Research in marketing and entrepreneurship: a retrospective viewpoint

Hills, Gerald E; Hultman, Claes. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship 13. 1

(2011):

8-17.
Turn on hit highlighting for speaking browsers Hide highlighting

Abstract (summary)
Translate AbstractTranslate

The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon 13 years of the Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship and developments in the field over that period. The authors reflect upon the past and future of the marketing and entrepreneurship discipline. There is an abundance of important research questions to fuel faculty and PhD student research for years to come. This paper has value as a reflective piece which goes on to pose research questions of the future.

Full Text
Translate Full textTranslate

Turn on search term navigationTurn

on search term navigation

Introduction The Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship (JRME ) was launched more than a decade ago by pioneers John Day and Paul Reynolds at the University of Huddersfield. In the meantime, Robert Schwartz and Vince Pascal devoted years of effort to the success of the journal as well. It is appropriate to note that if we apply small business failure/success statistics to this venture, it has clearly been a success. It has been successful in several ways. The sheer existence of a journal at the marketing/entrepreneurship interface has helped to legitimize this academic domain and it has supported young scholars who must show new knowledge in refereed publications - now the quality of our work has supported moving the journal to a highly reputable publisher. I suggest that there is an emerging historical parallel with the American Journal of Small Business which became Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice , now one of the two top journals in the field of entrepreneurship. JRME , with its new publisher and new editor, Jonathan Deacon, will build upon the shoulders of its founders.

I was honored to write an "Inaugural Commentary" then and now, to share some retrospective thoughts after the passing of a decade. Looking to several observations made at that time, I will take the liberty herein of confirming or disconfirming those ideas ([3] Hills, 1998). They each pertained to the launch of the new journal and are still relevant as we continue to strive for related excellence. Critique and update: a decade past Importance of entrepreneurship and marketing It was noted a decade ago that, in justifying a new journal, the macroeconomic importance of the M/E interface was noteworthy: Marketing and entrepreneurship largely determines the fate of entrepreneurs and SMEs around the world - their success, their growth, and their profitability. And the creation of employment by SMEs is the economic engine driving the global quality of life. Completely consistent with this in a recent 15-year period in the USA, small businesses created some 65 percent of the net new jobs in the private sector, using conservative figures ([12] SBA, 2010). The role of subsectors of small businesses is also very important, such as the start-ups and fast growth firms. Virtually all of the analyses in countries around the world have further documented the importance of smaller firms and entrepreneurs, and therefore the M/E interface. A decade ago it was observed: Marketing and entrepreneurship are also integral part of the world history that has unfolded before our eyes. Numerous countries in Latin America, Asia and Europe are for the first time fully embracing the market system. Inherent in the system is a marketing philosophy and entrepreneurial spirit that has contributed to many millions of new business births. It is tempting today to declare victory for the M/E interface, particularly in Central Europe, as compared to a decade ago. Despite the laggards, great progress has been made. The world has now somewhat shifted its attention to Africa and the power of microenterprises to help lift people from extreme poverty. The number in need is overwhelming but Adam Smith's invisible hand is clearly having some impact. Within the entrepreneurship academic field, "social entrepreneurship" has enjoyed explosive growth in recent years with a focus on using entrepreneurship engines to attain social goals. These encompass an expansion of the justification of attention to EM, and yet the greatest benefit of EM to societies is due to its execution by successful entrepreneurs at the micro level. Definitional and theoretical foundations As noted a decade ago:

[...] marketing and entrepreneurship can each be viewed as fundamental philosophies - ways of seeing and responding to the business world. Studies have shown that these orientations are intertwined and consistent with one another. Research has continued on entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and market orientation (MO) and this level of analysis has documented the relationship of the two. Proactiveness, risk taking, innovativeness and other dimensions have been studied in some depth, although with little specific focus on marketing. The definitional discussion by [11] Shane and Venkataraman (2000) provided for a focus on opportunities and the creation of solutions to problems, new products and new organizations. Opportunity has become a leading definitional dimension. The past decade, indeed even the past five years, has witnessed far greater use of the term "entrepreneurial marketing" which suggests a growing sense of legitimization among scholars. Although the term was used in the first E/M national research meeting in 1982 (by William Brannen), widespread use has occurred only recently. It may be appropriate to rename the American Marketing Association Special Interest Group "entrepreneurial marketing". This growing focus built upon the high quality conceptual/theoretical work at the beginning of the decade by [11] Shane and Venkataraman (2000). It may be seen in Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] that the current definitions of marketing and entrepreneurship enjoy a largely complementary relationship, more than a decade ago. Also, even though there have been attempts to define the M/E interface in the past, we offered one of the first comprehensive definitions of EM as shown in Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. This definition recognizes several fundamental viewpoints (spirit, orientation, processes) as well as "passion" at the individual level. The pursuit of opportunities is central to the definition as well as execution in launching and growing ventures. Consistent with the marketing literature, creating perceived customer value is part of the definitional core. The definition concludes by addressing "how". What is unique in the conduct of EM as compared to traditional marketing? Special attention is given to relationships, networking, creativity, innovativeness, selling, market immersion and flexibility. This definition is based on research over the past decade, including a representative national survey in the USA. Despite progress, a fully developed and unique EM paradigm has not been forthcoming. A meeting of scholars to address this need was recently held at the University of Charleston ([2] Hansen and Eggers, 2010). As noted a decade ago, "This new journal provides a refreshing and landmark change by bridging the marketing discipline with the entrepreneurship field." I fully anticipate new progress in this journal in the next decade by advancing concepts, the building blocks of theory, using complementary theories (e.g. see effectuation below) and offering unique theories. A decade ago there was a call for an Entrepreneurial School of Marketing Thought. There is an opportunity for the JRME to encourage this development. ([6], [8] Hills et al. , 2008, 2010). Opportunity recognition

A decade ago it was noted that, "The recognition and evaluation of market opportunities, combined with their strategic and tactical pursuit, are at the heart of entrepreneurial success. This is indisputable." At that time only the earliest research regarding opportunity recognition (OpR) was being published (e.g. [7] Hills et al. , 1999). There have been major advances in recent years, including several papers in the Annual Research Symposium on Marketing and Entrepreneurship. There have been healthy debates over definitional issues and the publication of good quality research and writing. Perhaps, most important, because scholars consider "opportunity" to be at the heart of entrepreneurship, by developing OpR concepts and models there is a direct contribution to the entrepreneurship field itself. This has included, for example, developing an OpR model based in the creativity literature. OpR research also contributes to the marketing literature, although the work is usually not disseminated by the mainstream marketing journals. Our premise is that " marketing" not only encompasses the evaluation of opportunities but also the early stage identification or recognition of potential opportunities. Planning and analysis vs effectuation It was observed in the inaugural issue of JRME a decade ago that: Overwhelmingly, marketing books today still teach planning and analysis for large corporations rather than the dynamic process which intermixes entrepreneurs' qualitative and insightful comprehension of a marketplace with good judgment and action. But at about the same time, [10] Sarasvathy (2001) proposed an "effectuation theory" to explain the behaviors of entrepreneurs in contract to traditional marketers. She contrasted effectuation processes to causation processes: Causation processes take a particular effect as a given and focus on selecting between means to create the effect. Effectuation processes take a set of means as given and focus on selecting between possible effects that can be created with that set of means. To start a new restaurant, for example, instead of first conducting marketing research: (the entrepreneur) would have to proceed in the opposite direction ... instead of starting with the assumption of an existing market and investing money and other resources to design the best possible restaurant for the given market, she would begin by examining the particular set of means or causes available to her. Creativity, contingencies, alternative approaches, and changing goals are all in play. In recent writing ([9] Reed et al. , 2010), a science of entrepreneurship is discussed. Myths that are highlighted include that entrepreneurs are visionaries, risk takers and extraordinary forecasters; that they must have a good idea or enough money; and entrepreneurs are somehow unique or not afraid of failing. The process of effectuation is built upon several principles including the "bird in the hand - start with what you have"; the affordable loss principle (or risk little, fail cheap); the crazy quilt (partnerships) principle; the apply nonpredictive control principle; and the leverage surprise principle. Managing investors, financial bootstrapping and the role of business plans are also focused upon. Although it is not possible to summarize these contributions in this brief commentary, we encourage academic researchers to

join into what could be called the "Sarasvathy revolution", a fundamentally different way of explaining entrepreneurial behaviors. On a personal note, when I (G. Hills) first read her AMR article, as part of my PhD seminar, I was truly excited to have come to this work. With the maturation of this thinking, we are even more convinced that it will help guide the development of EM. Corporate venturing A decade ago it was noted: It has also become evident that as the largest corporations downsize and reengineer, they are seeking the entrepreneurial behavior of successful SMEs. It was widely assumed in academia, even five years ago, that SMEs just required a simplified version of the more "sophisticated" marketing practices used by large companies. Now it is apparent that marketing is often fundamentally different and more successful in SMEs than in large firms. Although some progress has been made, it has been very limited. The "new product" realm, the "innovation" domain and the "technology commercialization" fields have their focus primarily on large organizations. They also have their own journals and conferences with a limited amount of cross-fertilization. It is clear that collaboration would yield new knowledge but it may not occur at this stage. The JRME can encourage this, however. Education/pedagogy/PhDs Finally, when JRME was founded, it was noted that some decades ago, marketing teaching had a more entrepreneurial focus in recognition of the uncertainties inherent in coping with customer and competitive environments. There is some growth of EM courses globally, but the existing university marketing requirements for a major remain much the same. This deserves attention given the importance of marketing to the success of alumni entrepreneurs. PhD students in entrepreneurship have grown rapidly in numbers and the past four years we cohosted a Doctoral Student Consortium in conjunction with the Annual Research Symposium, cosponsored with the Kauffman Foundation. The future is bright regarding PhD student graduates, although in the USA there is a strong connection to management rather than marketing departments. In Europe there appear to be more PhD students studying EM. Survey of expert scholars In preparation for this commentary, I returned to a survey of expert opinion that was conducted in 1986 regarding the importance of numerous M/E research questions. I identified leading scholars in the field today with guidance from peers, and 20 responded (nearly all). They each rated the importance today of 37 research questions that were developed 25 years ago. About 25 were rated as "important", defined as less than 5.0 on a ten-point scale. These are shown in Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.], in four groups; firm/organization level/context, markets and opportunities, decisions and planning and strategies and tactics.

Overall, Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] indicates that the research questions are still today considered "important" but with considerable variance among the respondents. Among the more important questions concerns how the marketing function develops over time and with firm growth (4.00). This relates to firms growing to a point where they are "out of touch" with its markets without formal market research (4.09). Also, there continues to be importance attributed to firm size as compared to early life cycle businesses - presumably calling for research designs that better differentiate the two. The question with the highest importance rating (3.55) addresses owners' propensity for growth (which may be partly personal) versus the size of the market or the changing window of opportunity. This affirms the importance in marketing/entrepreneurship research of the combination of the owner's comfort level regarding growth, potential loss of control and personal goals. Understanding the role of these dimensions goes far beyond assessing commercial market feasibility. Also "important" is attention to creativity (4.36) and the advancement of market research techniques (3.64) in new product markets. Scholars at the marketing/entrepreneurship interface have long called for recognizing industry differences, but we need refined research methods to better identify higher potential opportunities by the type of product/market (4.91). Also important (4.95 - with considerable variance) is the collaboration that often occurs in business-to-business relationships where customers and suppliers jointly develop opportunities. In the group "decisions and implementation", important questions still today concern the leadership role of the entrepreneur (4.41) and how research regarding new firms is carried out (e.g. qualitative and quantitative - 4.52). Better understanding of the role of "intuitive" decisions is considered important (4.91) as well. It may be seen in Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] that ten important research questions pertain to marketing strategies and tactics. In this group, the most important rating (3.73) pertains to the conditions that dictate departing from a planned marketing strategy. It is widely accepted that entrepreneurs often make major changes in plans due to unexpected feedback from the marketplace. Yet a better understanding of when and how to change strategies is deserving of research. This relates to maintaining strategic flexibility under high conditions of uncertainty (4.18), cited as another important research topic. Also within the strategy and tactics group in Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.], the pursuit of niche markets by entrepreneurs is often assumed to be linked to success, but this is still viewed as an important research question (4.36) by several of the expert respondents. Also, venture failures may be attributed to market response and/or products/technologies. Is one of these paths more common than the other? Also noted is "a possible inverse relationship" between technology vs marketing sophistication (4.86). Several conditions that may support differences in strategy are indicated: no image or market presence (and promotion); no customer loyalty (and strategy); new vs mature enterprises (and pricing); and the level of product uniqueness (and perceived value). Finally, the importance of marketing strategy to reaching cash break even is underscored here, although this is often ignored by marketing strategists who focus on large firms. Research questions for the future

This commentary to this point suffers from "looking in the rear view mirror". All of the attention is to research topics a quarter century ago. Yet it is striking to find 25 of the original questions are still rated as "important". But looking to the future, the leading scholars were also asked to identify marketing/entrepreneurship research questions going forward. As the field of EM has evolved, what are new directions for research? Several of these responses are shown in Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. As compared to 25 years ago, there are several themes that pertain to contemporary interests. The shift in the entrepreneurship field to defining the phenomenon, in part, as the pursuit of opportunities, is reflected here. Two questions (1,2) highlight the potential of marketing to actually impact the opportunity development process, including the creation of opportunities through marketing! Another question concerns opportunism scale developments (3). A second, ne focus is on effectuation, in part as it relates to market creation which has also risen in prominence. [10] Sarasvathy (2001), as noted earlier is having a growing impact on the entrepreneurship field. The research questions from our scholars hold out considerable potential for further bridging effectuation, marketing and entrepreneurship. How entrepreneurs create and navigate the entrepreneurship process reflects differences in how decisions are made (see questions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Two additional research areas seen in Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] reflect societal/economy changes in the past several years. International entrepreneurship has become a major topic in the academic literature and this is reflected by an important research question (12). And new technology, specifically social media at the marketing and entrepreneurship interface is deserving of research priority (13). One area not anticipated was marketing effectiveness and control (questions 10 and 11). Very little research has been conducted on the actual nor the potential, for more focus on gauging the impact of marketing in new enterprises. Better understanding of entrepreneurs' adjustments in marketing strategies and tactics, based on customer feedback, is clearly in order. The remaining two categories in Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] are those questions that specifically pertained to success and failure and also "fundamentals" that remain important although they have been studied in the past. Despite its importance we have only begun to research the differences in best practices in new, small, privately held and family businesses compared to large public companies. Customer, marketing and entrepreneurial orientations, and their interrelationships, continue to be important dimensions, worthy of study. The limitations of formal market research in new product/markets are well documented so the challenge remains to develop better methods. Concluding observations There is clearly an abundance of important research questions to fuel faculty and PhD student research for years to come. Most of the questions developed in the early days of EM remain important today and new voids in knowledge are continually developing.

Three questions identified by our leading scholars that concern the EM field and its future are as follows ([1] Can and Teach, 2008; [2] Hansen and Eggers, 2010): Should we concentrate our research at a single ontological level (as in some aspect of business strategy) whereas we should be encouraging (and developing work) that straddles aspects of: psychology, sociology, anthropology, evolutionary economics and strategy? Should we develop unique entrepreneurial marketing theory as opposed to contextual testing of extant theory developed with large organizations in mind? What can marketing contribute to the OpR processes/literature in entrepreneurship? We need to continue to advance interest in EM by young scholars with the ultimate objective of the scientific explanation of the M/E interface. This will then yield better performance and higher success rates among entrepreneurs who are so critical to economic health globally. Special thanks to the following experts who contributed their research importance rates to this study: Nicole Coviello, Jenny Darroch, Jonathan Deacon, Fabian Eggers, Joseph Giglierano, Kenneth Grant, David Hansen, Gerald Hills, Claes Hultman, Chicery Kasouf, Sascha Kraus, Morgan Miles, Michael Morris, Sussie Morrish, Gina O'Connor, Minet Schindehutte, Robert Schwartz, Stanley Stasch, Richard Teach, and Can Uslay. References 1. Can, U. and Teach, R.D. (2008), "Marketing/entrepreneurship interface (MEI) research priorities (2010-2012)", Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 70-5.

2. Hansen, D. and Eggers, F. (2010), "The marketing/entrepreneurship interface: a report on the Charleston Summit", Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 42-53.

3. Hills, G. (1998), "Marketing and entrepreneurship: an inaugural commentary", Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1 No. 1.

4. Hills, G.E. and Hultman, C.M. (2006), "Entrepreneurial marketing", in Lagrosen, S. and Svensson, G. (Eds), Marketing - Broadening the Horizons, Studentlitteratur, Lund.

5. Hills, G.E. and Hultman, C.M. (2007), "Marketing/entrepreneurship interface: revisited and future directions", in Wurth, R. and Gaul, W. (Eds), The Entrepreneurship-Innovation-Marketing Interface: 2nd Symposium, Kunzelsau, Germany, SwiridoffVerlag.

6. Hills, G., Hultman, C. and Miles, M. (2008), "The evolution and development of entrepreneurial marketing", Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 99-112.

7. Hills, G., Schrader, R. and Lumpkin, T. (1999), "Opportunity recognition as a creative process", in Reynolds, P.D., Bygrave, W.D., Manigart, S., Mason, C., Meyer, G.D., Sapienza, H. and Shaver, K. (Eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Babson Park, MA, pp. 216-27.

8. Hills, G., Hultman, C., Kraus, S. and Schulte, R. (2010), "History, theory and evidence of entrepreneurial marketing - an overview", International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 3-18.

9. Reed, S., Sarasvathy, S., Dew, N., Wiltbank, R. and Ohlsson, A. (2010), Effectual Entrepreneurship, Routledge, Clifton, NJ.

10. Sarasvathy, S. (2001), "Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 243-63.

11. Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), "The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research", The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 217-26.

12. SBA (2010), The Small Business Advocate, U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, Washington, DC, Vol. 29 No 2, pp. 1-2.

Appendix

Corresponding author Gerald E. Hills can be contacted at: ghills@bradley.edu AuthorAffiliation Gerald E. Hills, Foster College of Business Administration, Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois, USA Claes Hultman, Swedish Business School, Orebro University, Orebro, Sweden Illustration Table I: Table II: Important research questions in entrepreneurial marketing: an update Table III: Leading scholars' research questions for the future Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2011 Word count: 3612
Show less

Indexing (details)
Cite

Subject
Research; Entrepreneurship; Marketing; Polls & surveys; Studies

Classification
9130: Experimental/theoretical, 9520: Small business, 7000: Marketing

Title Research in marketing and entrepreneurship: a retrospective viewpoint Author Hills, Gerald E; Hultman, Claes Publication title
Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship

Volume
13

Issue
1

Pages

8-17 Publication year 2011 Publication date 2011 Year 2011 Publisher Spokane Publisher Emerald Group Publishing, Limited Place of publication Spokane Country of publication United Kingdom Journal subject
Business And Economics

ISSN 1471-5201 Source type Scholarly Journals Language of publication English Document type Feature Document feature References Subfile Marketing, Entrepreneurship, Research, Polls & surveys, Studies DOI 10.1108/14715201111147914 ProQuest document ID 877023845 Document URL http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/877023845?accountid=35812 Copyright Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2011 Last updated 2011-09-16 Database ProQuest Entrepreneurship

Tags
- this link will open in a new window About tags|Go to My Tags

Be the first to add a shared tag to this document. Add tags

Sign in to

My Research to add tags.

Back to top

Contact Us Privacy Policy Accessibility Sitemap

Copyright 2012 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions