, interpretation, social negotiation, and adaptation under conditions of uncertainty.
Shane and Venkataraman (2000) provide a foundational framework by linking entrepreneurship to three interrelated questions:
- Opportunity: How do opportunities to create new goods and services emerge?
- Entrepreneur: Why do some individuals recognise and act upon opportunities that others overlook?
- Exploitation: How are opportunities evaluated and transformed into economic or social value?
This framework highlights the interaction between entrepreneurial agency and contextual conditions. An opportunity does not necessarily produce a new venture simply because it exists or is perceived. Entrepreneurs must also possess, develop, or access the knowledge, motivation, networks, and resources required to act.
Entrepreneurship can therefore be understood as an iterative process rather than a universally linear sequence. Entrepreneurs may return to earlier stages when market feedback challenges their assumptions, customers reject their initial offerings, or new technological developments reveal alternative possibilities.
A useful conceptual sequence is presented below.
1. Environmental change and problem identification
Unmet needs, technological developments, institutional changes and market gaps
2. Entrepreneurial cognition and imagination
Knowledge, creativity, prior experience and alternative future scenarios
3. Opportunity discovery or creation
Recognising existing possibilities or constructing new market opportunities
4. Opportunity evaluation and experimentation
Customer validation, feasibility assessment, prototyping and learning
5. Resource mobilisation and venture creation
Networks, finance, capabilities, partnerships and business model development
6. Venture growth, adaptation or exit
Scaling, innovation, business model revision, survival or discontinuation
Figure 1. An integrative conceptual model of the entrepreneurial process. The stages are analytical categories, not a fixed sequence; feedback and iteration can occur throughout.
This model integrates opportunity-based entrepreneurship with theories of entrepreneurial cognition, experimentation, and resource development. It also acknowledges that not every entrepreneurial initiative results in venture creation and that some opportunities are transformed or abandoned during the process.
3. Entrepreneurial Opportunities: Discovery Versus Creation
One of the most significant debates in entrepreneurship research concerns whether opportunities exist independently of entrepreneurs or emerge through entrepreneurial action. This distinction is important because it influences how researchers understand market change, uncertainty, innovation, and the role of individual agency.
3.1 Opportunity discovery theory
The discovery perspective suggests that entrepreneurial opportunities arise from changes in the external environment, including technological developments, demographic shifts, regulatory changes, and market inefficiencies. Such changes may create circumstances in which new products, services, or business models become feasible.
Kirzner (1973) emphasised entrepreneurial alertness, arguing that entrepreneurs can identify previously overlooked opportunities arising from imperfect coordination and information in markets. From this perspective, successful entrepreneurs differ partly in their ability to notice discrepancies between existing market conditions and potential alternatives.
For example, an entrepreneur may identify an underserved customer segment whose needs are not adequately addressed by existing providers. The entrepreneur recognises the potential to deliver greater value by developing a new offering or improving an existing one.
Discovery theory is particularly relevant when opportunities are associated with identifiable environmental changes or previously unexploited knowledge. However, it does not imply that all opportunities are immediately observable or that their commercial value is certain.
3.2 Opportunity creation theory
The creation perspective challenges the assumption that entrepreneurial opportunities necessarily exist before entrepreneurial action. Instead, opportunities may emerge through experimentation, stakeholder interaction, learning, and the gradual development of new products, markets, and institutions.
Alvarez and Barney (2007) distinguish discovery and creation as alternative theoretical explanations of entrepreneurial action. Their analysis indicates that the two perspectives imply different approaches to decision-making, particularly when entrepreneurs face varying degrees of uncertainty
For example, an entrepreneur developing a new digital service may not initially know which customer group will adopt it, what features customers will value, or how the service should be priced. Through prototypes, customer conversations, and partnerships, the entrepreneur helps shape the market that the venture subsequently serves.
Here, the opportunity is not merely found; it develops through action and interaction.
3.3 Reconciling discovery and creation
Discovery and creation need not be treated as mutually exclusive explanations of every entrepreneurial situation. Some opportunities originate in identifiable environmental changes, while others emerge through entrepreneurial experimentation. Many involve both processes.
A technological breakthrough, for instance, may create the conditions for a new product category. Entrepreneurs must nevertheless imagine applications, establish customer relationships, develop business models, and persuade stakeholders to participate. An initial opportunity may therefore be discovered, while its eventual commercial form is partly created.
This integrated perspective is useful because it avoids reducing entrepreneurial opportunities either to objective market conditions or to purely subjective imagination. Instead, it recognises the interaction between external circumstances and entrepreneurial agency.
4. Creativity, Imagination, and Entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition
Creativity and imagination are central to understanding how entrepreneurs generate ideas, recognise possibilities, and formulate alternative futures. However, their contribution should be distinguished from opportunity identification, commercial validation, and venture formation.
4.1 Creativity as a source of entrepreneurial ideas
Sternberg and O’Hara (1999) examine creativity in relation to intelligence, demonstrating the importance of clarifying the conceptual relationship between these constructs. In entrepreneurship, creativity is commonly associated with the production of ideas that are novel and useful.
Creative thinking allows entrepreneurs to combine existing knowledge in unconventional ways, reinterpret customer problems, and identify applications for technologies or resources. It may support product innovation, service design, marketing, and business model development.
Nevertheless, creativity alone does not guarantee entrepreneurial success. An idea may be novel but commercially impractical, technically infeasible, or insufficiently valuable to customers.
Ward (2004) highlights the role of pre-inventive structures in creative thought: early ideas can be incomplete, ambiguous, and open to different interpretations. Such ideas may provide starting points for innovation without necessarily becoming successful products or services.
Entrepreneurial creativity should therefore be examined as one component of a broader process that includes evaluation, experimentation, implementation, and learning.
4.2 Entrepreneurial imagination
Entrepreneurial imagination concerns the capacity to envisage possibilities that are not fully represented in present market conditions. It enables entrepreneurs to formulate hypothetical futures, anticipate customer responses, and envision new relationships between technologies, resources, and social needs.
Cornelissen and Clarke (2010) explain entrepreneurial communication through the use of analogy and metaphor in the construction of plausible new venture narratives. Such narratives help entrepreneurs communicate unfamiliar ideas, make them understandable to stakeholders, and build support for ventures that have yet to demonstrate their value.
Similarly, Chiles et al. (2010) develop an imagination-based account of entrepreneurship, drawing attention to the role of imagination in entrepreneurial emergence. Entrepreneurs do not simply respond mechanically to market signals; they also envision possibilities that may subsequently influence economic and organisational realities.
However, imagination can produce both productive insights and mistaken beliefs. Shepherd, Haynie, and McMullen (2012) examine entrepreneurial action through the relationship between individual beliefs, uncertainty, and the development of opportunities. This highlights the importance of questioning assumptions and obtaining feedback rather than treating imagined possibilities as established commercial facts.
4.3 From idea generation to opportunity validation
A central implication is that idea generation and opportunity validation are distinct activities. An idea becomes a more credible entrepreneurial opportunity when there is evidence that a proposed offering can address a meaningful problem, reach an identifiable market, and be delivered through a feasible business model.
Entrepreneurs can strengthen this process by:
- Investigating customer needs and existing alternatives.
- Developing prototypes or minimum viable products.
- Testing willingness to pay and patterns of adoption.
- Examining technical, regulatory, and operational feasibility.
- Revising assumptions in response to evidence.
Thus, imagination expands the range of possible futures, whereas experimentation and evaluation help entrepreneurs determine which possibilities warrant further investment.
5. Entrepreneurial Cognition, Social Skills, and Opportunity Construction
Entrepreneurial opportunities cannot be fully understood without considering the cognitive and social processes through which individuals interpret their environments. Entrepreneurs operate within specific historical, cultural, and institutional contexts, which influence what they perceive as possible and commercially desirable.
5.1 Entrepreneurial cognition and prior knowledge
Entrepreneurial cognition refers to the mental processes through which individuals acquire, interpret, organise, and apply information in entrepreneurial settings. Prior knowledge influences the problems entrepreneurs notice, the opportunities they recognise, and the solutions they consider feasible.
Individuals with different professional backgrounds may interpret the same technological development differently. A software engineer may recognise opportunities for automation, while a healthcare professional may identify applications in patient monitoring or clinical administration.
Prior knowledge therefore helps explain why entrepreneurial opportunities are not recognised equally by everyone. However, it may also constrain perception by encouraging entrepreneurs to rely on established assumptions and familiar business models.
Entrepreneurial cognition is consequently both an enabling and a limiting factor. It supports the interpretation of complex information but may also produce cognitive biases, overconfidence, and premature commitment to an untested idea.
5.2 Social construction and entrepreneurial opportunities
Entrepreneurial opportunities are also shaped by social interaction. Entrepreneurs must often convince customers, employees, investors, suppliers, and other stakeholders that a proposed venture is valuable and credible.
Cornelissen and Clarke (2010) demonstrate the importance of analogical and metaphorical reasoning in explaining and legitimising new ventures. By relating unfamiliar ideas to familiar concepts, entrepreneurs can help stakeholders understand the purpose and potential of an emerging business.
For example, describing a digital learning platform as a virtual classroom may help customers understand its intended function, even when its technological capabilities extend beyond conventional classrooms. Such comparisons make new ideas easier to communicate, although they may also oversimplify important differences.
Social construction does not mean that entrepreneurs can create market demand merely by describing an idea persuasively. Rather, social interaction influences how opportunities are interpreted, legitimised, developed, and accepted.
Suddaby, Bruton, and Si (2015) further emphasise the significance of social and historical context, or imprinting, in shaping entrepreneurial perceptions. They also highlight reflexivity as a means through which individuals and groups can question inherited assumptions and reconsider the possibilities available to them.
These arguments suggest that opportunity development depends partly on entrepreneurs’ ability to reflect on their assumptions, engage with diverse stakeholders, and adapt their interpretations as circumstances change.
6. Effectuation and Causation in the Entrepreneurial Process
A further theoretical contribution comes from Sarasvathy’s (2001) distinction between causation and effectuation. These approaches explain how entrepreneurs make decisions when developing ventures, particularly when future market conditions are uncertain.
6.1 Causation: Predicting and planning
Causation begins with a predetermined goal and involves selecting the resources and actions required to achieve it. Entrepreneurs using a causal approach may conduct market research, estimate demand, prepare financial projections, analyse competitors, and develop formal business plans.
This approach is useful when market conditions are sufficiently predictable and reliable information is available. For example, an entrepreneur entering an established retail market may estimate local demand, assess competitors, and calculate the investment needed to open a store.
However, causal planning can be less reliable when entrepreneurs face radical uncertainty, changing customer preferences, or markets that do not yet exist.
6.2 Effectuation: Acting with available means
Effectuation begins with the means available to the entrepreneur, including personal knowledge, skills, experience, and social networks. Rather than attempting to predict a predetermined future, the entrepreneur focuses on what can be achieved through existing resources and controllable actions.
Sarasvathy (2001) distinguishes the predictive logic of causation from the control-oriented logic of effectuation. Her framework explains how entrepreneurial ventures can emerge through commitments, partnerships, and actions that shape future possibilities rather than simply respond to forecasts.
An entrepreneur with limited capital, for example, may develop an initial service using existing skills, obtain feedback from a small group of customers, and collaborate with partners before making substantial investments.
The process enables entrepreneurs to learn while limiting their initial exposure to uncertainty.
6.3 Integrating causation and effectuation
Causation and effectuation should not necessarily be treated as competing approaches. Entrepreneurs may combine them as their ventures develop.
In the early stages, effectual action may help entrepreneurs test assumptions and identify potential customers. As the business acquires market knowledge, predictable revenue, and operational experience, causal planning may become increasingly useful for budgeting, hiring, capacity expansion, and growth.
The relationship between these approaches demonstrates that entrepreneurial processes involve different decision-making logics depending on the level of uncertainty, the resources available, and the maturity of the venture.
7. Entrepreneurial Action Under Uncertainty
Uncertainty is fundamental to the entrepreneurial process because entrepreneurs must frequently act without complete information about demand, competition, technology, or future outcomes.
McMullen and Shepherd (2006) develop a theoretical account of entrepreneurial action that considers both perceived uncertainty and an individual’s willingness to bear it. Their framework helps explain why awareness of a possible opportunity does not necessarily result in entrepreneurial action.
An individual may recognise a potential market gap but decide against pursuing it because the financial risks are too high, the necessary capabilities are unavailable, or the likely returns do not justify the effort.
Entrepreneurial action therefore depends on more than opportunity perception. It also involves judgements about uncertainty, personal commitment, and the consequences of acting or not acting.
Three activities are particularly important:
- Opportunity assessment: Examining the problem, customer demand, competitive environment, and potential value proposition.
- Experimentation and learning: Testing assumptions through prototypes, pilot projects, customer interviews, and small-scale market entry.
- Commitment and adaptation: Allocating resources when sufficient evidence or stakeholder support exists, while retaining the ability to revise decisions.
These activities help entrepreneurs distinguish attractive possibilities from ideas that are unlikely to support viable ventures. They also demonstrate why entrepreneurial failure should not be attributed exclusively to poor ideas: a promising opportunity may fail because of timing, inadequate execution, limited resources, or unforeseen environmental changes.
8. Resource Mobilisation and Entrepreneurial Bricolage
Opportunity development requires resources, but entrepreneurs often begin with limited capital, incomplete teams, and restricted access to technology or distribution channels. Resource mobilisation is therefore a crucial component of the entrepreneurial process.
Traditional approaches emphasise acquiring the resources required to implement a business plan. However, entrepreneurial bricolage provides a complementary explanation of how ventures can develop despite resource constraints.
Baker and Nelson (2005) studied 29 resource-constrained firms and found that entrepreneurial bricolage could explain how firms recombined available physical, social, and institutional resources for new purposes. Their research illustrates how entrepreneurs can challenge conventional assumptions about resource limitations by finding alternative uses for what they already possess.
Entrepreneurial bricolage may involve:
- Repurposing existing equipment or technology.
- Drawing on professional and community networks.
- Combining available skills to develop a new service.
- Forming partnerships to access capabilities that would otherwise be expensive.
- Using inexpensive prototypes to test a business concept before committing substantial capital.
For instance, a small educational startup may initially use existing video-conferencing software, open-source learning tools, and the expertise of freelance educators to test its service. If demand is established, the venture may subsequently invest in a dedicated platform.
Nevertheless, bricolage is not universally sufficient. Improvised solutions may become inefficient as operations expand, and resource constraints can prevent firms from meeting regulatory, technical, or quality requirements. Entrepreneurs must therefore determine when resourcefulness is appropriate and when more formal investment is necessary.
9. From Opportunity Exploitation to Venture Creation and Growth
Opportunity exploitation involves translating an identified or emerging opportunity into activities capable of generating economic, social, or other forms of value. It may include developing a minimum viable product, securing finance, establishing partnerships, entering a market, and building an organisation.
However, venture creation should not be equated with the successful exploitation of an opportunity. A business can be legally established without achieving product-market fit, sustainable revenue, or long-term viability.
Churchill and Lewis (1983) explain small-business development through a framework of five stages: existence, survival, success, take-off, and resource maturity. Their model emphasises that different stages involve different managerial challenges, from securing customers and maintaining cash flow to delegating responsibilities and coordinating increasingly complex operations.
The framework is valuable for understanding venture development, although it should not be interpreted as a universal or inevitable progression. Businesses differ in their growth ambitions, industries, ownership structures, and operating environments.
The entrepreneurial process can consequently produce several outcomes:
- Successful exploitation: The opportunity develops into a viable business.
- Opportunity transformation: Customer feedback or market changes lead to a revised offering or business model.
- Limited growth: The venture remains small because of the entrepreneur’s objectives, resource constraints, or market conditions.
- Discontinuation: The entrepreneur abandons the opportunity because evidence no longer supports further investment.
- New opportunity emergence: Experience gained during the process reveals an alternative market or application.
This perspective reinforces the importance of treating entrepreneurship as a process of continuing adaptation rather than a one-time transition from an idea to a completed venture.
10. An Integrated Framework for Understanding the Entrepreneurial Process
The theories discussed above demonstrate that the entrepreneurial process cannot be adequately explained through a single theoretical perspective. Opportunity discovery explains how entrepreneurs identify possibilities arising from environmental changes, while opportunity creation highlights how possibilities emerge through action, experimentation, and stakeholder interaction. Creativity and imagination explain how entrepreneurs envisage alternatives, whereas effectuation and bricolage clarify how they act under uncertainty and resource constraints.
An integrated framework can therefore be developed around five interconnected dimensions.
| Dimension | Central question | Relevant theoretical perspective |
| Opportunity emergence | Where do entrepreneurial opportunities originate? | Discovery and creation theory |
| Entrepreneurial cognition | How do entrepreneurs imagine and interpret possibilities? | Entrepreneurial cognition and creativity |
| Decision-making | How do entrepreneurs act under uncertainty? | Effectuation and causation |
| Resource development | How do entrepreneurs mobilise limited resources? | Entrepreneurial bricolage |
| Venture development | How do opportunities evolve into sustainable businesses? | Small-business growth and organisational learning |
The value of this integrated framework lies in its recognition that entrepreneurial outcomes emerge through interactions between individuals, opportunities, resources, and the environment.
For instance, an entrepreneur may initially recognise a market gap through prior knowledge. Imagination may generate a novel solution, while stakeholder interactions help refine its value proposition. Effectual experimentation may then establish whether customers are willing to adopt the offering. Resource mobilisation enables the entrepreneur to develop a viable business, while subsequent learning supports adaptation and growth.
Importantly, this sequence is illustrative rather than deterministic. Market feedback can alter the entrepreneur’s original assumptions, resource constraints can require changes in strategy, and experimentation can reveal that the initial opportunity does not exist in the form originally imagined.
The entrepreneurial process is therefore best understood as an evolving relationship between opportunity perception, entrepreneurial action, and environmental response.
11. Research Gaps and Future Directions
Despite considerable theoretical progress, several issues continue to warrant empirical investigation.
11.1 Operationalisation of entrepreneurial opportunities
A major challenge is the development of reliable measures for entrepreneurial opportunities. Researchers need to distinguish between ideas, perceived opportunities, validated opportunities, and opportunities that have been successfully exploited.
These constructs represent different stages or conditions and should not automatically be treated as equivalent. Future research could examine how entrepreneurs assess opportunity quality and how those assessments change during experimentation and venture development.
11.2 The relationship between discovery and creation
The distinction between discovery and creation remains important, but empirical research should investigate how the two processes interact in practice. Rather than classifying every venture as an example of one approach, researchers could examine how environmental changes, entrepreneurial actions, and stakeholder responses jointly influence opportunity emergence.
Qualitative longitudinal studies would be particularly useful for tracing how initial ideas become modified, validated, or abandoned over time.
11.3 Entrepreneurial imagination and commercial validation
Imagination may generate innovative ideas, but its relationship with commercial performance requires further investigation. Future studies could examine when entrepreneurial imagination improves opportunity recognition and when it contributes to overconfidence or unrealistic expectations.
Such research should distinguish the novelty of an idea from its feasibility, customer value, and commercial potential.
11.4 Social context and entrepreneurial agency
Entrepreneurs operate within social networks, institutional structures, and cultural environments that shape their perceptions and available resources. At the same time, entrepreneurs can challenge existing assumptions and contribute to changes in markets and institutions.
Research could investigate how social networks, prior experience, institutional conditions, and reflexivity influence the opportunities entrepreneurs identify or create.
11.5 From opportunity emergence to venture performance
Finally, further research is needed to explain why some opportunities result in sustainable ventures while others fail to achieve their intended outcomes. Opportunity quality alone may be insufficient to explain performance, because outcomes also depend on execution, resources, timing, stakeholder support, and the ability to adapt.
Longitudinal research combining interviews, observational data, and venture performance indicators could provide a more comprehensive understanding of these relationships.
12. Conclusion
The entrepreneurial process is a complex and iterative phenomenon involving opportunity recognition, imagination, decision-making, resource mobilisation, and venture development. Although Shane and Venkataraman (2000) established opportunities as a central construct in entrepreneurship research, understanding how opportunities emerge and become commercially viable remains a significant theoretical and empirical challenge.
The discovery and creation perspectives provide complementary explanations of opportunity emergence. Discovery emphasises the recognition of possibilities associated with environmental changes, whereas creation highlights the role of entrepreneurial action, experimentation, and social interaction in bringing opportunities into existence.
Creativity and entrepreneurial imagination enable individuals to formulate novel possibilities, but ideas must also be evaluated and tested before their entrepreneurial potential can be established. Effectuation explains how entrepreneurs act when predictions are unreliable, while entrepreneurial bricolage demonstrates how available resources can be recombined to overcome constraints. Venture development models further show that entrepreneurial challenges evolve as businesses establish operations, pursue growth, and respond to changing conditions.
The central argument of this article is that entrepreneurial opportunities emerge through the interaction of individual cognition, environmental conditions, social relationships, and entrepreneurial action. They cannot always be understood as objectively existing market gaps waiting to be discovered, nor can they be reduced to ideas imagined independently of their contexts.
A more comprehensive understanding of entrepreneurship therefore requires researchers to examine not only the entrepreneur or the opportunity in isolation, but also the processes through which ideas are interpreted, tested, negotiated, developed, and transformed into ventures. Such an approach can advance entrepreneurship theory while providing practical insights into how entrepreneurs develop innovative and sustainable businesses.
References
The following references use APA 7th-edition style where bibliographic details are available. DOI links are provided for locating the original publications.
1. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.4
2. Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329
3. Churchill, N. C., & Lewis, V. L. (1983). The five stages of small-business growth. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 30–50. Publisher’s article page
4. Chiles, T. H., Bluedorn, A. C., & Gupta, V. K. (2007). Beyond creative destruction and entrepreneurial discovery: A radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 28(4), 467–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606067996
5. Cornelissen, J. P., & Clarke, J. S. (2010). Imagining and rationalizing opportunities: Inductive reasoning and the creation and justification of new ventures. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 539–557. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.53502700
6. Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press.
7. McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379628
8. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.4378020
9. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611
10. Shepherd, D. A., Haynie, J. M., & McMullen, J. S. (2012). The extent and boundaries of an entrepreneur’s identity. Journal of Business Venturing.
11. Sternberg, R. J., & O’Hara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 251–272). Cambridge University Press.
12. Suddaby, R., Bruton, G. D., & Si, S. X. (2015). Entrepreneurship through a qualitative lens: Insights on the construction and/or discovery of entrepreneurial opportunity. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.09.003
13. Ward, T. B. (2004). Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00005-3