See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223072781

Entrepreneurship as the Nexus of Individual and Opportunity: A Structuration

View

Article  in  Journal of Business Venturing · February 2006

DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.007

CITATIONS READS

352 536

3 authors:

Yolanda Sarason Thomas Dean

Colorado State University Colorado State University
21 PUBLICATIONS   662 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   2,815 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jesse Dillard
Victoria University of Wellington, Univ Central Florida/
105 PUBLICATIONS   3,070 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

DLU-JOS CALL FOR PAPERS: Special Issue on Entrepreneurship and Innovation, and Social Entrepreneurship View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yolanda Sarason on 06 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286 – 305

Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and

opportunity: A structuration view
Yolanda Sarasona,*, Tom Deanb,1, Jesse F. Dillardc,2
a
College of Business, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO 80523-1275, United States
b
Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado at Boulder, CB 419, Boulder, Colorado 80309, United States
c
School of Business Administration, Portland State University, Portland, OR, United States
Received 1 March 2003; received in revised form 1 December 2004; accepted 1 February 2005

Abstract

We propose structuration theory as a useful lens through which to view the entrepreneurial
process. Extending Shane and Venkataraman’s work (Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., 2000. The
promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review 25, 217–226),
entrepreneurship is presented as the nexus of opportunity and agency, whereby opportunities are not
singular phenomena, but are idiosyncratic to the individual. Entrepreneurial ventures are the medium
and outcome of the entrepreneurs’ actions. The traditional view of entrepreneurship is that
entrepreneurs fill market gaps. A structuration view proposes that the entrepreneur and social
systems co-evolve. The presentation of structuration theory offers a robust, and hereto
underrepresented, perspective of the entrepreneurial process.
D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Structuration theory; Nexus of entrepreneur and opportunity; Duality

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 970 491 5636; fax: +1 970 491 3522.
E-mail addresses: yolanda.sarason@colostate.edu (Y. Sarason)8 deantj@colorado.edu (T. Dean)8
jdillard@pdx.edu (J.F. Dillard).
1
Tel.: +1 303 492 3282.
2
Tel.: +1 503 725 2278.

0883-9026/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.007
 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305 287

1. Executive summary

The domain of entrepreneurship has been defined as the study of sources of

opportunities, the processes of discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities
and the set of individuals who discover, evaluate and exploit them (Shane and
Venkataraman, 2000). However, much of the work in entrepreneurship has focused either
on the nature of the entrepreneur or on the nature of the opportunity but does not
adequately consider the entrepreneurial process articulated by Shane and Venkataraman
(Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). One step toward overcoming this chasm is to provide a
more complete theorizing of the entrepreneurial process that reflects the dynamic
interaction of the individual and the opportunity. The entrepreneur is viewed as a reflexive
agent engaging in purposeful action. Sources of opportunities are extant features that
provide the context for creating entrepreneurial ventures. The act of entrepreneurship
occurs as the agent specifies, interprets, and acts upon the sources of opportunity. This is a
dynamic process whereby the sources of opportunity are acted on by the agent, and the
agent is affected by the sources of opportunity. Structuration theory provides a theoretical
perspective on the process dynamics of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship is a social undertaking. That is, it must be carried out, and therefore
understood, within the context of social systems. Structuration theory, developed by the
sociologist Anthony Giddens, helps explain how actors are the creators of social systems,
yet at the same time are created by them. Giddens (Giddens (1991)) describes the
framework as an attempt to provide the conceptual means of analyzing the often delicate
and subtle interlacing of reflexively organized action and institutional constraint (p. 204).
Structuration theory presents the agent as being simultaneously enabled and constrained by
social structuring. The interactive coming together of entrepreneur and opportunity is
conceptualized as a duality whereby the entrepreneur and opportunity cannot exist
independently; and therefore, cannot be understood separate and distinct from each other.
Through the use of structuration theory, we gain an alternative perspective on how
entrepreneurs interpret and influence their world. For instance, structuration theory suggests
that social structures both constrain and enable entrepreneurs in the venturing processes of
discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities. Entrepreneurial opportunities can
be depicted as being interdependent with the entrepreneur’s actions and attempts to
understand opportunities as distinct from the entrepreneur cannot be fully descriptive.
A structuration theory representation of the process can enlighten and empower
entrepreneurs. Opportunities do not exist a priori waiting to be discovered, but become
manifested to the entrepreneur and to others as they are conceptualized and developed by
the actor as part of the venturing process. The creative act then is not just in the discovery
but also in the evaluation and resource acquisition of a new conceptualization, which is
developed as part of the venturing process. We highlight the idiosyncratic, path-dependent
nature of venture creation, focusing on the uniqueness of the entrepreneurs and the
opportunities they pursue. Thus, we encourage the entrepreneur to focus on the
idiosyncrasies of the new venture and less on potential imitability. Finally, we exhort
the entrepreneur to acknowledge that he or she is both enabled and constrained by the
socio-economic context. Thus, we encourage the entrepreneur to see external constraints
as fluid and in the same constant state of flux as their own entrepreneurial venture.
288 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305

The application of structural types specified by structuration theory is helpful in

understanding the discovery, the evaluation, and the exploitation of opportunities. The
discovery process focuses on how meaning is created and communicated, indicating that
the entrepreneur is not so much concerned with discovering an opportunity as with
creating new interpretations of existing sets of relationships. The evaluation of opportunity
focuses on the normative evaluations and the criteria sets. Evaluation of opportunity does
not happen at a single point in time, but is an ongoing process. The exploitation of
opportunities focuses on the ability to control resources in order to achieve goals
associated with a particular venture.
We contend that a structuration theory-based perspective of entrepreneurship offers
unique insights to the traditional view of entrepreneurship. The traditional view holds that
the entrepreneur fills market gaps, while structuration theory suggests that the entrepreneur
and social systems co-evolve. The traditional view presents entrepreneurial ventures as
being designed ex ante by the entrepreneur. The structuration view presents entrepre-
neurial ventures as recursive processes that evolve as the entrepreneur interfaces with the
sources of opportunity and engages in the venturing process. Perhaps most importantly, the
traditional view presumes the relationship between the entrepreneur and opportunity as a
dualism in that the constructs are separate and distinct from each other. A structuration
view portrays the entrepreneur and opportunity as a duality in that each is interdependent
upon the other. The entrepreneur is enabled and constrained by the sources of opportunity
identified and the structured processes of the venturing process. Similarly, the sources of
opportunity and the structuring processes are constructed and reconstructed in the
entrepreneur’s actions. Propositions are presented that summarize our argument and
contribute to our goal of presenting structuration theory as a framework for future research
into the nature of entrepreneurial ventures.

2. Introduction

To be recognized as a distinct field of academic research, entrepreneurship must

circumscribe a unique theoretical domain and build a coherent, cumulative body of
knowledge (Gartner, 1985; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Venkataraman, 1997).
Toward this end, Shane and Venkataraman (2000) develop a framework setting forth the
distinctive nature of the entrepreneurship domain. These authors argue that the domain
of the field involves bthe study of sources of opportunities; the processes of discovery,
evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities; and the set of individuals who discover,
evaluate, and exploit themQ (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000: 218, italics in original
text). Perhaps their most important insight postulates that the core of entrepreneurship
resides in the nexus of opportunities and the individual (Shane and Venkataraman,
2000: 218).
Many extant theories of entrepreneurship either focus on the entrepreneur, as
exemplified in studies that take a psychological or cognitive perspective (Begley and
Boyd, 1987; Forbes, 1999; McClelland, 1965; Shaver and Scott, 1991) or on the external
environment, as typified by economic theorists (Arrow and Debreu, 1954; Baumol, 1993;
Leibenstein, 1979; Kirzner, 1973; Schumpeter, 1934) or institutional theorists (Aldrich and
 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305 289

Wiedenmayer, 1993; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Hannan and Freeman, 1984). While
these two rich traditions offer significant insights, we argue that neither explicitly
articulates entrepreneurship as the dynamic interrelationship between the individual and
the opportunity over time.
We propose structuration theory (Giddens, 1976, 1979, 1984, 1991) as a useful
framework for better understanding the nexus of entrepreneur and opportunity as it
theorizes the interdependence of context (structure) and actor (agent) in the moment and
across time and space. Structuration theory specifies a reciprocal relationship between
agency and structure, and as such offers a perspective that specifically articulates the
relationship between agent (entrepreneur) and structure (opportunity) as a duality. A
duality, as opposed to a dualism, presents two constructs that cannot exist, or be
understood, separate from each other. The conceptualization of the relationship between
agent and structure as a duality is central to structuration theory and represents what some
argue is the theory’s major contribution to social science (Turner, 1991).
Structuration theory has been of particular interest to organization research as it is
sufficiently rich to explain complex social interactions (Bryant and Jary, 2001; Clark,
1990; Clark et al., 1990; Wilson and Huff, 1994). The principles of structuration theory
have been applied in related fields such as technology implementation (Barley, 1986;
DeSanctis and Poole, 1994; Orlikowski, 1992, 2000), organizational theory (Barley and
Tolbert, 1997; Ranson et al., 1980), organizational culture (Riley, 1983), industry structure
(Huff et al., 2000), and business ethics (Dillard and Yuthas, 2000). The following
discussion considers how this theory can be applied to the domain of entrepreneurship.
Our intent is to extend the theoretical articulation of entrepreneurship by using
structuration theory to elaborate on Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000) proposition that the
nexus of entrepreneur and opportunity is central to the entrepreneurial domain. Their
conceptualization of the nexus is the overlap of the two domains that evolve and can be
studied independently. With structuration theory, the entrepreneur and social system are
not conceptualized as two separate domains, but as a duality between entrepreneur and
social system that co-evolve to create the instantiated new venture. As such, the
structuration view of entrepreneurship rejects the notion that entrepreneur and social
system can be understood separate from each other. Following Shane and Venkataraman,
we view the scope of our examination to be at a general level and therefore inclusive of
new venture creation (the founding of a new organization), opportunities pursued by
individuals, and opportunities pursued within the confines of an existing organization.
Within a structuration framework, entrepreneurs are conceptualized as agents acting within
social and economic systems that engender potentially economically rewarding
opportunities.
Our purpose is to discuss how structuration theory might be helpful in providing a more
complete understanding of entrepreneurship. We see our contribution as follows. First, we
do not view the process of entrepreneurship solely as the effective filling of market gaps
and imperfections. Rather, entrepreneurship is best characterized as a recursive process
between entrepreneur and social system wherein entrepreneurs as much create
opportunities as discover them. Furthermore, this suggests a process of entrepreneur/
system co-evolution wherein ventures are created over time rather than designed ex ante.
Third, an instantiated new venture is not a deterministic reflection of a market gap or
290 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305

imperfection, but is inexorably affected by the individuality of the entrepreneur in his/her

interpretation, action, and reflection. Fourth, we offer a more reflexive and subjective
ontological view that presents an alternative to the positivists and post-positivists
perspectives that have dominated the field. This ontological perspective opens new ways
about thinking of the entrepreneurial process that has been historically absent from the
literature. Thus, perhaps our greatest contribution is introducing a conversation about the
nature of entrepreneurship that is rooted in an alternative theoretical and philosophical
foundation that is emerging as a powerful paradigm in closely related fields.
The paper proceeds as follows. First, we introduce the basic tenets of structuration
theory. We then discuss how the nexus of entrepreneur and opportunity can be understood
from a structuration perspective providing illustrative propositions. Finally, the contribu-
tions of studying entrepreneurship from a structuration perspective are discussed.

3. Structuration theory

Structuration theory was developed by Anthony Giddens to fill what he saw as a need
in social theory: the integration of human agency into the dominant structuralist theories.3
The focus of structuration theory is the reciprocal interaction of human actors and social
structure. Human actors or agents are both enabled and constrained by structures, yet these
structures are the result of previous actions by agents and are carried forward only by the
agents as memory traces. The structural properties of a social system consist of the rules
and resources that human agents use in their everyday interaction. These rules and
resources mediate human action, while at the same time they are reaffirmed through
instantiation by human actors. For structures to be instantiated is to have them dmade real
to the agentsT in the moment of activity. This relationship is identified as a bdualityQ, a
concept around which there is a growing movement in sociology and organization theory
(Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Turner, 1991). Giddens describes the contribution of
structuration theory as follows:
In seeking to come to grips with problems of action and structure, structuration theory
offers a conceptual scheme that allows one to understand how actors are at the same
time the creators of social systems, yet created by them. . .. It is an attempt to provide
the conceptual means of analyzing the often delicate and subtle interlacing of
reflexively organized action and institutional constraint (Giddens, 1991: 204).
M.C. Escher’s famous bdrawing handsQ presents a graphic illustration of Giddens’
concept of structuration, with the actor as both creator, and creation of, social systems
(Picture 1).
A central premise in structuration theory is agency; that is, actors are viewed as
purposeful, knowledgeable, reflexive, and active. The use of the word bagentQ signifies

3
Fully explicating the theory is beyond the scope of our discussion, however interested readers are referred to
Anthony Giddens original work (1976, 1979, 1984, 1991), as well as the work of others that have helped explain
and expand on structuration theory such as Bryant and Jary (2001), Clark et al. (1990) and Wilson and Huff
(1994).
 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305 291

Picture 1. M.C. Escher’s bDrawing HandsQ n 2001 Gordon Art B.V.–Baarn–Holland. All rights reserved. This
representation was also used by Hatch (1997) and Orlikowski (2002) to illustrate structuration theory.

this purpose and power. To be an agent implies the ability to intervene in the world, or to
refrain from intervention, and presumes that the agent is able to deploy a range of causal
power, including that of influencing others. An agent ceases to be such if he or she loses
the capability to bmake a differenceQ, that is, cannot exercise some sort of power (Giddens,
1984: 14). Awareness of social rules is the core of agency. According to Giddens, social
agents know a great deal about the conditions and consequences of what they do in their
day-to-day lives (Giddens, 1984: 281).
Another key aspect inherent in agency is reflexive monitoring. Reflexivity refers to the
capacity of humans to routinely observe and understand what they are doing while they are
doing it. Actors continue to monitor the flow of their activities and have a theoretical
understanding of themselves and others. They are also able to monitor their monitoring.
Thus reflexive monitoring is not merely self-consciousness, it includes the continuous
monitoring of physical and social contexts and activities within those contexts, as well as
the continuous adjustment of one’s actions (Giddens, 1984: 5). It is the notion of reflexive
monitoring that allows structuration theory to extend beyond behavioral theories. More
specifically, the behavioral perspective focuses on the entrepreneur’s cognitive structures
that influence the interpretation of social systems, while a structuration view includes the
ability to reflect upon and modify interpretations.
Structures, in a structuration framework, are defined as recursively organized rules and
resources that individuals draw on and reconstitute in their day-to-day activities (Giddens,
1979: 64). Furthermore, structures do not exist in time–space, but have only a virtual
292 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305

existence as they are drawn on and ceaselessly reconstituted; they have no existence
independent of what agents do in their day-to-day activity (1984: 26). Thus, structures are
both the medium and the outcome of the situated practices that make up a social system.
We maintain that a structuration perspective moves away from equating structure to a
hidden skeleton, as is common in the economic and entrepreneurship perspective (Huff et
al., 2000).
Within structuration theory, the nature of agent/structure interactions is represented as a
duality, as it is argued that agent and structure do not exist separate from each other and
cannot be understood independently. Structure has no existence independent of the
knowledge that agents have about their day-to-day activities but is instantiated in social
practice (1984: 25–26). Similarly, agents cannot be understood independently of
structures. It is through action and reflexive monitoring of the action that agents sustain
their day-to-day lives and constitute social structures, a process Giddens refers to as the
duality of structure (1976: 121).
Giddens argues that the constraining aspect of structure has been the focus of the
functionalist/structuralist social science tradition, and as a result, agents are portrayed as
bcultural dopes of . . . stunning mediocrityQ (1979: 52). We agree with Huff et al. (2000) that
Giddens would view the portrayal of managers or entrepreneurs similarly. Understanding
the entrepreneurially creative act as the nexus of entrepreneur and opportunity and
conceptualizing it as a duality portrays the entrepreneur as both the medium and outcome of
social structures as well as enabled and constrained by them. We now focus on these ideas
and the application of structuration theory to the entrepreneurial process.

4. Structuration theory and the entrepreneurial process

The crux of our argument is as follows. Since both structuration theory and the domain
of entrepreneurship focus on the nexus of individuals and social systems, the insights of
structuration theory are particularly applicable to the nature of the entrepreneurial process.
Applying structuration theory to the domain of entrepreneurship, we argue that
entrepreneurs both create and are created by the process of entrepreneurship and therefore
can be constructively viewed as a duality. The mechanism of this co-creation involves the
recursive interaction of entrepreneur and opportunity over time and can be most accurately
characterized as a continuously evolving cycle of agent/structure inter-dependence. The
evolving cycle of the entrepreneurial process operates through the knowledgeable and
reflexive actions of the entrepreneur/agent. In other words, following Giddens’ theory,
knowledgeable entrepreneurs are empowered to act in a manner that influences structures
(opportunities), and to reflexively monitor the impact of their actions leading to actions
that reinforce, modify, or create new opportunities. Central to understanding this
relationship is a recognition of the importance of agents’ interpretations of, and integral
relationship with, the structural context. It is with this concept of agent interpretation that
we will shortly begin our more detailed discussion of the implications of these ideas for the
understanding of the entrepreneurial process.
It is important to note that there is a subtle, yet important, difference between a
structuration theory conceptualization and that of Shane and Venkataraman (2000). As
 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305 293

noted earlier, the latter conceptualizes the nexus as the overlap of two separate constructs.
In contrast, structuration theory represents the two as intricately interlaced with their
attributes being a function of the effect of one on the other. Shane and Venkataraman
(2000) imply that opportunities are separate and distinct from the individual and that
entrepreneurial action occurs at the point where the two overlap. Structuration theory
implies that opportunities are not separate from the individual in that opportunities take
form as the entrepreneur defines them as such, and that through the process of defining and
evaluating opportunities, the entrepreneurial process emerges.
Below we develop seven propositions to demonstrate more clearly structuration
theory’s contribution to our current understanding of entrepreneurship as articulated by
Shane and Venkataraman (2000). The first proposition emphasizes the idiosyncratic nature
of opportunities. The next three address the co-creation and evolution of entrepreneurial
ventures. The last three propositions deal with the role of various structural types in the
discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities.

4.1. Opportunities as idiosyncratic to the individual

While many authors recognize individual differences in characteristics such as alertness

(Kirzner, 1973), knowledge (Hayek, 1945, Schultz, 1975, Shane, 2000), and need for
achievement (McClelland, 1965), they typically present opportunity as separate and
distinct from the entrepreneur. Such a position suggests that opportunities are portrayed as
singular phenomenon. That is to say that there is one opportunity that is the same for all
individuals, albeit potentially interpreted differently. A structuration perspective would
suggest a different portrayal of opportunity. The theory argues that social and economic
systems become real or meaningful to the agent at the moment of interaction with other
agents. As stated above, this is referred to as instantiation as it is in the instant of
interaction wherein the social and economic system is constituted by the individual. Thus,
a structuration perspective of opportunity views opportunities not as an interpretation of a
singular social and economic gap, but as an individually idiosyncratic conceptualization of
an instantiated social and economic system.
In a structuration theory representation of entrepreneurship, a primary act of
entrepreneurial judgment is the selection of a fact, or a fact set, from the social and
economic milieu. There are, in a sense, no facts in the social and economic space; or if you
like, there are an infinite number of facts within this space (Bateson, 1972). Out of this
social and economic system, the entrepreneur selects a few information sets that become
facts by the act of selection.4 The uniqueness of each entrepreneur’s situated perspective
facilitates an idiosyncratic rendering of information sets as bfactsQ by the entrepreneur.
This rendering represents an instantiated view of opportunity that is idiosyncratic to the
individual entrepreneur. Thus, we propose:

4
At one level, one could argue that the entrepreneur’s world is socially constructed as bfactsQ are made bfactsQ
by entrepreneurial selection. However, this perspective does not dismiss the physical world of forces and impacts.
For example, physical laws prescribe the grinding of a lens, but the recognition, evaluation, and exploitation of a
commercial possibility for a new technology is encompassed by, and embedded in, the social realm.
294 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305

Proposition 1. Opportunities do not exist as singular phenomenon but are idiosyncratic to

the individual.
This proposition is fundamentally different from most extant portrayals that present
opportunities as having a separate existence outside of individuals’ interactions with them.
As Shane and Venkataraman (2000) assert: bAlthough recognition of entrepreneurial
opportunities is a subjective process, the opportunities themselves are objective
phenomena. . .Q (2000: p. 220). In their view, individuals may have different interpretations
of that reality, or opportunity, and these interpretations may be more or less correct. The
successful entrepreneur, therefore, is the one who correctly perceives (or discovers) that
singular opportunity.
In contrast, structuration theory proposes that the socio-economic system, as well as
opportunities, do not exist singularly but are brought into being by individuals as they act
through time and space. Therefore, we argue that multiple individuals do not pursue the
same opportunity, as each entrepreneur’s unique perspective causes them to view their
opportunity idiosyncratically and build unique ventures around their idiosyncratic
interpretations. While it might appear to the external observer that two individuals are
pursuing the same opportunity, further investigation and questioning would reveal
differences from simple geographic differentiation to product quality attributes to leasing
versus purchase models. While some would focus on the similarities, we focus on the
differences as evidence of instantiated conceptualizations. Furthermore, this implies that
opportunities are not merely bdiscoveredQ in the sense that an entrepreneur finds a market
gap or imperfection but are created by the entrepreneur through the recursive processes of
interpretation and influence. The next set of propositions expands on this idea.

4.2. The idiosyncratic co-evolution of entrepreneurial ventures

Another primary tenet of structuration theory is that agents and structures co-evolve
along a time–space continuum as agents interpret their world and act on these
interpretations. Co-evolution occurs as the agent’s actions alter structures and as these
changed structures are open to re-interpretation. Furthermore, the agent’s actions result in
both intended and unintended consequences, and these consequences are often embodied
in new instantiated structures. The implication of this recursive process is that agents
create new structures through a co-evolutionary process of actions and consequences that
are inherently dependent upon the conceptualization of the agent, since that
conceptualization can generate consequential action. The significance of the interpreta-
tion implies that structure/agent co-evolutions are unique to the individual agent. In other
words, it would be unlikely that a particular course of action would be replicated by
another agent because of the idiosyncratic trajectory created by the individual
conceptualization, as well as the unique time–space instantiation. Applied to the nexus
of opportunity and entrepreneur, entrepreneurial ventures are not only the result of
conceptualization by individuals but are also created by them through a reflexive,
recursive process. We propose:
Proposition 2. Entrepreneurial ventures are created by purposeful actions through a unique
co-evolutionary interaction between the entrepreneur and the socio-economic system.
 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305 295

Furthermore, from a structuration theory perspective, entrepreneurial ventures are

created and developed by the entrepreneur/agent through: (1) the individual entrepreneur’s
unique conceptualization; (2) the action engendered by that conceptualization; (3) the
intended and unintended consequences of those actions; and (4) the agent’s subsequent
reflection on, and response to, the consequences of his/her actions. We propose:
Proposition 3. The co-evolutionary processes associated with the creation and
development of entrepreneurial ventures involves the reflexive, recursive processes of
interpretation, action, consequence, and reflection.
As discussed above, each individual’s interpretation of a given situation is unique. As a
result, his or her responses to a given situation are also likely to be unique, and the
resultant outcome idiosyncratic to the individual. From a structuration perspective, the
entrepreneurial venture is instantiated by the entrepreneur as he/she interprets the world,
responds to it, and reflexively monitors the outcomes of his/her actions. Entrepreneurs,
through their unique interpretation of opportunity, set events into motion in a manner that
the entrepreneur is uniquely poised to explore and exploit. In this respect, the
entrepreneurial process is highly path-dependent, and the development trajectory of a
new venture is idiosyncratic. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, this implies that
the venture, as envisioned and implemented by one entrepreneur, is not necessarily readily
accessible to others in the same configuration. This insight highlights a major contribution
of structuration theory to entrepreneurship in that not only is the conceptualization of
opportunity important but also that entrepreneurial ventures are generated idiosyncratically
through time and space. Moreover, this iterative process amplifies the idiosyncratic nature
of ventures. We propose:
Proposition 4. Because each entrepreneur is unique in his or her interpretation of, and
reaction to, the socio-economic context, entrepreneurial ventures are idiosyncratic to the
individual and evolve along distinct, path-dependent trajectories.

4.3. Salient structures in the entrepreneurial process

Another distinguishing feature of structuration theory is the specification of three types

of structure: signification structures, legitimation structures, and domination structures.
Signification structures are those structures that facilitate meaning in social interactions.
Legitimation structures refer to structures that provide the evaluative criteria (values) for
dispensing rewards and sanctions. Domination structures are those structures that relate to
power (control) over resources (both material and human). All social systems are
constituted from properties of these structural elements. We propose that incorporating
these constructs extends the entrepreneurial nexus specified by Shane and Venkataraman
(2000). As noted previously, Shane and Vankataraman posit three processes operating at
the nexus of individual and opportunity: discovery, evaluation, and exploitation. They
argue that these processes comprise the field of entrepreneurship and outline factors that
influence opportunity discovery, evaluation, and exploitation. Structuration provides
insights regarding the nature of these three processes. These insights are elucidated by
three related propositions. In articulating the potential contribution to entrepreneurship,
296 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305

each of these structures will be discussed separately. However, these constructs can be
separated only for analytical purposes.5 In practice, they are an integrated set rather than
three discrete components. Further, while a social system incorporates all three types of
structures, it is possible for one structural type to be more salient in a given context
(Giddens, 1976: 124). Table 1 identifies the salient dimensions for each of the processes
specified by Shane and Venkataraman (2000).

4.4. Signification structures as related to the discovery of opportunities

When confronted with sources of opportunities, the entrepreneur draws on processes

and stocks of knowledge in specifying data as bfactsQ. This discovery process is primarily
concerned with interpretation, meaning, and communication and cannot be understood
independently from the embedding socio-economic context. As previously noted,
structuration theory labels the agency/structure relationships that focus on interpretive
processes as signification structures. Signification structures facilitate symbolic represen-
tation and meaning. These transformative relationships are made up of interpretative rules
that represent shared knowledge and organizing regimes that guide social interaction. The
interpretative rules facilitate reflexivity and communication through the creation and
manipulation of meaningful symbolic structures. These shared symbolic systems provide
the means by which actors perceive and interpret their surroundings (i.e., create facts) as
well as the means for communicating these perceptions to other social agents (Giddens,
1984: 29).
The primary activities in the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities are recognition
and interpretation. Thus, signification structures are most likely to be the most salient
structural type framing and facilitating the articulation, recognition, and interpretation of
entrepreneurial opportunities. Structuration theory specifies discovery as an iterative
process, taking place over time and space through the ongoing construction and
reconstruction (duality of structure) of social structures. We propose:
Proposition 5. Signification structures will be more salient than the other structural types
during the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities.
A structuration view of entrepreneurial discovery is distinct from that of Shane and
Venkatraman. As noted above, Shane and Venkataraman (2000) portray opportunities as
objective phenomenon that may be discovered by entrepreneurs with unique cognitive
processes or stocks of information. A structuration view suggests that opportunities are not
merely bdiscoveredQ but are created, or instantiated, by entrepreneurial specification,
interpretation, and influence. This view implies that the process of discovery is a dynamic
interrelated process dependent upon the historically situated and enabled cognitive
entrepreneur, the source of opportunities, and the interrelationship between the two. By
addressing this process link between micro and macro levels of analysis, structuration
theory helps fill a gap in our understanding of how cognitive makeup and processes at an
individual unit of analysis translates to successful entrepreneurial ventures.

5
We also propose that this is the case for discovery, evaluation, exploitation of opportunities.

Table 1
Research matrix of entrepreneurship and structuration theory
Discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities
Structures Associated with the knowledgeable
social aspects of entrepreneurship
Signification Framing, articulating, and interpreting
entrepreneurial possibilities
Legitimation Normative beliefs concerning the
recognition of entrepreneurial possibilities
Domination Resource acquisition required in
discovery process
Evaluation of entrepreneurial opportunities
Communication and understanding
related to the evaluation of
entrepreneurial opportunities
Norms and values providing
the criteria for evaluation
of entrepreneurial opportunities
Resource acquisition required
in evaluation process
Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305
Exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities
Means of communication and understanding related
to the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities
Norms and values providing the normative context
for the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities
Resource acquisition required to actualize
entrepreneurial opportunities
297
298 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305

4.5. Legitimation structures as related to the evaluation of opportunities

When confronted with bfactsQ specified during the discovery of opportunities, the
entrepreneur draws on processes and stocks of knowledge in evaluating these
representations. The evaluation process is concerned with assessing the opportunity(ies)
that emerges from discovery. Evaluation criteria reflect the individual’s values and
norms, which again are the result of the process of structuration. Legitimation structures
are transformative relationships manifested as evaluation criteria and provide the basis
for valuing opportunities, and characteristics thereof, and for choosing among them.
Thus, it follows that legitimation structures would be called upon in evaluating
entrepreneurial opportunities. We hold that the process of entrepreneurial evaluation is
the application of evaluating protocols, routines, and relationships by knowledgeable,
reflexive actors.
Prior research suggests that the following are considered in the evaluation process: risk
(Kihlstrom and Laffont, 1979), expected demand (Schmookler, 1966), industry profits
(Dean et al., 1998), technology cycles (Utterback, 1994), competition density (Hannan and
Freeman, 1984), and the availability of population learning (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994).
These criteria are properties of legitimation structures. Such criteria are produced and
reproduced as part of the process of evaluation and structuration. Just as opportunities are
not external, singular phenomenon, these constructs do not exist as singular and external
from the actor. For example, expected demand does not exist objectively and singularly
but becomes real to agents as they interact within a common context. We propose:
Proposition 6. Legitimation structures will be more salient than the other structural types
during the evaluation of entrepreneurial opportunities.
A structuration view of entrepreneurship is distinct from Shane and Venkataraman’s
(2000), and other authors, in that they propose that opportunities be evaluated externally in
order to reach a decision regarding whether or not to initiate a venture. Shane and
Venkatraman emphasize both characteristics of the opportunity (such as profitability and
cost of capital), and characteristics of the individual (such as financial resources, social
ties, and entrepreneurial experience) in the evaluation process. This depiction of the
evaluation process is based on the following assumptions. First, while not explicitly stated,
it is implied that evaluation is conducted at a single point in time, that is, when a decision
regarding exploitation is made. Second, it does not recognize the ability of the
entrepreneur to constructively influence the social and economic system. Finally, and
perhaps most importantly, it does not recognize the ability of socio-economic systems to
influence the entrepreneur’s evaluation process.
In contrast, structuration theory addresses these issues in that it portrays the evaluation
process as a recursive interaction through time between an influential agent and the
embedded social and economic system. This implies that evaluation is a process that
begins early in opportunity conceptualization and continues through the founding and
even growth of the venture. Moreover, structuration theory emphasizes the influence that
the entrepreneur may have upon the social and economic system in the development of an
entrepreneurial venture. This suggests that extant social and economic structures provide
the basis for the evaluation and generation of the evaluative criteria.
 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305 299

Acknowledging legitimation structures recognizes that evaluation is not solely an

objective cost/benefit analysis but is carried out by applying actor specific evaluation
criteria. As was the case for discovery, evaluation is seen as an iterative process taking
place over time and space through the ongoing construction and reconstruction (duality of
structure) of social structures. That is to say, the agent constantly reflects upon the
interpretation of the social system and changes social structures in the process.

4.6. Domination structures as related to the exploitation of opportunities

The exploitation of opportunities is concerned with acquiring and employing resources.

Domination structures are transformative relationships that facilitate goal attainment.
Venkataraman (1997) postulates that resource acquisition and utilization, both material and
human, represent the dominant activity in the exploitation phase. Generally, the
entrepreneur must acquire the resources necessary to actualize the products, markets,
and other value chain infrastructure components (Starr and MacMillan, 1990; Van de Ven,
1993) within the context of industry dynamics and barriers to entry (Dean and Meyer,
1996). Domination structures are the transformative relationships manifested as control
over resources. We propose:
Proposition 7. Domination structures will be more salient than the other structural
relationships during exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities.
The instantiation of domination structures represents the third and most visible aspect in
the entrepreneurial process. Here the essence of the entrepreneur’s task is to acquire and
transform authoritative resources (human) to allocative resources (nonhuman). At this
stage, entrepreneurial activity is less about the discovery and evaluation of opportunities
and more about controlling resources through legitimation structures and signification
structures. The focus is on this iterative and reflexive transformation of resources, not only
on the entrepreneur or only on the nature of the opportunity. More specifically, the focus
should not be the characteristics of an entrepreneur that can marshal resources independent
of context, nor should it be on the nature of industry effects, independent of the
entrepreneur’s ability to transform resources.

5. Contributions of a structuration perspective to entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship viewed through a structuration lens presents the entrepreneurial

venture as the instantiated outcome of the entrepreneur–opportunity interaction through
time and space. Our conceptualization builds upon Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000)
notion of entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and opportunity. We extend their
work in three general directions. First, we illustrate the applicability of a theoretical
framework, structuration theory, that is well grounded in social theory and provides a
foundation for both theoretical development and empirical investigation. Second, using
this theoretical framework, we offer a perspective that conceptualizes the nexus of
entrepreneur and opportunity as a duality rather than as a dualism. Third, the
propositions that are developed add insights regarding the nature and evolution of
300 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305

new ventures, the types of structures that are most salient at various phases of the
entrepreneurial process as articulated by Shane and Venkataraman (2000), and the
aspects that lead to a successful entrepreneurial outcome. We now focus on specific
applications of a structuration perspective and contrast them with a more traditional
portrayal of entrepreneurship.

5.1. A more reflexive and emergent ontological perspective

A structuration perspective offers a contrast to the positivist or post-positivist

ontological perspective that dominates entrepreneurial, and indeed management
research.6 The positivists assume that an apprehendable reality exists, driven by natural
laws and that the aim of research should be to identify causal explanations and
fundamental laws that explain regularities in human social behavior. The post-positivists
also assume an objective reality, but see it as imperfectly apprehendable because of
basically flawed human intellectual mechanisms. We see Shane and Venkataraman
(2000) as representing a post-positivist tradition as evidenced by the previously
referenced statement that bAlthough recognition of entrepreneurial opportunities is a
subjective process, the opportunities themselves are an objective phenomenaQ (p. 220). In
contrast, structuration theory offers a more subjective or reflexive ontological stance in
that through the process of interpretation and observation the agent has the potential of
changing what is to be observed. This process is called double hermeneutic by Giddens
(1984; 374).
An illustration may be helpful in explaining the distinction. Steve Jobs, the creator of
Apple Computer, conceptualized a computer as a btool for the desk topQ and promised to
bunleash the power of computingQ (Culver et al., 1996). It was his unique
conceptualization of a computer, and his ability to get others to believe in his vision of
a computer, that contributed to the success of the venture. Steve Job’s unique
conceptualization of the computer dwas notT until he conceptualized it and set events
into motion. Thus, within a structuration framework, our ontological assumptions lead us
to understand the relationship between entrepreneur and opportunity as socially
embedded constructs.

5.2. Entrepreneurs and social systems co-evolve versus entrepreneurs fill market gaps

Locating gaps or imperfections in the extant objective market system represents one of
the traditional views of entrepreneurial discovery (Kirzner, 1973; Leibenstein, 1979). In
contrast, the structuration theory perspective sees the social and economic system as, not
only dynamic, but also subject to change as a result of entrepreneurial action. Thus,
entrepreneurial behavior is not merely a matter of being more alert to static opportunities
but of dynamically creating opportunities and new ventures through actions based on
subjective interpretations. In short, entrepreneurs construct ventures over time, partially
through their ability to influence the social and economic system. In the 1600s, private

6
For further discussion of ontological perspectives in management research see Guba and Lincoln (1994) and
Johnson and Duberley (2000).
 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305 301

lighthouse keepers in England faced the economic problem of excluding non-payers from
the protective benefits the lighthouses provided to passing ships. In order to ensure
payment for their services prior to the construction of the lights, the lighthouse keepers
persuaded the government to allow them to institute a toll at neighboring ports (Coase,
1974). In essence, these entrepreneurs created the institutions necessary for them to profit
from their endeavors.
Furthermore, our view implies that ventures are not mere reflections of the market gaps
or imperfections existing in the social and economic system. Some sociological (Hannan
and Freeman, 1984) and economic perspectives (Arrow and Debreu, 1954; Kirzner, 1973;
Baumol, 1993) view economic actors as reactors to an extant economic system. As a
result, organizations are created to match the gaps in those systems and can be
characterized as mirror images of those gaps. The role of individual influence in our model
suggests that this is not the case. While ventures are reflections of those systems, the
reflection is altered through the processes of interpretation and influential action. Thus, an
entrepreneurial venture is a result of the combined influences of the social and economic
structure and the individual entrepreneur. For example, Wal-Mart’s success was a unique
combination of the need for small-town mass market retailing and Sam Walton’s unique
cultural influence, which together created a highly efficient organization whose
competitive advantage went far beyond that of simply filling a market gap. In short, a
structuration view of entrepreneurship moves our foundation from one of determinism
with entrepreneurs reacting as cultural dupes of extant structures, to one of strategic choice
(Child, 1972) with entrepreneurs proactively influencing social structures and creating
idiosyncratic opportunities and new ventures.

5.3. Entrepreneurial ventures as recursive processes versus designed ex ante by

entrepreneur

Our perspective also implies that ventures do not represent organizations designed ex
ante by the entrepreneur to exploit objective opportunities. Rather, ventures co-evolve
within the nexus of interaction between the entrepreneur and the social and economic
system over time. This evolutionary dynamic may be characterized by the recursive
processes of interpretation, action, consequence, and reflection. Thus, an entrepreneur’s
initial conception of an entrepreneurial venture is likely to change over time. More
generally, the instantiated venture will be unique at any point in time as both the venture
itself, and the entrepreneur’s conception thereof, changes. Entrepreneurs tend to start with
an idea, but alter that idea through a process of experimentation in which they test the
system (through techniques such as market research, supplier negotiation, and
consultation), as well as attempt to influence it (through techniques such as advertising,
lobbying, and collusion). The extent of evolution may be minor, as in the case of
Amazon.com wherein Jeff Bezos’ strategy evolved from the exclusive use of book
distributors to the maintenance of inventory of consumer products. Or it may be major, as
in the case of Microsoft that evolved from a contract supplier of IBM operating systems to
a dominant independent retailer of both general system and application software. Our view
is supported by empirical research that has documented the strategic evolution of
entrepreneurial ventures over time (Lichtenstein and Brush, 2001) and suggests that
302 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305

snapshots of entrepreneurial strategies may mislead investigators as to the causes of

venture outcomes (Bamford et al., 2004).

5.4. Entrepreneurial success is continually influencing social systems versus correctly

filling an opportunity gap

Prescriptively, the structuration perspective implies that a venture’s success goes

beyond proper co-alignment with the external environment. Many extant perspectives
view venture success as strategic or organizational fit (Covin and Slevin, 1990;
Donaldson, 1987). We suggest that these factors are all important, but in addition, we
emphasize the role the entrepreneur plays in helping to create the opportunity. Thus, our
perspective, while recognizing deterministic bfitQ elements in the success of new ventures,
leaves a substantial role for the operation of strategic choice, and even further, strategically
motivated systemic influence. Success is at least partially based on the extent to which the
entrepreneur is able to manipulate or influence the socio-economic system to his/her
advantage. However, we would not go so far as to claim that venture failure is due to the
inability to manipulate the socio-economic system. A venture failure may be the
unanticipated consequences from actions of multiple agents interfacing with each other
in this instantiated world. Certainly, we acknowledge that one entrepreneur’s failure
maybe another entrepreneur’s success. More specifically, we are trying to capture and
reflect a more complete representation of entrepreneurship, not just one individual’s
performance. Following Schumpeter, the venture’s success will be critically dependent
upon the efficacy of the entrepreneur in developing new sources of supply, continually
evolving the organization, and creating new organizational forms. Furthermore, the types
of structures discussed earlier lend insight into the means by which entrepreneurs may
influence (construct and reconstruct) the social and economic system.

5.5. Empirical investigations: subjective epistemology versus objective epistemology

A structuration view of new ventures supports the use of both longitudinal and
qualitative research methods, which allow a focus on evolutionary dynamics and process
variables. The methodology used to empirically investigate questions from an
epistemologically subjective perspective usually comes from the qualitative tradition
(Guba and Lincoln, 1994). This tradition seeks to understand more than explain, as it
answers questions of dwhatT, dwhyT, and dhowT in contrast to an objective epistemology
that focuses on questions of dhow muchT or dhow manyT. Thus, the focus is not on
falsifiable hypotheses, but on the development of propositions that are dependable,
credible, and transferable. More specifically, these investigations would often include a
triangulation of data collection in natural settings, not on large data samples. This could be
done with a range of qualitative tools, such as single or multiple case studies, semi-
structured interviews, participant observation, or historical research. The focus on
signification structures by the entrepreneur in the discovery of opportunities, the focus
on legitimation structures in the evaluation of opportunities, and the focus on domination
structures in the exploitation of opportunities provide a theoretical foundation for
subsequent work.
 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305 303

6. Concluding comments

Rather than searching for entrepreneurs and/or opportunities as individual phenome-

non, we concur with Shane and Venkataraman (2000) in that the true key to understanding
entrepreneurship is to examine the nexus of the two. However, before we can fully
comprehend the nature of this nexus, it is necessary to employ a theoretical lens that (1)
accounts for both individual and structural elements, and (2) applies a comprehensive
conceptualization of the nature of the nexus. As such, structuration theory provides a
conceptual foundation useful in the study of entrepreneurship. Treating the entrepreneur
and the entrepreneurial opportunity as a duality enriches entrepreneurial theory and
provides insights into the nature of the phenomenon and the research methodologies that
might be most appropriate for illuminating its character.
Through structuration theory, we begin to discover how entrepreneurs interpret and
influence their world to accomplish their purposes. Thus, structuration theory suggests the
manner in which social systems both constrain and enable entrepreneurs in the processes
of discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities. In these pursuits, it appears
more fruitful to focus on the recursive nature of entrepreneur–opportunity relationships
through time and space, as longitudinal perspectives will reveal the complex dynamics of
mutual interdependence between agent and structure. Entrepreneurial opportunities do not
exist independently of the entrepreneur and attempts to describe them as such omit part of
their nature. Equally, entrepreneurs do not exist separate from their structural context and
attempts to understand them outside of this context will not fully capture their nature. If we
desire to most productively examine the nexus of entrepreneur and opportunity, we need a
theoretical perspective that views entrepreneur and opportunity as a recursive dualistic
process, not as separate and distinct domains. Structuration theory provides an established
framework, grounded in social theory, for describing, and explaining, this process. Used to
extend and enrich Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000) conceptualizations, structuration
theory constructs provide guidance for future theoretical development and empirical
research.

References

Aldrich, H.E., Fiol, C.M., 1994. Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of
Management Review 19, 645 – 670.
Aldrich, H., Wiedenmayer, G., 1993. From traits to rates: an ecological perspective on organizational foundings.
Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth 1, 145 – 195.
Arrow, K.J., Debreu, G., 1954. Existence of equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica 22, 265 – 290.
Bamford, C.E., Dean, T.J., Douglas, T.J., 2004. The temporal nature of growth determinants in new bank
foundings: implications for new venture research design. Journal of Business Venturing 19 (6), 899 – 919.
Barley, S., 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observation of CT scanners and the
social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31, 78 – 108.
Barley, S., Tolbert, P., 1997. Institutionalization and structuration: studying the links between action and
institution. Organization Studies 18, 93 – 117.
Bateson, G., 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Baumol, W.J., 1993. Formal entrepreneurship theory in economics: existence and bounds. Journal of Business
Venturing 8, 197 – 210.
304 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305

Begley, T., Boyd, D., 1987. Psychological characteristics associated with performance in entrepreneurial firms
and smaller businesses. Journal of Business Venturing 2, 79 – 93.
Bryant, C., Jary, D. (Eds.), 2001. The Contemporary Giddens: Social Theory in a Globalizing Age. Palgrave, New
York, NY.
Child, J., 1972. Organizational structure, environment and growth: the role of resource and decision choice.
Sociology 6, 2 – 22.
Clark, H., 1990. Anthony Giddens, sociology and modern social theory. In: Clark, J., Modgil, C., Modgil, S.
(Eds.), Anthony Giddens: Consensus and Controversy. The Falmer Press, Bristol, PA.
Clark, J., Modgil, C., Modgil, S. (Eds.), 1990. Anthony Giddens: Consensus and Controversy. The Falmer Press,
Bristol, PA.
Coase, R.H., 1974. The lighthouse in economics. Journal of Law and Economics 17, 357 – 376.
Covin, J.G., Slevin, D.P., 1990. New venture strategic posture, structure and performance: an industry life cycle
analysis. Journal of Business Venturing 5, 123 – 135.
Culver, J., Schipper, T., Wylie, J., 1996. Apple computer. In: Hitt, M., Ireland, D., Hoskisson, R.E. (Eds.),
Strategic Management: Competitiveness and Globalization. West Publishing, St. Paul, MN.
Dean, T.J., Meyer, G.D., 1996. Industry environments and new venture formations in U.S. Manufacturing: a
conceptual and empirical analysis of demand determinants. Journal of Business Venturing 11, 107 – 132.
Dean, T.J., Brown, R.L., Bamford, C.E., 1998. Differences in large and small firm responses to environmental
context: strategic implications from comparative analysis of business formations. Strategic Management
Journal 19, 709 – 728.
DeSanctis, G., Poole, M., 1994. Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration
theory. Organization Science 5, 121 – 147.
Dillard, J., Yuthas, K., 2000. Ethical audit decisions: a structuration perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 36
(1–2), 49 – 64.
DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron case revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality
in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48, 147 – 160.
Donaldson, L., 1987. Strategy and structural adjustment to regain fit and performance: in defense of contingency
theory. Journal of Management Studies 24, 1 – 24.
Emirbayer, M., Mische, A., 1998. What is agency? American Journal of Sociology 103, 962 – 1023.
Forbes, D.P., 1999. Cognitive approaches to new venture creation. International Journal of Management Reviews
1 (4), 415 – 439.
Gartner, W., 1985. A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of
Management Review 4, 696 – 706.
Giddens, A., 1976. New Rules of Sociological Method. Hutchinson, London.
Giddens, A., 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradictions in Social Analysis.
Macmillan, London.
Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Giddens, A., 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity. Polity, Cambridge.
Guba, E., Lincoln, Y., 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.),
Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hannan, M., Freeman, J., 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review 49,
149 – 164.
Hatch, M., 1997. Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic And Postmodern Perspective. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, England.
Hayek, F., 1945. The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review 35 (4), 519 – 530.
Huff, A.S., Huff, J.O., Stimpert, L., 2000. The structuration of industries. In: Huff, Anne S., Huff, James O.
(Eds.), Strategic Dynamics: A Cognitively Anchored Theory of the Firm. Oxford University Press, New
York.
Johnson, P., Duberley, J., 2000. Understanding Management Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kihlstrom, R., Laffont, J., 1979. A general equilibrium entrepreneurial theory of firm formation based on risk
aversion. Journal of Political Economy 87 (4), 719 – 748.
Kirzner, I., 1973. Competition and Entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
 Y. Sarason et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2006) 286–305 305

Leibenstein, H., 1979. The general X-inefficiency paradigm and the role of the entrepreneur. In: Rizzo, M.J. (Ed.),
Time, Uncertainty, and Disequilibrium. D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA.
Lichtenstein, B.M., Brush, C.G., 2001. How do bresource bundlesQ develop and change in new ventures? A
dynamic model and longitudinal exploration. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 25 (3), 37 – 58.
McClelland, D., 1965. The Achieving Society. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.
Orlikowski, W., 1992. The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations.
Organization Science 3, 398 – 427.
Orlikowski, W., 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in
organizations. Organization Science 11, 404 – 428.
Orlikowski, W., 2002. Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing.
Organization Science 13, 249 – 273.
Ranson, S., Hinings, R., Greenwood, G., 1980. The structuring of organizational structures. Administrative
Science Quarterly 28, 314 – 337.
Riley, P., 1983. A structurationist account of political culture. Administrative Science Quarterly 28, 414 – 437.
Schmookler, J., 1966. Invention and Economic Growth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Schultz, T.W., 1975. The value of the ability to deal with disequilibrium. Journal of Economic Literature 13 (2),
827 – 846.
Schumpeter, J., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Shane, S., 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science 11,
448 – 469.
Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of
Management Review 25, 217 – 226.
Shaver, K.G., Scott, L.R., 1991. Person, process, and choice: the psychology of new venture creation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23 – 42 (Winter).
Starr, J., MacMillan, I., 1990. Resource cooperation via social contracting: resource acquisition strategies for new
ventures. Strategic Management Journal 11, 79 – 92.
Turner, J., 1991. The Structure of Sociological Theory, 5th ed. Waltham Press, Belmont, CA.
Utterback, J., 1994. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
Van de Ven, A., 1993. The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing
8, 211 – 230.
Venkataraman, S., 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: an editor’s perspective. In: Katz, J.,
Brockhaus, R. (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm, Emergence, and Growth. JAI Press, Greenwich,
CT.
Wilson, D., Huff, J.O. (Eds.), 1994. Marginalized Places and Populations: A Structurationist Agenda. Praeger,
Westport, CT.

View publication stats