Articles that are published in academic journals are often subjected to a number of reviews by experts in their respective fields. The aim of such peer criticisms is to validate the claims advanced in the articles. A journal publication that has been taken through this process is considered to be more reliable and credible than the one that has not been reviewed.
The current paper involves a critique of two journal reports. The articles selected for this review address a number of aspects with regards to entrepreneurship. One of the papers reviewed is written by Aurora and Elsa (2013). Aurora and Elsa address the issue of “intellectual structure in the entrepreneurship field”. The other article is by Welter (2011). In their report, Welter (2011) examines the challenges related to entrepreneurship and proposes the way forward. Given the increased importance of entrepreneurship in the current global business arena, the gravity of the information reported in the two articles cannot be ignored. That is one of the reasons why the two were selected for this critique. The articles are evaluated and reviewed separately. However, the author of this paper concludes by providing a general outlook of entrepreneurship in light of the selected articles.
Critique of Articles
Intellectual Structure of the Entrepreneurship Field: A Tale Based on Three Core Journals by Aurora and Elsa (2013)
A review of the author
The article is authored by Aurora Teixeira and Elsa Ferreira. The scholars are authoritative figures in the field of entrepreneurship and business in general. Their credentials are illustrated by their occupational experience as lecturers at the University of Port in Portugal (Aurora & Elsa, 2013). The article looks at entrepreneurship that is based on intellectual structure.
Overview of the article
As aforementioned, the intention of Aurora and Elsa is to analyze the intellectual framework of entrepreneurship as an emerging field of interest in the business world. The stated objective informs the claims made in the paper. The major argument made by the two scholars is that entrepreneurship is a field that is built on a plethora of communication linkages within the intellectual community (Aurora & Elsa, 2013).
The goal of the study by Aurora and Elsa (2013) is to determine the nature of invisible colleges in entrepreneurship. The scholars rely on bibliometrics as the preferred method of research. Upon conclusion of the study, Aurora and Elsa find only 2 invisible colleges based on the number of citations in 3 journals related to the subject. The first college opines that corporate venturing is the backbone of entrepreneurship. On its part, the second college places emphasis on innovation and dynamics in the industrial scene (Aurora & Elsa, 2013).
It is a fact beyond doubt that entrepreneurship is an important aspect in the modern matrix of business operations. The importance of this element is highlighted by its status as a subject of study in business law (Bagley & Dauchy, 2011). The significance of invisible colleges notwithstanding, the article should have examined the structure of entrepreneurship in terms of capacity building. Bagley and Dauchy (2011) argue that most entrepreneurs have thrived outside the parameters of academics. As such, by restricting their argument to the field’s intellectual structure, it is apparent that Aurora and Elsa (2013) are not only biased, but also ironical. The two scholars could have done things differently to improve the study. For example, they should have examined the intellectual structure based on experiences of renowned entrepreneurs.
As already indicated, the study relied on bibliometrics to collect data. One may argue that this is an ideal method of gathering intellectual information. However, it would have been preferable if the researchers obtained data from interviews and other similar sources. Primary sources of data are more reliable than secondary ones. The bibliometrics used in the study focused on academic journals only (Aurora & Elsa, 2013). On the contrary, a questionnaire administered on actual entrepreneurs would have yielded better results than the methods used.
Conclusion of the article
In this academic article, Aurora and Elsa (2013) aptly execute the objectives of their study. The findings are suitable for scholars and other interested parties involved in the business field. The article is also resourceful to individuals keen on improving the entire entrepreneurship landscape. However, future studies on this subject should incorporate actual entrepreneurs.
Contextualizing Entrepreneurship: Conceptual Challenges and Ways Forward by Welter (2011)
Reviewing the author
The article is published in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice journal. It is authored by Welter Friederike. The scholar is an accomplished professor in entrepreneurship studies. He is currently stationed at the University of Siegen. They use the article to address the issue of entrepreneurship and related challenges. Ways to overcome these impediments are proposed in the publication (Welter, 2011).
Overview of the article
The main claim made in the study by Welter is that entrepreneurship is best understood by placing it in a specific context. Welter (2011) relies on literature review as their research design. The study identifies 3 main challenges associated with the contextualization of entrepreneurship. The first is a shift in the perspective of the context. The second is that the context can be enabling and restraining at the same time. Third is the need for discreet contexts. The findings support the major objective of the study by illustrating the actual constraints associated with entrepreneurship.
Understanding the context of entrepreneurship requires one to conduct a study that interrogates the activities of actual business operators. Bagley and Dauchy (2011) argue that the best experiences are obtained from individuals who are directly involved in the field. However, the study by Welter (2011) relies on literature review. Welter could have improved the research if they conducted an actual study. In addition, the claim of the study should have been expanded to include other challenges. Instead of doing this, Welter (2011) restricted their research to the context of entrepreneurship. Welter’s outlook is informed by the fact that the entrepreneurship is a relatively new field in research and academics. As such, there are more challenges than the contextual element.
It is a fact that the study by Welter has a number of shortcomings. However, in spite of this, the article is quite relevant to actual entrepreneurs who seek to identify possible challenges in the field. The article would also find suitable audience in researchers keen on advancing the nascent field of entrepreneurship. Welter (2011) leaves room for additional research to identify more problems facing entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship is an important element in job creation and growth in the business sector. The two articles addressed in this critique affirm this notion by illustrating the structure and the potential problems faced by practitioners in the field. Bagley and Dauchy (2011) maintain that entrepreneurship is relevant to economic growth. As such, future studies should involve real entrepreneurs. They should not focus on policy makers alone.
Aurora, A., & Elsa, F. (2013). Intellectual structure of the entrepreneurship field: A tale based on three core journals. Journal of Innovation Management, 1(2), 21-66.
Bagley, E., & Dauchy, E. (2011). The entrepreneur’s guide to business law. Michigan: Cengage Learning.
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurs– Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165-184.