Unveiling the Nature of Entrepreneurial Opportunities: A Systematic Exploration through Conceptual Framework Development



Abstract Views
166

Downloads
68

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Mar 5, 2024
Published May 27, 2024
10.24018/ejbmr.2024.9.3.2345

Abstract viewed = 166 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Entrepreneurship literature extensively delves into the pivotal concept of entrepreneurial opportunities, recognizing its centrality in the entrepreneurial process and the creation of value in the marketplace. However, a notable lack of clarity persists regarding the definition, role, and inherent nature of opportunities within the realm of entrepreneurship research. This ambiguity has impeded advancements in comprehending this vital phenomenon. To enhance our understanding of entrepreneurial opportunities, this paper systematically reviews and deconstructs the conceptual nature of entrepreneurial opportunities and their associated features. The objective is to trace the evolution of literature on this construct, shedding light on the key factors that both influence and conceptualize this facet of entrepreneurship. By conducting a meticulous bibliographic analysis and synthesizing previous contributions on entrepreneurial opportunities, the study has identified 47 definitions from 130 reputable publications. The paper strives to differentiate pertinent research discussions and integrate noteworthy contributions into a conceptual framework. The establishment of this framework aims to provide a shared foundation for scholars to collaboratively accumulate knowledge and assess competing theoretical and methodological perspectives on entrepreneurial opportunities. This framework not only elucidates the intricacies surrounding the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities but also identifies research gaps and outlines directions for future exploration.

Keywords: Conceptual framework Entrepreneur Entrepreneurship nexus Opportunity

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Introduction

Entrepreneurial opportunities, defined as valuable circumstances prompting entrepreneurial actions, hold a central position in the discourse on entrepreneurship, as evidenced by seminal works such as those by (Shane & Eckhardt, 2003; Gartneret al., 2017). Various entrepreneurship frameworks, including those proposed by (Shane, 2000; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Gaglio & Katz, 2001; Hsiehet al., 2007; Murphy, 2011), have underscored the significance of this concept. The Schumpeterian viewpoint to entrepreneurship posits that opportunities are integral to the creation of novel resource combinations, extending beyond mere products or services to encompass innovative production methods, market organization strategies, and identification of new raw materials (Bassoet al., 2009; Shane, 2012). Kirzner (1997) adds depth to this perspective by highlighting that market demand and resources may not exist in their final states but must be conceived. He further emphasizes that opportunities lie at the heart of market imperfections, presenting the potential to yield economic returns. Thus, irrespective of the chosen viewpoint on opportunities, the literature collectively recognizes that entrepreneurial opportunities entail multilayered processes aimed at generating value. (Ardichviliet al., 2003; Anderson & Starnawsk, 2008).

In a general sense, opportunities emerge from shifts in the surrounding environment of an individual. These alterations give rise to a state of disequilibrium that individuals can leverage, as suggested by (Cohen & Winn, 2007; Fooet al., 2013), Following the Schumpeterian perspective, individuals have the potential to exploit opportunities arising from technological, political, regulatory, and social and demographic changes (Pittawayet al., 2018, Felzensteinet al., 2013). Consequently, the examination of entrepreneurial opportunities has become a significant and influential theme in entrepreneurship literature (Anderson, 2000; McBride & Wuebker, 2022).

Entrepreneurial researchers have predominantly concentrated on exploring the characteristics and origins of opportunities (Plummeret al., 2007), delving into the processes of discovery, recognition, and exploitation, as well as investigating the characteristics of the individuals capable of recognizing opportunities (Saemundsson & Holmén, 2011; Edelman & Yli-Renko, 2010; Wilson & Martin, 2015). More specifically, the central inquiry guiding entrepreneurial opportunity research revolves around understanding how, when, and why certain individuals can identify opportunities while others cannot (Casson & Wadeson, 2007; Gartneret al., 2017). Scholars across diverse disciplines have sought to address this question, resulting in a notable expansion of the research domain around the nexus between entrepreneur and the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity (Choi & Shepherd, 2004; Baron & Ensley, 2006; Corbett, 2007; Grégoireet al., 2011).

Moreover, in the last three decades, critical factors essential to understanding the essence of entrepreneurial opportunities have gained prominence (Woodet al., 2014; Ward, 2004; Tuomisalo, 2019). Despite having a significant historical presence in entrepreneurship and drawing considerable interest from diverse disciplines, literature exploring the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities has introduced numerous complexities (Gaglio, 2018). Specifically, the abrupt expansion of research in this domain has presented challenges in consolidating and systematizing knowledge related to the construct, creating difficulties in acquiring a comprehensive overview of the concept (Korsgaard & Sassmannshausen, 2017). Therefore, the objective of the current study is to examine the evolution of literature concerning the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities and underscore the key factors shaping this aspect of entrepreneurship.

Through a bibliographic analysis and the synthesis of prior contributions on entrepreneurial opportunity, this paper endeavors to discern the pertinent research dialogues and integrate several significant contributions into a comprehensive framework. Such a framework explains the intricacies surrounding the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity, introducing a conceptual framework emphasizing the impactful role of the pivotal factors, identifying research gaps, and delineating directions for future research.

This article follows a structured outline. Firstly, it provides a comprehensive explanation of the methodology and approach employed in conducting a state-of-the-art review of the field. Secondly, it delves into insights regarding the conceptualization and perspectives surrounding the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities, elucidating key constructs essential for grasping the essence of entrepreneurial opportunities. Thirdly, it assesses prominent factors influencing the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities, offering a detailed conceptual framework and analyzing the contributions of existing studies to delineate the current state of the field for each factor. To consolidate fragmented discussions, this paper systematically presents the interconnections between the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity and its influencing factors. Finally, it outlines areas of focus for future studies based on the synthesized insights.

Materials and Methods

To enhance comprehension of the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities, the present research employs a systematic bibliographical analysis of English-language, peer-reviewed journal papers, book chapters, and research notes pertaining to entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial opportunity. These published works, being scientifically validated, carry significant impact within the research field.

The SciVers SCOPUS database has been utilized to discern major contributions in the realm of entrepreneurial opportunities field of research. Recognized for its comprehensive coverage, the SCOPUS database aggregates published research from diverse sources, encompassing articles from EBSCO, Thompson Reuters Web of Knowledge, ABI/Inform, and comparable search engines (Pranckutė, 2021).

Following a literature review method on entrepreneurial opportunities as outlined by (Shortet al., 2010), the inclusion criteria were established using several keywords, including opportunity and entrepreneurship, nature of opportunity, opportunity recognition, opportunity identification, opportunity discovery, opportunity creation, and entrepreneurial opportunity (Fiet, 2007). These search terms were specifically applied to the title, keywords, and abstract of relevant publications. The intentional broadening of these primary keywords aimed to encompass a wide array of articles in the initial search, ensuring a substantial volume of literature, even if some were less directly pertinent to the focus of the present study.

The initial search yielded 1015 journal articles. Subsequently, the search scope was refined to include subject areas such as business, management, finance and accounting, social science, and economics, with a primary focus on entrepreneurial opportunity. Non-English language documents were excluded, resulting in a subset of 818 English language peer-reviewed publications. Following a review of titles and abstracts and a more in-depth examination of full articles, the analysis was further narrowed down to a subset of 130 relevant articles spanning from 1990 to 2023.

The inclusion criteria for these articles were based on their discussion of entrepreneurial opportunities or related concepts, providing insights into key factors influencing the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity.

As previously stated, the aim of this analysis was to identify a set of elements that represent the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity across the literature. The content analysis of articles began with addressing the key questions:

  1. What are the core phenomena characterizing the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity across literature?
  2. What ontological positions are associated with the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity across literature?
  3. What epistemological positions are related to the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity across literature?
  4. What methodological positions are associated with the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity across literature?
  5. What is the theoretical foundation underpinning the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity across literature?
  6. What is the level of analysis applied to the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity across literature?
  7. The answers to these questions form the basis of the findings discussed in the subsequent sections.

Results

The Nature of Entrepreneurial Opportunity

According to Shane and Venkataraman (2000), “Entrepreneurship involves the nexus of two phenomena: the presence of lucrative opportunities and the presence of enterprising individuals.” They also described entrepreneurial opportunities as “those situations in which new goods, services, raw materials, and organizing methods can be introduced and sold at greater than their cost of production” (Venkataramanet al., 2012). Entrepreneurial opportunity has emerged as the core concept in entrepreneurship research since then. This review of the theoretical foundation of the entrepreneurial opportunity concept revealed that significant advances have been made in the theoretical development of this construct in the last few decades (McMullenet al., 2007). However, the main debates in this domain have been about the “nature of entrepreneurial opportunity” (Companys & McMullen, 2007; Georgeet al., 2016; Chandra, 2017; Mehrabiet al., 2019).

Numerous studies conducted in the past decade have endeavored to delineate the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity, presenting contradictory perspectives on this matter, as elaborated in the next section. Prior to addressing that debate, Table I captures the outstanding characteristics defining the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity. It yields specific research endeavors that have sought to explain the elements shaping the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity. These components are intended to aid scholars in enhancing the clarity of their constructs. Through identifying commonalities among diverse perspectives, scholars should be positioned to significantly advance the comprehension of entrepreneurial opportunities. Such advancement is crucial for fostering the accumulation of knowledge essential to propel the field forward.

Nature of opportunity Description Scholars
Technological upheaval Disturbances in technologies create gaps or unmet needs in the market, also harvest dynamic environment where entrepreneurs can identify, innovate, and capitalize on emerging opportunities. Ensleyet al. (2000); Dutta and Crossan (2005)
Information seeking behavior Proactive engagement in information-seeking behavior as a strategic response to market demand. Tuomisalo (2019); Shepherdet al. (2012); Gielniket al. (2012)
Market/Technology discontinuity Substantial shifts present a considerable challenge for companies within the impacted industry. The very technology underpinning their products and markets may change, initiating a race to discover ways to adjust to the emerging technology/market demands. Garcia and Calantone (2002); McMullenet al. 2007; Berglund (2007); Marvel (2013)
Means-end relation Entrepreneurs utilize various strategies, resources, and actions (means) to attain specific objectives or outcomes (ends) within their ventures. Shane and Venkataraman (2000); Melkevik (2019)
Cause-and-effect relationships Fixed natural relationships of cause and effect that are consistent with physical laws of nature (timelessness). Entrepreneurs make decisions and take actions based on perceived causes, aiming to achieve specific outcomes. Alvarez and Barney (2010); Yang and Yang (2017)
Prior knowledge & insights Prior knowledge serves as the seed for entrepreneurial ideas. Entrepreneurs with diverse experiences and knowledge bases can creatively combine existing ideas or technologies to develop novel solutions. Shane (2000); Shepherd and DeTienne (2005); Dimov (2007); Jansson (2011); Farmeret al. (2011); Arentzet al. (2013)
Knowledge transfer Facilitating the dissemination of knowledge to other units or organizations through a transferable framework or grid. Dohse and Walter (2012); Boaduet al. (2023)
Real situations Real situations in which new goods, services, raw materials, markets and organizing methods can be introduced. Shane and Venkataraman (2000); Webbet al. (2010)
Profit The potential for an entrepreneur to earn positive returns by exploiting an opportunity. However, this potential is not deterministic or measurable, but probabilistic and contingent on various factors, such as the entrepreneur’s actions, the market conditions, the competitors’ responses, and the customers’ preferences. Ramoglou and Zyglidopoulos (2015)
Situation to act An entrepreneurial opportunity is a situation where an individual can act to create and/or exploit a profit potential that is not yet realized by others. Opportunity to act is influenced by knowledge and motivation. Wood and McKinley (2017); Fletcher (2004); Foss and Foss (2008)
Actions Opportunity as expressed in actions. An idea cannot be labelled opportunity unless acted upon. Dimov (2011); Townsendet al. (2018); McKelvieet al. (2020); Lerner and Dimov (2016)
Imaginative projection By envisioning a desirable scenario that results from a potential action, an individual engages in an imaginative interaction with a possible opportunity. Opportunities are essentially subjectively constructed and depend on the subjective perception of the individual. Korsgaard (2011); Ramoglou and Tsang (2016)
Metaphor Opportunities do not exist; they are a metaphor for the entrepreneur’s imaginings and conjectures. Korsgaard and Sassmannshausen (2017); Annaet al. (2000)
Shared meaning Opportunities are not objective facts, but rather subjective interpretations of the environment that depend on the shared meaning among individuals and groups. Shared meaning is defined as “the degree to which members of a group or society agree on the definitions of various aspects of their reality”. Companys and McMullen (2007); Anderson and Starnawsk (2008)
Belief The belief in the existence, value, and feasibility of an opportunity, influenced by the social and institutional context, such as the shared meaning, norms, and legitimacy of an opportunity. Beliefs are not static, but dynamic and evolving, as entrepreneurs learn from feedback, experimentation, and interaction with others. Sarasonet al. (2006); Shepherd and Haynie (2009); Alvarez and Barney (2014)
Circumstances Favorable set of circumstances that creates a need for a new product, service, or business. Barringer and Ireland (2010)
Social construction The process by which people collectively create and shape their reality through language, symbols, interactions, shared meaning, and norms. Entrepreneurial opportunities are created by entrepreneurs and their social context. Corner and Ho (2010); Spedale and Watson (2014); Alvarez and Barney (2020)
Judgments Opportunities are judgments under the uncertainty. individuals developed insights based on their Intuitive patterns relating to the emerging business environment. Those are results of an agent’s evaluation of a stimulus as a basis for the creation of new economic activity. Foss and Klein (2012); Foss and Klein (2020); Davidsson (2017)
Entrepreneurial vision Entrepreneurial intuition that involves perceiving suitable inputs, primarily driven by entrepreneurial foresight and forward-looking vision, as it encompasses future possibilities. Lewin (2015)
Expectations Anticipations regarding the future are inherently subjective, particularly in situations of uncertainty rather than risk. A prospect that is shaped by the entrepreneur’s outlook. Klein (2008); Lewin (2015)
Venture ideas These ideas are constantly developed and refined. They are based on the opportunities that aspiring entrepreneurs perceive and believe in, as venture ideas, supported by the evidence they interpret. These ideas motivate entrepreneurs to act. Davidsson (2015); Gaglio and Katz (2001); Hsiehet al. (2007); Foo (2010)
Progress idea Entrepreneurial opportunities are not fixed or objective, but rather these are ideas evolving and changing as entrepreneurs act upon them. Davidsson (2017)
Dream A prospect that arises or is created by an entrepreneurial agent and that is verified through evaluation over time to be economically beneficial. Short et al . (2010)
Imaginary combination The manner in which entrepreneurs conceive their social presence, their integration with others, the dynamics of their interactions with fellow members of society, the typical fulfillment of expectations, and the underlying normative ideas and images that give rise to these expectations. Laine and Kibler (2022); Edelman and Yli-Renko (2010)
Propensity The potential for profit-making as the potential for meeting market demand and making profit by launching novel products or services. Ramoglou and Tsang (2016); Davidsson (2017)
Unmet market need The difference between the current reality and the desired reality, as understood by potential customers. unmet market need is a sort of possibility that can be converted into profit by entrepreneurs who can deliver new products or services that match the demand. Cohen and Winn (2007)
Customer demand The entrepreneur can be in the right place at the right time, but what makes this place and time “right” is the presence of a customer who is willing and able to pay the entrepreneur’s asking price. Without this demand, no opportunity exists. McMullen and Dimov (2013); Dimov (2020)
Attributions Opportunities are attributions that entrepreneurs make based on their interpretations of the external and internal conditions of possibility. These conditions can be categorized into four dimensions of locus, stability, controllability, and valence. Gartner et al. (2008)
Possibility of future Possibilities become opportunities when they are perceived as both desirability and feasibility. Pittaway et al . (2018)
IT-enabled capabilities The extent to which enterprises use IT applications or business analysis technologies to support and manage customer relationships or analyze key business data. Tang et al . (2023)
Uncertainty Uncertainty is not a fixed or objective condition, but rather a subjective and dynamic perception that entrepreneurs have about the external and internal conditions of possibility. It can be reduced or increased by the actions and interactions of entrepreneurs, as they shape and test their ideas in the market. Dimov (2007); Jansson (2011); Foss and Klein (2020); Gartneret al. (2017)
Structural deficiencies The entrepreneurial capacities to connecting the dot and uncover the facilities such as technologies to satisfy the market structural imperfections, meet the domestic and foreign markets potential and the exploitation of the institutional and private supports. Mehrabiet al. (2019); Denrellet al. (2003)
Novelty (Creative destruction) Creative destruction, novelty, or innovativeness is the chance to introduce innovative, rather than imitative goods, services, or processes to an industry or economic marketplace. Dimov (2003); Dyeret al. (2008)
Projected courses of action To introduce (and profit from) new and/or improved supply-demand combinations that seek to address market failure problems. Entrepreneurial action can also be driven by impulse-driven logics, which reflect non-deliberative and spontaneous behaviors that arise from emotional and situational triggers. Lerner and Dimov (2016); Baron (2008)
Digital innovation Applying a combination of information, computing, communication, and connectivity technologies within the innovation process, encompassing the introduction of new products, enhancements to production processes, reformation of organizational models, and the creation and modification of business models. Bergeret al. (2021); Joshi (2017)
Entrepreneurial mindset The set of attitudes, skills, and behaviors that enable individuals to create value, and overcome challenges. Liñán and Kurczewska (2017); DeTienne and Chandler (2007); Daspitet al. (2023)
Market structures Envisioning a future where the aspiring entrepreneur establishes a presence in a specific market niche, participating in a network of market relationships that collectively shape the envisioned business. The realization of an opportunity occurs as exchange relationships gradually form, embodying the institution of the underlying opportunity within the market space. Davidsson and Wiklund (2001); Haynieet al. (2009)
Market imperfections/ inefficiencies Market failures that create inefficiencies and distortions in the allocation of resources and the distribution of benefits. Those are in four types of: Inefficient firms, externalities, flawed pricing mechanisms, and information asymmetries. Smithet al. (2009); Corbett (2007)
Positive situations Situations perceived as controllable and are envisioned to represent a favorable future state, entailing growth or transformative change. The individual must hold the belief that attaining such a state is feasible. Gartner et al . (2016)
Entrepreneur’s abilities Opportunities can be classified based on the entrepreneur’s abilities, involving internal and stable attributions, as well as their efforts, encompassing variable attributions. This classification is a result of the entrepreneur interpreting and making sense of various situations. Thomaset al. (1993); Wilson and Martin (2015)
External enabler A unique circumstance outside the control of entrepreneurs that can influence the market factors and the incentives for creating and pursuing new ventures. Davidsson and Gordon (2012); Anokhin (2013); Davidsson (2017)
Positive external environment New and unique opportunities for creating value and innovating arise from positive changes or trends in the external environment. These opportunities are possible outcomes that depend on the changes in the society. Baron and Henry (2011); Davidsson (2017)
Changes in economic New opportunities for entrepreneurs can arise from external changes in different areas, such as economic factors. When they see how these changes are connected, they can generate new venture ideas more quickly. Baron and Ensley (2006); Garrett and Covin (2013)
Business project Opportunity is a business project that seems potentially worth pursuing. Sarasvathy (2004); Garcia and Calantone (2002)
Alertness Entrepreneurial alertness is the ability to notice the errors of other entrepreneurs, which enables a person to discover opportunities whether they exist or not. Kirzner, (1997); Tanget al. (2012); Tang and Khan (2007); Gaglio and Winter (2017); Dew (2009)
Social capital/network The cumulative value of both existing and potential resources inherent in, accessible through, and obtained from the network of relationships held by an individual or a social unit. Aldrichet al. (2021); Hechavarría and Welter (2015); Bhagavatulaet al. (2010)
Access to finance Possessing a substantial and consistent stream of financial resources emerges as a critical determinant of success for entrepreneurs in their environments. Bilalet al. (2022); Droveret al. (2014)
Table I. The Key Elements Determining the Nature of Entrepreneurial Opportunity

Conceptual Framework Describing the Nature of Entrepreneurial Opportunity

As previously discussed, the concept of opportunity holds a central position in the realm of entrepreneurship research. Nonetheless, there exists a notable divergence of perspectives regarding the definition, role, and nature of opportunities within entrepreneurship (Busenitzet al., 2014; Anderson & Starnawsk, 2008; Anderson, 2000). The scholarly discourse on entrepreneurial opportunity has, in essence, wavered between two predominant orientations (Anokhinet al., 2011). On the one hand, it has been conceptualized as an objective, pre-existing phenomenon that is independent of individual actors (Davidsson, 2005; Gaglio, 2004; Dohse & Walter, 2012; Alvarez & Barney, 2007). On the other hand, an alternate scholarly viewpoint posits entrepreneurial opportunity as a subjective and socially constructed entity intricately constructed into the intricate fabric of entrepreneurs’ perceptions and cognitive frameworks (Wood & McKinley, 2017).

The initial perspective is characterized as the realist position, theorizing entrepreneurial opportunities as pre-existing realities awaiting discovery by discerning individuals (Kirzner, 1997; Eckhardt & Shane, 2013). This viewpoint has predominantly found favor among North American researchers (Dutta & Crossan, 2005; Arend, 2023). The prevailing epistemological stance within this research tradition is largely reflective of critical realism (Alvarez & Barney, 2010; Martin & Wilson, 2016). Scholars operating within this framework are primarily concerned with delineating the factors enabling entrepreneurs to identify and capitalize on opportunities (Khuranaet al., 2022). However, the assertion that opportunities exist as tangible entities to be discovered has faced substantial critique (Ramoglou & Zyglidopoulos, 2015). By characterizing entrepreneurial opportunities as realist and independent phenomena, this perspective has, for instance, downplayed the significance of time, social context, and the cognitive elements of knowledge, perspective, and action of entrepreneurs in shaping the nature of opportunities (Aldrich & Ruef, 2018; McMullen & Dimov, 2013; Korsgaard & Sassmannshausen, 2017). In essence, this conceptualization has oversimplified the intricate relationship between entrepreneurs and opportunities (Dimov, 2020; Chandra, 2017).

On the other hand, the second perspective, known as social constructionism, posits that entrepreneurial opportunities are socially constructed realities (Gartneret al., 2017). According to this viewpoint, opportunities are intricately woven into the complex tapestry of entrepreneurs’ perceptions, imaginations (Aldrich & Ruef, 2018), and beliefs (Sarasonet al., 2006; Shepherd & Haynie, 2009; McKelvieet al., 2020), inseparable from the individual entrepreneur. This conceptualization is more predominant within the European research tradition (Khuranaet al., 2022). However, the social constructionism position rejects the notion of objectivity in opportunities (Fletcher, 2006); instead, it suggests that opportunities are continually enacted endogenously through dynamic social processes (Aldrichet al., 2021; Alvarez & Barney, 2020; Berglund, 2007). In this approach, the epistemological perspective guiding the examination of the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity is rooted in evolutionary realism, with a central focus on understanding how opportunities are constructed based on an entrepreneur’s perception, interpretation, and comprehension of environmental forces (Shortet al., 2010). Furthermore, by regarding opportunities as highly social constructions enacted through an iterative process of action and reaction between entrepreneurs and social structures (Alvarez & Barney, 2010), this perspective tends to overemphasize the role of the social environment in shaping the nature of this construction (McBride & Wuebker, 2022).

Evidently, the dichotomy between these two perspectives has entrenched itself as a persistent element in the academic discourse on entrepreneurship. While these contrasting views have undeniably advanced the understanding of the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity, they have simultaneously engendered fragmentation within the field (Hansenet al., 2011; Hansenet al., 2016). A diverse range of ontological, epistemological, methodological, and theoretical approaches has been utilized to investigate entrepreneurial opportunity, spanning from purely objective analyses to purely subjective perspectives, with some falling in between. Yet, this diversity in approaches has given rise to inconsistent characterizations and operationalizations of the construct.

In this study, these various perspectives are examined with a view to establishing a comprehensive conceptual framework depicted in Table II. This framework is intended to assist scholars in identifying similarities and differences between the aforementioned debates. It should be noted that the term ‘intersubjective’ is used in this research to describe mutual subjective-objective ontological viewpoints. Following Pittawayet al. (2018), intersubjectivity refers to entrepreneurs’ interpretations and evaluations of reality based on their perceptions and actions.

Scholars Phenomena Ontology Epistemology Methodology Theoretical foundation Level of analysis
Ensley et al . (2000) Technological upheaval Objective Constructivist Qualitative case study Austrian economic EO-Nexus
Garcia and Calantone (2002) Market/Technology discontinuity Objective Positivist Comparative Mainstream economic Opportunity
Shane and Venkataraman (2000) Means-end relation Intersubjective Critical realist Normative and prescriptive Austrian economic EO-Nexus
Alvarez and Barney (2010) Cause-and-effect relationships Intersubjective Evolutionary realist Normative and prescriptive Austrian economy EO-Nexus
Shane (2000) Prior knowledge and insights Intersubjective Evolutionary realist Constructionism Austrian economy EO-Nexus
Webb et al . (2010) Real situations Objective Positivist Deductive Austrian economic Opportunity
Ramoglou and Zyglidopoulos (2015) Profit Objective Critical realist Conceptualization Mainstream economic Opportunity
Wood and McKinley (2017) Situation to act Intersubjective Constructivists Conceptual and analytical Austrian economic EO-Nexus
Dimov (2011) Actions Intersubjective Structuralist Conceptual and analytical Behavioral economic EO-Nexus
Korsgaard (2011) Imaginative projection Subjective Constructivists Interpretation Psychological economy Entrepreneur
Korsgaard and Sassmannshausen (2017) Metaphor Subjective Evolutionary realist Interpretation Psychological economy Entrepreneur
Companys and McMullen (2007) Shared meaning Subjective Social constructionist Contextualization Socio-political economy Market
Sarason et al . (2006) Belief Subjective Social constructionism Conceptualization The cognitive economy EE-Nexus
Barringer and Ireland (2010) Circumstances Objective Critical realist and pragmatic Pedagogical Mainstream economic Opportunity
Corner and Ho (2010) Social construction Intersubjective Social constructionism Interpretation Socio-cultural economy EE-Nexus
Foss and Klein (2012) Judgments Subjective Subjectivism Contextualization Socio-cultural economy Entrepreneur
Lewin (2015) Entrepreneurial vision Intersubjective Critical realist Conceptualization Cognitive economy EO-Nexus
Klein (2008) Expectations Subjective Social interactionist Conceptual case study Cognitive economy EO-Nexus
Davidsson (2015) Venture ideas Intersubjective Social constructionist Critical reflection Austrian economic EO-Nexus
Davidsson (2017) Progress idea Intersubjective Structural functionalist Conceptualization Austrian economic EO-Nexus
Short et al . (2010) Dream Subjective Subjectivist Conceptualization Austrian economic EO-Nexus
Laine and Kibler (2022) Imaginary combination Intersubjective Critical realist Philosophical hermeneutics Austrian economic EE-Nexus
Ramoglou and Tsang (2016) Propensity Objective Realistic Interpretation Mainstream economic Opportunity
Cohen and Winn (2007) Unmet market need Objective Positivist Conceptualization Mainstream economic Opportunity
McMullen and Dimov (2013) Customer demand Objective Evolutionary realist Contextualization (Deductive and abductive) Mainstream economic Opportunity
Gartner et al . (2008) Attributions Intersubjective Realistic Contextualization Mainstream economic EO-Nexus
Pittaway et al . (2018) Possibility of future Subjective Social constructionist Conceptualization Austrian economic EE-Nexus
Dimov (2007) Uncertainty Subjective Methodological interactionism Enation Austrian economic EE-Nexus
Dimov (2003) Novelty (Creative destruction) Intersubjective Constructivists Interpretation Austrian economic EO-Nexus
Lerner and Dimov (2016) Projected courses of action Intersubjective Structuralist Social constructionist Behavioral economic EO-Nexus
Davidsson and Wiklund (2001) Market structures Intersubjective Structuration Social constructionist Socio-cultural economy EE-Nexus
Smith et al . (2009) Market imperfections/ inefficiencies Objective Positivist Deductive and abductive Austrian economic Market
Gartner et al . (2016) Positive situations Intersubjective Social constructionist Interpretation Mainstream economic EO-Nexus
Thomas et al . (1993) Entrepreneur’s abilities Objective Realistic Deductive and abductive Behavioral economic Entrepreneur
Davidsson and Gordon (2012) External enabler Post-positive Structural functionalist Deductive and abductive Austrian economic Market
Baron and Henry (2011) Positive external environment Objective Structuralist Contextualization Mainstream economic Environment
Baron and Ensley (2006) Changes in economic Objective Evolutionary realist Constructionism Austrian economy Environment
Sarasvathy (2004) Business project Objective Social constructionist Interpretation Management economy Venture
Kirzner, (1997) Alertness Subjective Subjectivist Methodological individualism Austrian economy Entrepreneur
Aldrich et al . (2021) Social capital/Network Intersubjective Structuralist Descriptive and integrative Socio-cultural economy EE-Nexus
Tuomisalo (2019) Information seeking behavior Intersubjective Social constructivists Interpretation Behavioral economic EE-Nexus
Tang et al . (2023) IT-enabled capabilities Objective Evolutionary realist Deductive and abductive Management economy Venture
Berger et al . (2021) Digital innovation Objective Evolutionary realist Abductive Management economy Venture
Boadu et al . (2023) Knowledge transfer Intersubjective Constructivists Construction Austrian economy EO-Nexus
Mehrabi et al . (2019) Structural deficiencies Intersubjective Social constructivists Interpretation Austrian economy EO-Nexus
Bilal et al . (2022) Access to finance Objective Evolutionary realist Quantitative and deductive Mainstream economic EE-Nexus
Liñán and Kurczewska (2017) Entrepreneurial mindset Subjective Social constructionism Interpretation Behavioral economic EO-Nexus
Table II. Conceptual Framework of the Research

Conclusion and Discussion

While the term “opportunity” is employed with varying nuances by different scholars, this paper recognizes commonalities that transcend these diverse perspectives. Various scholars have engaged in research to facilitate meaningful conceptualization within existing debates (Georgeet al., 2016). To advance the understanding of entrepreneurial opportunities, this paper sought to delineate the fundamental meanings and applications by systematically reviewing and deconstructing the conceptual nature of opportunities and their associated features. The objective was not to prescribe a singular definition but, rather, to identify the essential, shared elements describing it. This approach aimed to enable scholars to discern commonalities across debates, enhancing their ability to explore diverse perspectives conceptually and empirically on entrepreneurial opportunities.

Furthermore, this paper endeavored to reconcile conflicting elements by constructing a comprehensive conceptual framework, thus mitigating ambiguity surrounding the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities. The establishment of this framework provides a shared foundation for scholars to collectively accumulate knowledge and evaluate competing theoretical and methodological perspectives on entrepreneurial opportunities. As underscored by Shane (2012) and Arend (2023), clarity in the construct of entrepreneurial opportunities is anticipated to enhance the generalizability of empirical findings, consequently contributing to the advancement of the distinct domain of entrepreneurship.

Findings derived from the conceptual framework in this paper reveal a considerable diversity of perspectives concerning entrepreneurial opportunities, spanning a spectrum from objective to subjective and intersubjective viewpoints. The methodological landscape is characterized by a wide array of approaches, encompassing qualitative case studies, comparative analyses, conceptualization, and deductive/abductive reasoning. This methodological diversity mirrors the intricate nature of investigating entrepreneurial opportunities.

The intersubjective nature of opportunity is the most referred one as the ontological position, followed by the pure objective perspective. Noteworthy within the epistemological realm is the adoption of evolutionary realism, signaling a scholarly stance characterized by a “duality” versus “dualism” perspective on the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities. Concurrently, a social constructionist viewpoint is evident among several authors, underscoring the significance of social processes, perceptions, and beliefs in shaping entrepreneurial opportunities. This underscores an acknowledgment of the subjective and socially constructed dimensions inherent in opportunities. Conversely, some scholars embrace critical realism, emphasizing a critical examination of underlying structures and conditions influencing entrepreneurial opportunities.

Lastly, in terms of theoretical foundations, scholars draw inspiration from a range of economic traditions, including Austrian, mainstream, behavioral, and socio-cultural economics, illustrating the interdisciplinary nature of entrepreneurial opportunity research. The levels of analysis exhibit variability, with a predominant emphasis on the entrepreneur-opportunity nexus. Nevertheless, attention is also devoted to the entrepreneur-environment nexus, venture analysis, and market dynamics, highlighting a holistic consideration of contextual factors.

Research Contribution

By concentrating on the constituent elements of entrepreneurial opportunity, this study contributes to the advancement of our comprehension, aiding scholars in articulating precise constructs and empirically scrutinizing similarities and disparities among competing conceptualizations. The provided conceptual framework, delineated in Table II, serves as a valuable tool, revealing that the entrepreneurial opportunity literature is more cohesive and less contradictory than initially perceived. In addition to contributing to the expansion of prior research, this conceptual framework also tries to accommodate diverse perspectives within a spectrum, fostering a more cohesive understanding of the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity.

Through the utilization of this framework, scholars can effectively investigate and resolve existing debates by comparing and contrasting differing perspectives. Moreover, this framework facilitates a seamless integration of future research projects into the broader context of existing literature, spanning methodological and theoretical perspectives, thereby enriching the collective knowledge base on entrepreneurial opportunities. The framework also sheds light on novel research avenues, particularly considering that the elements under scrutiny can be explored not only at the individual level but also at the team and organizational levels.

Conversely, Table I offers a quantitative analysis, detailing the frequency of appearance of various elements in conceptual definitions within the literature. This data reveals a notable disconnection and emphasizes the imperative for heightened empirical and theoretical research aimed at investigating constructs aligned with conceptual definitions of entrepreneurial opportunity. The frequencies outlined in this table distinctly highlight areas that have received substantial scholarly attention as well as those warranting additional investigation. The compilation of elements extracted from definitions of entrepreneurial opportunity across the literature provides insight into the focal points of scholarly discourse on the nature and examination of entrepreneurial opportunity. In summary, the content encapsulated in the conceptual framework of this research underscores the intricate and multifaceted nature of the academic dialogue surrounding entrepreneurial opportunity. The field benefits from a diverse array of perspectives; however, the challenge lies in harmonizing these varied viewpoints to propel a more cohesive understanding of the nature and dynamics of entrepreneurial opportunities.

Suggestions for Future Research

The researcher envisions that the framework and its associated elements, as outlined in this article, will function as a valuable tool to propel research in entrepreneurial opportunity forward. By facilitating easier comparison of differing viewpoints and assisting researchers in situating their work within the existing literature, the framework aims to foster collective knowledge and theory-building in the realm of entrepreneurial opportunity. The inventory of elements provided within this framework is intended to aid scholars in maintaining consistency with specific dimensions of entrepreneurial opportunity, enabling future research to build upon relevant prior studies more accurately. This, in turn, contributes to the collective development of theories surrounding entrepreneurial opportunity.

The content analysis conducted suggests that future entrepreneurship research should consider diverse ontological, epistemological, and methodological perspectives. The introduced conceptual framework seeks to reconcile these diverse viewpoints, providing a foundation for more cohesive and integrated future research.

Despite the valuable contributions of diverse perspectives to understanding entrepreneurial opportunities, they have also led to fragmentation in the field. The proposed framework aims to address this by fostering a more unified understanding and encouraging scholars to recognize both similarities and differences in their future investigations.

Research has largely focused on the entrepreneur-opportunity nexus level of analysis; however, it is crucial to acknowledge the context including teams, ventures, organizations, and markets that support entrepreneurial endeavors. Additionally, most scholars consider an entrepreneur to be a lone wolf. There has been a lack of attention paid to the dynamic interplay between the entrepreneurial team members and how it affects the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities. Thus, future scholars would do well to examine entrepreneurs as a team, conceptually and empirically, on a group, organizational and market level. To do so, an intersubjective ontological perspective could grow more as the third pilar of debate in the philosophical realm of entrepreneurial opportunity.

In conclusion, the conceptual framework of this paper will facilitate future empirical and theoretical endeavors by enabling them to embed themselves in these methodological and theoretical spectra, and thereby apply the appropriate lens for their research. The overarching takeaway is the presence of commonalities across the debated perspectives. Future researchers should concentrate on testing these similarities and distinctions to advance the collective understanding of entrepreneurial opportunity.

References

  1. Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. (2018). Unicorns, gazelles, and other distractions on the way to understanding real entrepreneurship in the United States. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(4), 458–472.
     Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, H. E., Ruef, M., & Lippmann, S. (2021). Entrepreneurial networks. In: World encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 151–159) Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839104145.00025.
     Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26.
     Google Scholar
  4. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2010). Entrepreneurship and epistemology: The philosophical underpinnings of the study of entrepreneurial opportunities. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 557–583.
     Google Scholar
  5. Busenitz, L. W., Plummer, L. A., Klotz, A. C., Shahzad, A., & Rhoads, K. (2014). Entrepreneurial opportunities and poverty alleviation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 159–184.
     Google Scholar
  6. Alvarez, S., & Barney, J. B. (2020). Has the concept of opportunities been fruitful in the field of entrepreneurship? Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 300–310.
     Google Scholar
  7. Anderson, A. R. (2000). Paradox in the periphery: An entrepreneurial reconstruction? Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12(2), 91–109.
     Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, A. R., & Starnawsk, M. (2008). Research practices in entrepreneurship: Problems of definition, description and meaning. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 9(4), 221–230.
     Google Scholar
  9. Anna, A. L., Chandler, G. N., Jansen, E., & Mero, N. P. (2000). Women business owners in traditional and non-traditional industries. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(3), 279–303.
     Google Scholar
  10. Anokhin, S. (2013). Venture migration: A quest for a low-hanging fruit? Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 25(5–6), 423–445. Anokhin, S., Wincent, J., & Autio, E. (2011). Operationalizing opportunities in entrepreneurship research: Use of data envelopment analysis. Small Business Economics, 37(1), 39–57.
     Google Scholar
  11. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105–123.
     Google Scholar
  12. Arend, R. J. (2023). Entrepreneurship: A theory for no theory for now. Strategic Organization, 21(2), 403–415.
     Google Scholar
  13. Arentz, F., Sautet, F., & Storr, V. H. (2013). Prior knowledge and opportunity identification. Small Business Economics, 41(2), 461– 478.
     Google Scholar
  14. Baron, R. A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 328–340.
     Google Scholar
  15. Baron, R. A., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management Science, 52(9), 1331–1344.
     Google Scholar
  16. Baron, R. A., & Henry, R. A. (2011). Entrepreneurship: The genesis of organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 1, pp. 241–273). Building and developing the organization, American Psychological Association.
     Google Scholar
  17. Barringer, B. R., & Ireland, R. D. (2010). Entrepreneurship Successfully Launching New Ventures. New York: Pearson.
     Google Scholar
  18. Basso, O., Fayolle, A., & Bouchard, V. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation: The making of a concept. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 10(4), 313–321.
     Google Scholar
  19. Berger, E. S., Von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., & Kuckertz, A. (2021). Digital or not—The future of entrepreneurship and innovation: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Business Research, 125, 436–442.
     Google Scholar
  20. Berglund, H. (2007). Opportunities as existing & created: A study of entrepreneurs in the Swedish mobile internet industry. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 15(3), 243–273.
     Google Scholar
  21. Bhagavatula, S., Elfring, T., van Tilburg, A. & van de Bunt, G. G., (2010). How social and human capital influence opportunity recognition and resource mobilization in India’s handloom industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(3), 245–260.
     Google Scholar
  22. Bilal, A. R., Fatima, T., Iqbal, S., & Imran, M. K. (2022). I can see the opportunity that you cannot! A nexus between individual entrepreneurial orientation, alertness, and access to finance. Euro- pean Business Review, 34(4), 556–577.
     Google Scholar
  23. Boadu, F., Du, Y., Xie, Y., & Dwomo-Fokuo, E. (2023). Knowledge transfer received, entrepreneurial opportunity type, environmental dynamism, and innovative performance by overseas subsidiaries in China. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 35(3), 237–254.
     Google Scholar
  24. Busenitz, L. W., Plummer, L. A., Klotz, A. C., Shahzad, A., & Rhoads, K. (2014). Entrepreneurship research (1985–2009). Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(5), 981–1000.
     Google Scholar
  25. Casson, M., & Wadeson, N. (2007). The discovery of opportunities: Extending the economic theory of the entrepreneur. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 285–300.
     Google Scholar
  26. Chandra, Y. (2017). A time-based process model of international entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(4), 423–451.
     Google Scholar
  27. Choi, Y. R. & Shepherd, D. A. (2004). Entrepreneurs’decisionstoexploit opportunities. Journal of Management, 30(3), 377–395.
     Google Scholar
  28. Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity, and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 29–49.
     Google Scholar
  29. Companys, Y., & McMullen, J. (2007). Strategic entrepreneurs at work: The nature, discovery, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 301–322.
     Google Scholar
  30. Corbett, A. (2007). Learning asymmetries and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 97–118.
     Google Scholar
  31. Corner, P. D., & Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 635–659.
     Google Scholar
  32. Daspit, J. J., Fox, C. J., & Findley, S. K. (2023). Entrepreneurial mindset: An integrated definition, a review of current insights, and directions for future research. Journal of Small Business Management, 61(1), 12–44.
     Google Scholar
  33. Davidsson, P. (2005). Researching Entrepreneurship. New York: Springer. Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship Nexus: A re-conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 655–774.
     Google Scholar
  34. Davidsson, P. (2017). Entrepreneurial opportunities as propensities: Do Ramoglou & Tsang move the field forward. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 7, 82–85.
     Google Scholar
  35. Davidsson, P., & Gordon, S. (2012). Panel studies of new venture creation: A methods-focused review and suggestions for future research. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 853–876.
     Google Scholar
  36. Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 81–99.
     Google Scholar
  37. Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. G. (2003). The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 977–990.
     Google Scholar
  38. DeTienne, G., & Chandler, G. (2007). The role of gender in opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 365– 386.
     Google Scholar
  39. Dew, N. (2009). Serendipity in entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 30(7), 735–753.
     Google Scholar
  40. Dimov, D. (2003). The nexus of individual and opportunity: Opportunity recognition as a learning process. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 23, 410–421.
     Google Scholar
  41. Dimov, D. (2007). Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(5), 713–731.
     Google Scholar
  42. Dimov, D. (2011). Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 57–81.
     Google Scholar
  43. Dimov, D. (2020). Opportunities, language, and time. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 333–351.
     Google Scholar
  44. Dohse, D., & Walter, S. (2012). Knowledge context and entrepreneurial intentions among students. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 877–895.
     Google Scholar
  45. Drover, W., Wood, M., & Payne, G. T. (2014). The effects of perceived control on venture capitalist investment decisions: A configurational perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(4), 833–861.
     Google Scholar
  46. Dutta, D., & Crossan, M. (2005). The nature of entrepreneurial opportunities: Understanding the process using the 4I organizational learning framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 425–449.
     Google Scholar
  47. Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. (2008). Entrepreneur behaviors, opportunity recognition, and the origins of innovative ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(4), 317–338.
     Google Scholar
  48. Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2013). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333–349.
     Google Scholar
  49. Edelman, L., & Yli-Renko, H. (2010). The impact of environment and entrepreneurial perceptions on venture creation efforts: Bridging the discovery and creation views of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(5), 833–856.
     Google Scholar
  50. Ensley, M., Carland, J., & Carland, J. (2000). Investigating the existence of the lead entrepreneur. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(4), 59–77.
     Google Scholar
  51. Farmer, S. M., Yao, X., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2011). The behavioral impact of entrepreneur identity aspiration and prior entrepreneurial experience. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(2), 245–273.
     Google Scholar
  52. Felzenstein, C., Gimmon, E., & Aqueveque, C. (2013). Entrepreneurship at the periphery: Exploring framework conditions in core and peripheral locations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(4), 815–835.
     Google Scholar
  53. Fiet, J. O. (2007). A prescriptive analysis of search and discovery. Journal of Management Studies, 44(4), 592–611.
     Google Scholar
  54. Fletcher, D. (2004). International entrepreneurship and small business. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 16(4), 289–305.
     Google Scholar
  55. Fletcher, D. E. (2006). Entrepreneurial processes and the social construction of opportunity. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 18(5), 421–440.
     Google Scholar
  56. Foo, M. D. (2010). Member experience, use of external assistance and evaluation of business ideas. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(1), 32–43.
     Google Scholar
  57. Foo, M. D., Uy, M. A., & Murnieks, C. (2013). Beyond affective valence: Untangling valence and activation influences opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(2), 407–431.
     Google Scholar
  58. Foss, K., & Foss, N. J. (2008). Understanding opportunity discovery and sustainable advantage: The role of transaction costs and property rights. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(3), 191–207.
     Google Scholar
  59. Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. (2012). Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment: A New Approach to the Firm. pp. 124, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     Google Scholar
  60. Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. (2020). Entrepreneurial opportunities: Who needs them. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 366–377.
     Google Scholar
  61. Gaglio, C. M. (2004). The role of mental simulations and counterfactual thinking in the opportunity identification process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(6), 533–552.
     Google Scholar
  62. Gaglio, C. M. (2018). Opportunity identification: Review, critique, and suggested research directions. Reflections and Extensions on Key Papers of the First Twenty-Five Years of Advances, 20, 1–47.
     Google Scholar
  63. Gaglio, C. M., & Katz, J. A. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alertness. Small Business Economics, 16, 95–111.
     Google Scholar
  64. Gaglio, C. M., & Winter, S. (2017). Entrepreneurial alertness and opportunity identification 3.0: Yes, we can talk empirical! In: Revisiting the entrepreneurial mind (pp. 359–377). Springer International Publishing.
     Google Scholar
  65. Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology & innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110–132.
     Google Scholar
  66. Garrett, R. P., & Covin, J. G. (2013). Internal corporate venture operations independence and performance: A knowledge-based perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 763–790.
     Google Scholar
  67. Gartner, W. B., Carter, N. M., & Hills, G. E. (2016). The language of opportunity. In: Entrepreneurship as organizing: Selected papers of William B. Gartner (pp. 218). Edward Elgar Publishing.
     Google Scholar
  68. Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., & Liao, J. (2008). Opportunities as attributions: Categorizing strategic issues from an attributional perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(4), 301–315.
     Google Scholar
  69. Gartner, W. B., Teague, B. T., Baker, T., & Wadhwani, R. D. (2017). A brief history of the idea of opportunity. In: Research handbook on entrepreneurial opportunities (pp. 45–67). Edward Elgar Publishing.
     Google Scholar
  70. George, N. M., Parida, V., Lahti, T., & Wincent, J. (2016). A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition: Insights on influencing factors. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 309–350.
     Google Scholar
  71. Gielnik, M. M., Frese, M., Graf, J. M., & Kampschulte, A. (2012). Creativity in the opportunity identification process and the moderating effect of diversity of information. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(5), 559–576.
     Google Scholar
  72. Grégoire, D. A., Corbett, A. C., & McMullen, J. S. (2011). The cognitive perspective in entrepreneurship: An agenda for future research. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1443–1477.
     Google Scholar
  73. Hansen, D. J., Shrader, R. C., & Monllor, J. (2011). Defragmenting definitions of entrepreneurial opportunity. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(2), 283–304.
     Google Scholar
  74. Hansen, D. J., Shrader, R. C., & Monllor, J. (2016). Identifying the elements of entrepreneurial opportunity constructs: Recognizing what scholars are really examining. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 17(4), 240–255.
     Google Scholar
  75. Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D. A., & McMullen, J. S. (2009). An opportunity for me? The role of resources in opportunity evaluation decisions. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 337–361.
     Google Scholar
  76. Hechavarría, D. M., & Welter, C. (2015). Opportunity types, social entrepreneurship and innovation: Evidence from the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 16(4), 237–251.
     Google Scholar
  77. Hsieh, C., Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. (2007). Opportunity discovery, problem solving and a theory of the entrepreneurial firm. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1255–1277.
     Google Scholar
  78. Jansson, J. (2011). Emerging (Internet) industry and agglomeration: Internet entrepreneurs coping with uncertainty. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(7–8), 499–521.
     Google Scholar
  79. Joshi, M. (2017). Invention, innovation and innovative practices: A reason to study in a VUCA perspective. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Business and Economics, 5(2), 87–109.
     Google Scholar
  80. Khurana, I., Dutta, D. K., & Schenkel, M. T. (2022). Crisis and arbitrage opportunities: The role of causation, effectuation and entrepreneurial learning. International Small Business Journal, 40(2), 236–272.
     Google Scholar
  81. Kirzner, I. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. The Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.
     Google Scholar
  82. Klein, P. G. (2008). Opportunity discovery, entrepreneurial action, and economic organization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(3), 175–190.
     Google Scholar
  83. Korsgaard, S. (2011). Entrepreneurship as translation: Understanding entrepreneurial opportunities through actor-network theory. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(7–8), 661–680.
     Google Scholar
  84. Korsgaard, S., & Sassmannshausen, S. P. (2017). Beyond discovery: Exploring the field of entrepreneurship without a discovery view. In: Research handbook on entrepreneurial opportunities (pp. 115– 143). Edward Elgar Publishing.
     Google Scholar
  85. Laine, L., & Kibler, E. (2022). The social imaginary of emancipation in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(2), 393–420.
     Google Scholar
  86. Lerner, D., & Dimov, D. (2016). Action! impulse driven logic & entrepreneurial opportunity pursuit. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016(1), 10224.
     Google Scholar
  87. Lewin, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunity as the potential to create value. The Review of Austrian Economics, 28(1), 1–15.
     Google Scholar
  88. Liñán, F., & Kurczewska, A. (2017). Why are some individuals willing to pursue opportunities and others aren’t? The role of individual values. In: Research handbook on entrepreneurial opportunities (pp. 263–284). Edward Elgar Publishing.
     Google Scholar
  89. Martin, L., & Wilson, N. (2016). Opportunity, discovery and creativity: A critical realist perspective. International Small Business Journal, 34(3), 261–275.
     Google Scholar
  90. Marvel, M. R. (2013). Human capital and search-based discovery: A study of high-tech entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 403–419.
     Google Scholar
  91. McBride, R., & Wuebker, R. (2022). Social objectivity and entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of Management Review, 47(1), 75–92.
     Google Scholar
  92. McKelvie, A., Wiklund, J., McMullen, J. S., & Palubinskas, A. P. (2020). A dynamic model of entrepreneurial opportunity: Integrating Kirzner’s and Mises’s approaches to entrepreneurial action. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 23(3–4), 499–541.
     Google Scholar
  93. McMullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481–1512.
     Google Scholar
  94. McMullen, J. S., Plummer, L. A., & Acs, Z. J. (2007). What is an entrepreneurial opportunity? Small Business Economics, 28, 273–283.
     Google Scholar
  95. Mehrabi, R., Farsi, J. Y., & Talebi, K. (2019). Interpretation of the nexus between the entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial business opportunities in the healthcare context: A phenomenological study. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 37(3), 415–433.
     Google Scholar
  96. Melkevik, A. (2019). A theory of business economics: The means-ends relation in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 160, 293–305. Murphy, P. J. (2011). A 2 × 2 conceptual foundation for entrepreneurial discovery theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(2), 359–374.
     Google Scholar
  97. Pittaway, L., Aïssaoui, R., & Fox, J. (2018). Social constructionism and entrepreneurial opportunity. In: Philosophical reflexivity and entrepreneurship research (pp. 44–65). Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  98. Plummer, L., Haynie, J. M., & Godesiabois, J. (2007). An essay on the origins of entrepreneurial opportunity. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 363–379.
     Google Scholar
  99. Pranckute ̇, R. (2021). Web of science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications, 9(1), 12.
     Google Scholar
  100. Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, T. (2016). A realist perspective of entrepreneurship: Opportunities as propensities. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 410–434.
     Google Scholar
  101. Ramoglou, S., & Zyglidopoulos, S. C. (2015). The constructivist view of entrepreneurial opportunities: A critical analysis. Small Business Economics, 44, 71–78.
     Google Scholar
  102. Saemundsson, R. J., & Holmén, M. (2011). Yes, now we can: Technological change and the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 22(2), 102–113.
     Google Scholar
  103. Sarason, Y., Dean, T., & Dillard, J. F. (2006). Entrepreneurship at the nexus of individual and opportunity: A structuration view. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(3), 286–305.
     Google Scholar
  104. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2004). The questions we ask and the questions we care about: Reformulating some problems in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(5), 707–717.
     Google Scholar
  105. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Studies, 21(4), 448–469.
     Google Scholar
  106. Shane, S. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Delivering on the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 10–20.
     Google Scholar
  107. Shane, S., & Eckhardt, J. (2003). The individual-opportunity nexus. In: Handbook of entrepreneurship research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction (pp. 161–191). Boston, MA: Springer US.
     Google Scholar
  108. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
     Google Scholar
  109. Shepherd, D., & DeTienne, D. (2005). Prior knowledge, potential financial reward and opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 91–112.
     Google Scholar
  110. Shepherd, D., & Haynie, J. M. (2009). Family business, identity conflict, and an expedited entrepreneurial process: A process of resolving identity conflict. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(6), 1245–1264.
     Google Scholar
  111. Shepherd, D. A., Haynie, J. M., & McMullen, J. S. (2012). Confirmatory search as a useful heuristic? Testing the veracity of entrepreneurial conjectures. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(6), 637–651.
     Google Scholar
  112. Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J. Jr, Shook, C. L., & Duane Ireland, R. (2010). The concept of ‘‘opportunity’’ in entrepreneurship research: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 36(1), 40–65.
     Google Scholar
  113. Smith, B., Matthews, C., & Schenkel, M. (2009). Differences in entrepreneurial opportunities: The role of tacitness and codification in opportunity identification. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(1), 38–58.
     Google Scholar
  114. Spedale, S., & Watson, T. J. (2014). The emergence of entrepreneurial action: At the crossroads between institutional logics and individual life-orientation. International Small Business Journal, 32(7), 759–776.
     Google Scholar
  115. Tang, J., Kacmar, K., & Busenitz, L. (2012). Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of new opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 77–94.
     Google Scholar
  116. Tang, J., & Khan, S. A. (2007). Dynamic interactions between alertness and systematic search: A yin and yang perspective on opportunity recognition and innovation. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 8(3), 175–187.
     Google Scholar
  117. Tang, H., Yao, Q., Boadu, F., & Xie, Y. (2023). Distributed innovation, digital entrepreneurial opportunity, IT-enabled capabilities, and enterprises’ digital innovation performance: A moderated mediating model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 26(4), 1106–1128.
     Google Scholar
  118. Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. (1993). Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 239–270.
     Google Scholar
  119. Townsend, D. M., Hunt, R. A., McMullen, J. S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2018). Uncertainty, knowledge problems, and entrepreneurial action. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 659–687.
     Google Scholar
  120. Tuomisalo, T. (2019). Emergence of an entrepreneurial opportunity: A case within a finnish telecommunication international new venture. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 17(3), 334–354.
     Google Scholar
  121. Venkataraman, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., & Forster, W. R. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Wither the promise? Moving forward with entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 21–33.
     Google Scholar
  122. Ward, T. B. (2004). Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 173–188.
     Google Scholar
  123. Webb, J. W., Kistruck, G. M., Ireland, R. D., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2010). The entrepreneurship process in base of the pyramid markets: The case of multinational enterprise/nongovernment organization alliances. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 555–581.
     Google Scholar
  124. Wilson, N., & Martin, L. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities for all? Entrepreneurial capability and the capabilities approach. Interna- tional Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 16(3), 159–169.
     Google Scholar
  125. Wood, M. S., McKelvie, A., & Haynie, J. M. (2014). Making it personal: Opportunity individuation and the shaping of opportunity beliefs. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(2), 252–272.
     Google Scholar
  126. Wood, M. S., & McKinley, W. (2017). After the venture: The repro- duction and destruction of entrepreneurial opportunity. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(1), 18–35.
     Google Scholar
  127. Yang, X., & Yang, P. (2017). Empirical research of entrepreneurial opportunity identification on rural tourism. Tourism Tribune, 32(2), 89–103.
     Google Scholar