Springer - Publisher Connector

Gwennaëlle Marin

Bruno Vanderlinden

Ioannis Karfis

Thomas Guiot

Zena Wimana

Patrick Flamen

Stefaan Vandenberghe

Accuracy and precision assessment for activity quantification in individualized dosimetry of 177Lu-DOTATATE therapy

Cesar Bonilla

Manuel E. Krauss

Toby Opferkuch

Werner Porod

Perspectives for detecting lepton flavour violation in left-right symmetric models

Takafira Mduluza

Francisca Mutapi

Putting the treatment of paediatric schistosomiasis into context

Eisuke Booka

Yasuhiro Tsubosa

Teruaki Matsumoto

Mari Takeuchi

Takashi Kitani

Masato Nagaoka

Atsushi Imai

Tomoyuki Kamijo

Yoshiyuki Iida

Ayako Shimada

Katsushi Takebayashi

Masahiro Niihara

Keita Mori

Tetsuro Onitsuka

Hiroya Takeuchi

Yuko Kitagawa

Postoperative delirium after pharyngolaryngectomy with esophagectomy: a role for ramelteon and suvorexant

The domain interface method in non-conforming domain decomposition multifield problems

Dean A. Shepherd

Holger Patzelt

287© The Author(s) 2017
D.A. Shepherd, H. Patzelt, Trailblazing in Entrepreneurship, 
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-48701-4_9
CHAPTER 9
Conclusion
We are excited about the state of entrepreneurship research. The commu-
nity of entrepreneurship researchers has grown rapidly over the last couple 
of decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the quality and variety 
of entrepreneurship research as well as a dramatic increase in the number 
of entrepreneurship-specific journals, and entrepreneurship research now 
has greater prominence in disciplinary and functional journals (e.g., the 
Academy of Management Journal). As a result, there has been a boom in 
the generation of knowledge about entrepreneurial phenomena. This is 
all great news. Although we, as a community, can bask in the glory of this 
relatively recently acquired prominence, this is not the approach recom-
mended in this book. Rather, we can apply the saying “dance with the 
one who brung you” to suggest that being entrepreneurial in our research 
is what has led to the field’s successes and that we need to continue to 
do so to maintain (or increase) the current trajectory. It is not a time to 
rest on our laurels but to push ahead. As March (1991) noted, after a 
period of time, exploration begins to drown out exploitation, which cre-
ates an unproductive imbalance for the entity. We hope this book provides 
a counterbalance to the tendency toward exploitation in entrepreneur-
ship research by providing what we believe are some interesting research 
explorations.
While we are excited about the past achievements and the current 
state of entrepreneurship research, we are even more excited about the 
 trailblazing opportunities that are ahead of us to develop the field in the 
288 
future. Indeed, in this book, we have hopefully established a number of 
trailheads (based on current state-of-the-art knowledge about important 
aspects of the entrepreneurial process) and then offered some insights into 
possible trails that can be blazed from these trailheads. The proposed trail-
blazing has largely focused on the notion of individuals’ thinking, feeling, 
and acting in relation to potential opportunities embedded in commu-
nities and often extreme contexts. This is not to say that there are not 
important trails to be blazed at the entrepreneurial team, firm, institu-
tional, regional, and other levels of analysis. These levels of analysis are 
not within our area of expertise, so it is more difficult for us personally to 
highlight potential trails at these levels of analysis even though we believe 
that they exist. We look forward to seeing advancements at these levels of 
analysis as well.
Regardless of the level of analysis (or across levels of analysis), maintain-
ing an open mind to novelty is critical. We need to have an open mind 
about the philosophical approach. This does not mean that an author 
should use a different philosophical perspective for each paper (although 
he or she certainly could) but that we should be open enough to allow 
others to have a different philosophical perspective underlying their 
research. If we converge on a specific philosophical perspective, perhaps as 
the result of more closed-minded editors, reviewers, and authors, then we 
discourage trailblazing and “kill off” an important source of potential new 
insights. We are not advocating an approach of “anything goes,” but we, 
as scholars, should (should is a strong word, but it emphasizes our strong 
belief) judge research based on the traditions and expectations in which it 
is embedded.
In a similar way, it is important that entrepreneurship scholars remain 
open-minded to different theoretical lenses and ways of generating new 
theory. Indeed, to the extent that people can apply new theories to entre-
preneurship research, there is an increased chance of uncovering new 
insights into entrepreneurial phenomena as well as making contribu-
tions back to the literatures from which these “borrowed” theories come. 
Therefore, while we can borrow theories to understand entrepreneur-
ial phenomena, it is important to go one step further and look toward 
“blending” to make a contribution back to the solutions’ origins. That is, 
in applying a specific theory (from outside the entrepreneurship domain), 
what adaptions to that theory are required to apply it to an aspect of 
the entrepreneurial context? Exploring this question provides a basis for 
D.A. SHEPHERD AND H. PATZELT
 289
blending (see Oswick, Fleming, & Hanlon, 2011) and/or bricolage (see 
Boxenbaum & Rouleau, 2011). Theorizing using blending and/or bri-
colage provides a strong basis for blazing new trails that contribute to 
knowledge and perhaps widen the entrepreneurial tent to include more 
diverse others.
Although we have largely focused on the content as the basis for 
blazing new trails, we want to acknowledge that method likely also 
plays an important role. Indeed, content and method are often closely 
intertwined. The empirical testing of new theories may require the 
adaption of existing techniques from other fields or the creation of new 
methods altogether, and the use of new (to entrepreneurship) methods 
has the potential of opening up our theorizing by encouraging us to 
think about research questions not normally conceived or rapidly dis-
missed because they were thought to be untestable. It seems that the 
community of entrepreneurship scholars has been very welcoming of 
new methods, used these new methods to open new research themes, 
and improved upon existing measures to further explore entrepreneur-
ial phenomena. We encourage this interest in new methods for future 
studies as well.
The flipside to the same coin is that there is a very real danger to 
the future of the field if we collectively (but especially the gatekeep-
ers—namely, editors and reviewers) become closed-minded. Signs of 
closed- mindedness are when the entrepreneurship field converges on 
a dominant philosophical approach, a dominant theoretical lens, a few 
preferred methodological techniques, and a narrow definition of the 
field. Although such outcomes may provide the field of entrepreneurship 
even greater legitimacy, our major concern is not so much with establish-
ing legitimacy (this is largely already established) but with the genera-
tion of new knowledge about entrepreneurial phenomena. We believe 
that the entrepreneurship field will prosper more from blazing new trails 
than relying too heavily on well-established trails. Our hope is that this 
book provided the reader with some starting points for future trailblaz-
ing entrepreneurship research.
RefeRences
Boxenbaum, E., & Rouleau, L. (2011). New knowledge products as bricolage: 
Metaphors and scripts in organizational theory. Academy of Management 
Review, 36(2), 272–296.
CONCLUSION
290 
March, J.  G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. 
Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. (2011). From borrowing to blending: 
Rethinking the processes of organizational theory building. Academy of 
Management Review, 36(2), 318–337.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), 
which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium 
or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, 
provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the work’s 
Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if such material is 
not included in the work’s Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permit-
ted by statutory regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to 
duplicate, adapt or reproduce the material.
D.A. SHEPHERD AND H. PATZELT


Conclusion

The birth of a human-specific neural gene by incomplete duplication and gene fusion

Multiple gene variations contributed to congenital heart disease via GATA family transcriptional regulation

R HYTHM PUZZLE - QUESTION
DOI 10.1007/s12471-016-0912-9
Neth Heart J (2017) 25:278–279
Unexpected rhythm regularity in a patient with atrial fibrillation
and a changing frontal plane axis over time
A. Zweerink1 · E. Leusveld1 · C. P. Allaart1 · M. J. B. Kemme1
Published online: 26 October 2016
© The Author(s) 2016. This article is available at SpringerLink with Open Access.
A 73-year-old women receiving digoxin for permanent
atrial fibrillation was admitted to the intensive care unit
with respiratory failure due to a bacterial pneumonia, sev-
eral weeks after coronary artery bypass grafting with aortic
and mitral valve replacement. Since her ECG showed
atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular rates, an additional
dose of digoxin was given for rate control. The same
night she developed a regular tachycardia (Fig. 1) with
a changing frontal plane axis over time (Fig. 2). Electrical
cardioversion was unsuccessful. What is the aetiology of
the tachycardia? And what causes the changing frontal
plane axis over time? How should this patient be treated?
 A. Zweerink
a.zweerink@vumc.nl
1 Department of Cardiology, VU University Medical Center,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Answer
You will find the answer elsewhere in this issue.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
made.
Neth Heart J (2017) 25:278–279 279
Fig. 1 Unexpected rhythm regularity in a patient with atrial fibrillation
Fig. 2 Changing frontal plane axis over time


Unexpected rhythm regularity in a patient with atrial fibrillation and a changing frontal plane axis over time

A quantum check of AdS/dCFT

Not a member yet