Girişimcilik Alanında Yazılan Akademik Makalelerin Kategorik Olarak Değerlendirilmesi: Girişimciliğin Türkiye’deki Akademik Örüntüsü

Year 2019, Volume: 8 Issue: 15, 367 - 385, 01.01.2019

Ayşe Gözde Gözüm

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı; Türkiye’de “girişimcilik” konusunda hazırlanan makalelerden hareketle girişimcilik alanının nasıl bir örüntü içerisinde geliştiğini ortaya koymak ve sonucu tartışmaktır. Bu kapsamda TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM- Ulusal veri tabanına kayıtlı, “girişimcilik” konulu, anahtar kelime ve başlıklı toplamda yüz on dokuz makale görüntülenmiş, yüz altı makaleye ulaşılabilmiştir. Sistematik literatür taraması yöntemi kullanılan çalışmada, ulaşılan makaleler içerik analizine tabi tutulmuştur. Elde edilen veriler ışığında, söz konusu süje üzerine yapılan çalışmaların, özellikle son iki yıl içerisinde dikkat çekici bir artışa geçtiği, çalışmaların hazırlanan üniversitelere göre dağılımında en çok Atatürk ve İstanbul Üniversitelerinin katkıda bulunduğu, diğer alanlara kıyasla en çok çalışmanın İşletme bilim dalı kapsamında yapıldığı, alt başlık olarak girişimcilik eğiliminin en çok tercih edildiği, yöntem olarak uygulamalı ve nicel metodun daha çok tercih edildiği, nicel yöntemler içerisinde en çok anket yönteminin, ayrıca basit rastgele örnekleme yönteminin ve analiz çeşitlerinden en çok faktör analizinin kullanıldığı, birincil verilerin tercih edilerek pilot uygulamaya pek yer verilmediği belirlenmiştir. Çalışmanın son kısmında, girişimcilik konusunun akademik örüntüsü yorumlanarak gelecek çalışmalarda neler yapılabileceği tartışılmıştır

Keywords

Girişimcilik, Literatür taraması, İçerik Analizi, Akademik Makale, Kategorik

A CATEGORICAL REVIEW OF ACADEMIC PAPERS ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP: ACADEMIC PATTERN OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN TURKEY

Abstract

The main aim of this study is to find out the entrepreneurship literature pattern in Turkey and to discuss it. Within this scope the academic articles with entrepreneurship subject, keyword and title were searched by Turkish Academic Network and Information Centre-Tubitak, and a hundred and six papers were reached. The papers were subjected to systematic literature review and content analysis. The results obtained show that the number of studies increased dramatically within two years, Ataturk University and Istanbul University have the most contribution to the field, papers written within business administration discipline is more than other disciplines, entrepreneurship tendency seems the most preferred sub subject, applied and quantitative methods, questionnaire method and simple randomsampling, factor analysis, and primary data were used more than their alternatives. Besides, pre-test was barely used. After a brief evaluation of the results, suggestions for future researches are proposed at the end of this study

Keywords

Entrepreneurship, Literature Review, Content Analysis, Academic Paper, Categorical

References

• Ardichvilia ,A., Cardozob ,R., & Rayc, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (2003) 105 – 123.
• Audretsch, D. B. (2003). Entrepreneurship, A survey of the Literature Enterprise. Enterprise Directorate-General European Commission, No 14.
• Austin, J., Stevenson, H., Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship theory and Practice, Vol 30 (1), p.1-22.
• Bakırtaş, H., Tekinşen, A., (2006). E-Ticaretin girişimcilik üzerindeki etkileri, Selçuk Üniv SBE Dergisi, 16, 125-138.
• Biolchini, J., Mian, P.G., Natali, A.C.C., & Travassos, G.H., (2005). Systematic review in software engineering. System engineering and computer science department COPPE/UFRJ. Technical Report, ES 679 (05), 45.
• Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B.A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., & Khalil, M., (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software, 80 (4), 571-583.
• Busenitz, L. W., West, G. P., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., & Zacharakis, E. (2003). Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions. Journal of Management, 29(3), 285–308.
• Carree M, Thurik R. (2006). Understanding the role of entrepreneurship for economic growth. Entrepreneurship Economic Growth, 134(2), 68-79.
• Chandler, G. N., & Lyon, D. W. (2001). Issues of research design and construct measurement in entrepreneurship research: The Past Decade. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 101–113.
• Crook, A., Burgess, G., Dunning, R., Ferrari, E., Henneberry, J., Lyall Grant, F., Monk S, Rowley, S., Watkins, C.and Whitehead, C. (2010). The incidence, value and delivery of planning obligations in England in 2007-08, London: Department of Communities and Local Government.
• Çögürcü, İ, (2016). İktisadi doktrinlerde geçmişten günümüze girişimciliğin önemi. Selçuk Üniversitesi, SBE Dergisi, 35; 65-80.
• Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., (2009). Producing a Systematic Review. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, CA
• Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for further research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 225–247.
• Güney, S., (2008). Girişimcilik-Temel Kavramlar ve Bazı Güncel Konular, Siyasal Kitabevi, Ankara.
• Ardichvilia ,A., Cardozob ,R., & Rayc, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (2003) 105 – 123.
• Audretsch, D. B. (2003). Entrepreneurship, A survey of the Literature Enterprise. Enterprise Directorate-General European Commission, No 14.
• Austin, J., Stevenson, H., Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship theory and Practice, Vol 30 (1), p.1-22.
• Bakırtaş, H., Tekinşen, A., (2006). E-Ticaretin girişimcilik üzerindeki etkileri, Selçuk Üniv SBE Dergisi, 16, 125-138.
• Biolchini, J., Mian, P.G., Natali, A.C.C., & Travassos, G.H., (2005). Systematic review in software engineering. System engineering and computer science department COPPE/UFRJ. Technical Report, ES 679 (05), 45.
• Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B.A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., & Khalil, M., (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software, 80 (4), 571-583.
• Busenitz, L. W., West, G. P., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., & Zacharakis, E. (2003). Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions. Journal of Management, 29(3), 285–308.
• Carree M, Thurik R. (2006). Understanding the role of entrepreneurship for economic growth. Entrepreneurship Economic Growth, 134(2), 68-79.
• Chandler, G. N., & Lyon, D. W. (2001). Issues of research design and construct measurement in entrepreneurship research: The Past Decade. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 101–113.
• Crook, A., Burgess, G., Dunning, R., Ferrari, E., Henneberry, J., Lyall Grant, F., Monk S, Rowley, S., Watkins, C.and Whitehead, C. (2010). The incidence, value and delivery of planning obligations in England in 2007-08, London: Department of Communities and Local Government.
• Çögürcü, İ, (2016). İktisadi doktrinlerde geçmişten günümüze girişimciliğin önemi. Selçuk Üniversitesi, SBE Dergisi, 35; 65-80.
• Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., (2009). Producing a Systematic Review. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, CA
• Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for further research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 225–247.
• Güney, S., (2008). Girişimcilik-Temel Kavramlar ve Bazı Güncel Konular, Siyasal Kitabevi, Ankara.
• Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. M. (1996). Discipline mergence in entrepreneurship: Accumulative fragmentalism or paradigmatic science? Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Change, 5(2), 65–83.
• Hebert, R. F., Link, A. N. (1989). In search of the meaning of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics. Vol, 1 (1), 39-49.
• J.A. Katz. (2008). Fully mature but not fully legitimate: a different perspective on the state of entrepreneurship education. J. Small Bus. Manag., 46, pp. 550-566.
• Kirzner, I (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Klein, P.G., Cook, M.L. (2005). Schultz and the Human-Capital Approach to Entrepreneurship. Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol.28 (3), 344–350.
• Kuskova VV, Podsakoff NP, Podsakoff PM. (2011). Effects of theoreticacontribution and methodological rigor, and journal quality on the impact of scale development articles in the field of entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 5, 10-36.
• Li, L. (2008). A review of entrepreneurship research published in the hospitality and tourism management journals. Tourism Management, 29, 1013–1022.
• Mars, M. M., & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2010). Academic entrepreneurship (re)defined: Significance and implications for the scholarship of higher education. Higher Education, 59(4), 441– 460.
• McGrath, R., Venkataraman, S., (1994). Present promise, future payoff? The nature of expectations in internal corporate ventures. Working paper, Sol Snider Entrepreneurial Center, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
• Murphy PJ, Liao, J, Welsch, HP (2006). A conceptual history of entrepreneurial thought, Journal of Management History, 12(1): 12-35.
• Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., et al. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multidimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35(2), 289–308.
• Nakata, C.C. (2003) Culture Theory in International Marketing: An Ontological and Pistemological Examination, Handbook of Research in International Marketing, USA: Edward Elgar Publications.
• Öğüt, Âdem, Aslan Şendoğdu ve Yılmaz, Nahit (2006). “Bilişimci Girişimci Tipolojisi Açısından Bilgi Yönetiminin İlkeleri”, Uluslararası Girişimcilik Kongresi, Kırgızistan- Türkiye Manas Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Birimler Fakültesi, Kongre Dizisi:11, No: 86, Kırgızistan-Bişkek, 25-27 Mayıs, (s. 431-436).
• Pfeilstetter, R. (2013). Entrepreneurship and regional development in Europe: A comparative, socio-anthropological case study in Germany and Spain, Slovene Anthropological Society, Anthropological notebooks 19 (1): 45–57.
• Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.
• Schultz, T.W. (1975). The Value of the Ability to Deal with Disequilibria. Journal of Economic Literature, 13 (3), 827–46.
• Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Schumpeter, J.A. (1939). Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Schumpeter, J.A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
• Sexton, D. L., R. W. Smilor (2000), Entrepreneurship. Chicago: Upstart Publishing.
• Yusof, M., & Jain, K. K. (2010). Categories of University-level entrepreneurship: A literature survey. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(1), 81-96.