Defragmenting Definitions of Entrepreneurial Opportunity*

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2007 and 2009 Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference. We would like to thank the attendees of both presentations for their helpful comments. We would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and Denis Grégoire for their helpful comments.

Abstract

We examined 19 years worth of definitions of entrepreneurial opportunity and opportunity‐related processes. We found 56 articles in six entrepreneurship‐focused publications, with a total of 49 conceptual definitions and 32 operational definitions. Among those definitions, we identified 25 distinct conceptual and 12 operational elements of opportunity plus 48 conceptual and 39 operational elements of opportunity‐related processes. We found considerable fragmentation across conceptual and operational elements. However, based on commonalities among conceptual definitions, we developed six composite conceptual definitions of opportunity and eight composite conceptual definitions of opportunity‐related processes, which we hope will help reduce the fragmentation of the entrepreneurial opportunity literature.

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2007 and 2009 Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference. We would like to thank the attendees of both presentations for their helpful comments. We would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and Denis Grégoire for their helpful comments.

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2007 and 2009 Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference. We would like to thank the attendees of both presentations for their helpful comments. We would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and Denis Grégoire for their helpful comments.

Notes

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2007 and 2009 Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference. We would like to thank the attendees of both presentations for their helpful comments. We would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and Denis Grégoire for their helpful comments.

1 The method we used to derive composite definitions is but one method of doing so. Of course, different methods could result in different composite definitions. We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out.

2 This was done in order to examine potential changes over the two periods. However, due in part to the limited number of papers in the 1990s we were unable to find any differences of note, other than an increase.

3 We thank Denis Grégoire for pointing this out.

4 Some articles appear under more than one composite definition because we found more than one definition in the paper.

5 As noted above, this does not mean they are more appropriate or “correct.”

Additional information

Notes on contributors

David J. Hansen

David J. Hansen is an assistant professor of entrepreneurship at the College of Charleston. His primary research focus examines the interface between entrepreneurial opportunity, product innovation and creativity. He is particularly interested in the conception and development of ideas into new products and businesses. He is also interested in researching in the context of sustainable entrepreneurship.

Rodney Shrader

Rodney Shrader is an associate professor of management and entrepreneurship at University of Illinois at Chicago. His research on high‐growth entrepreneurial ventures has focused primarily on internationalization, acquisitions, biotechnology, and opportunity recognition.

Javier Monllor

Javier Monllor is an assistant professor of management and entrepreneurship at DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois. His research interests include social entrepreneurship, opportunity recognition, creativity and entrepreneurial cognition.