research focuses on entrepreneurial thinking, processes, and practice. 研究聚焦于创业思维、创业过程和创业实践。

ENTREPRENEURS AS SCIENTISTS: A PRAGMATIST ALTERNATIVE TO THE CREATION-DISCOVERY DEBATE

企业家作为科学家：对“创造-发现”之争的实用主义替代方案

In a thoughtful comment on our paper (Zellweger & Zenger, Forthcoming), Sergeeva, Bhardwaj, and Dimov (2022) joined us in advocating for a pragmatist perspective on entrepreneurship. The authors, however, offered two closely related critiques of our pragmatist perspective. They suggested that entrepreneurs are more than scientists seeking to understand their world, but rather are engineers, designers, and artists who act to produce value within it. They also situate our pragmatist perspective within the epistemological creation versus discovery debate, and cast us into the discovery camp where entrepreneurs merely seek to discover a future that already objectively exists in the present. In our comments below, we develop two responses. First, while we wholeheartedly agree that entrepreneurs act to create value as they solve problems, in doing so, all humans, including entrepreneurs, engineers, and artists, act as scientists. Second, while we reject the placement of our perspective in the discovery camp, we argue that our entrepreneur-asscientist perspective, and pragmatism more generally, find little use for the made versus found distinction. 在对我们论文（Zellweger & Zenger，待刊）的深思评论中，Sergeeva、Bhardwaj 和 Dimov（2022）与我们一同倡导对创业精神采取实用主义视角。然而，作者对我们的实用主义视角提出了两个密切相关的批评。他们认为，创业者不仅仅是寻求理解世界的科学家，更是工程师、设计师和艺术家，他们的行动是为了在世界中创造价值。他们还将我们的实用主义视角置于认识论的“创造”与“发现”之争中，并将我们归入“发现”阵营，认为创业者只是试图发现一个在当下已客观存在的未来。在以下评论中，我们提出两点回应。首先，尽管我们完全同意创业者在解决问题时会创造价值，但在此过程中，所有人类（包括创业者、工程师和艺术家）都在扮演科学家的角色。其次，尽管我们反对将我们的视角归入“发现”阵营，但我们认为，我们的“创业者-科学家”视角以及更广泛意义上的实用主义，对“制造”与“发现”的区分几乎没有用处。

ENTREPRENEURS AS(PRAGMATIST) SCIENTISTS

企业家作为（实用主义者）科学家

First, we wholeheartedly agree with Sergeeva et al. (2022) that entrepreneurs are more than scientists who only seek to understand their world, but rather are individuals who act within it to create value through new products or services (Casson, 1982; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). In Zellweger and Zenger (Forthcoming) we highlighted a broad scope of actions through which entrepreneurs seek to produce value under uncertainty. Entrepreneurs find and frame problems that surround them. They compose theories to solve them. They test assumptions related to these theories. They compose preliminary solutions and evaluate feedback. Overal, they explore fit and the usefulness of their beliefs in guiding these actions (Bremner & Eisenhardt, 2022). Given our heavy focus on action throughout our paper, we must assume that the real objection here is to our analogy and characterization of entrepreneurs as scientists—individuals who seek to understand problems and create solutions in a science-like manner. 首先，我们完全同意Sergeeva等人（2022）的观点，即企业家不仅仅是试图理解世界的科学家，而是通过新产品或服务创造价值的行动者（Casson，1982；Shane & Venkataraman，2000）。在Zellweger和Zenger（待发表）中，我们强调了企业家在不确定性下寻求创造价值的广泛行动范围。企业家发现并界定他们周围的问题，构建理论来解决这些问题，检验与这些理论相关的假设，提出初步解决方案并评估反馈。总体而言，他们探索自身信念在指导这些行动中的适用性和有用性（Bremner & Eisenhardt，2022）。鉴于我们在整篇论文中都高度关注行动，我们必须假设这里的真正反对意见是针对我们将企业家类比为科学家——即像科学研究那样寻求理解问题并创造解决方案的个体。

In Sergeeva et al.’s (2022) framing, scientists only learn, while engineers and designers do and act. Therefore, by associativelogic, because entrepreneurs act, they cannot be scientists, or at least not solely scientists. Yet, for us and for pragmatism, the label “scientist” is not a role but an approach—a set of both cognitive and physical actions focused on solving the problems at hand. Our paper’s original working title was actually “Entrepreneurs as pragmatist scientists,” adding the modifier “pragmatism” to ensure readers did not view our entrepreneur-as-scientist analogy as suggesting that entrepreneurs are only ivory-tower scientists seeking to understand the world. A reviewer, however, correctly noted that the word “pragmatism” here was redundant, as scientists are pragmatists who use the scientific method to act and problem-solve. In fact, for pragmatists all humans behave as scientists as they seek to address the problems that surround them. All humans frame problems, compose theories, test hypotheses, recalibrate those hypotheses, and ultimately generate refined beliefs that are useful in guiding action (Dewey, 1938). Even infants and young children act as scientists as they seek to solve problems in their world (Gopnik & Meltzoff, 1997; Gopnik, Meltzoff, & Kuhl, 1999). Thus, not only are entrepreneurs scientists, but engineers and designers are scientists as well. They are pragmatist scientists, who adopt a quasi-scientific process to produce value under uncertainty. In fact, it is precisely in settings of uncertainty—in settings of “unknown unknowns”—that a scientific approach is of particular value. Here, both entrepreneurs and scientists select problems with unknown solutions, advance conjectures or theories about how to compose them, and then seek evidence that tests what they form. Consistent with pragmatist thinking, we simply reject any real distinction between the average individual, the entrepreneur, or the scientist in their mode of scientific inquiry and problem-solving. In fact, for pragmatists, even real scientists “are better thought ofas solving puzzles than as gradually disclosing thetruenatureof things” (Rorty, 2007b: 77). Consequently, any difference between “real scientists” and any other category of individual lies solely “in the problems with which they are directly concerned, not in their respective logics” (Dewey, 1938: 81). 在Sergeeva等人（2022）的框架中，科学家仅进行学习，而工程师和设计师则既实践又行动。因此，根据关联逻辑，由于企业家会行动，他们就不可能是科学家，或者至少不能仅仅是科学家。然而，对我们而言，从实用主义的角度来看，“科学家”这一标签并非一种角色，而是一种方法——一套既包含认知行为又包含物理行动的集合，其核心是解决当前面临的问题。我们论文最初的工作标题实际上是“作为实用主义科学家的企业家”，添加“实用主义”这一修饰词是为了确保读者不会将我们提出的“企业家即科学家”的类比误解为暗示企业家只是象牙塔中的科学家，仅仅致力于理解世界。然而，一位审稿人正确指出，此处的“实用主义”一词是多余的，因为科学家本身就是实用主义者，他们运用科学方法进行行动和解决问题。事实上，对实用主义者而言，所有人类在寻求解决周围问题时都表现得像科学家。所有人都会构建问题框架、形成理论、检验假设、重新校准这些假设，并最终生成有助于指导行动的完善信念（杜威，1938）。甚至婴儿和幼儿在试图解决他们世界中的问题时也表现得像科学家（戈普尼克与梅尔佐夫，1997；戈普尼克、梅尔佐夫与库尔，1999）。因此，不仅企业家是科学家，工程师和设计师也是科学家。他们是实用主义科学家，在不确定性条件下采用准科学的过程创造价值。事实上，正是在不确定性的环境中——在“未知的未知”情境中——科学方法才具有特殊价值。在这里，企业家和科学家都会选择解决方法未知的问题，提出关于如何解决这些问题的猜想或理论，然后寻求证据来检验他们的构想。与实用主义思想一致，我们完全不承认普通个体、企业家或科学家在科学探究和解决问题的方式上存在本质区别。事实上，对实用主义者而言，即使是真正的科学家“也更应被视为在解谜，而非逐步揭示事物的真实本质”（罗蒂，2007b：77）。因此，“真正的科学家”与其他任何个体类别之间的差异仅在于他们直接关注的问题，而非各自的逻辑（杜威，1938：81）。

DISCOVERY, CREATION, AND THE PRAGMATIST ALTERNATIVE

发现、创造与实用主义的替代方案

The second and primary critique advanced by Sergeeva et al. (2022) is that we are discovery theorists— that our pragmatist perspective focuses on “learning anchored on a determinative future” (p. 692)—one where “future opportunities” (p. 693) already exist and await discovery as “determinate objects against which to calibrate fit” (p. 693). The authors contrasted our discovery logic with their alternative perspective in which the future is not only “unknown, but unknowable,” and where the future “emerges as a result of actions” (p. 694). Sergeeva等人（2022）提出的第二个也是主要的批评是，我们是发现理论家——即我们的实用主义视角关注“锚定在决定性未来上的学习”（第692页）——在这一视角中，“未来机会”（第693页）已经存在，等待被发现，作为“用来校准适配度的确定性对象”（第693页）。作者将我们的发现逻辑与他们的替代视角进行了对比，在他们的视角中，未来不仅“未知，而且不可知”，并且未来“是行动的结果”（第694页）。

First, given our heavy focus on action, beliefs, and theories; our emphasis on uncertainty, including the uncertainty about how to interpret feedback because it is theory-laden; and our primary focus on testing beliefs and not objects, we find it hard to reconcile the accusation that our narrative falls solely in the discovery camp. Rather, our entrepreneurs focus on a provisional theory about what they believe will work—a theory that will be labeled success or failure, or valuable or worthless, based on how effectively it solves a problem or enables the entrepreneur to address an unserved need in the market. The ultimate test for the productiveness of the theory is whether it results in a product that is accepted by consumers—a product with high market fit, which is a necessary condition for the product to create value in the long run (Gimmon & Levie, 2021). Thus, and just like scientists, our entrepreneurs are not immediately jumping to test an object’s fit, but rather are beginning with a problem, developing a theory to solve it, and then proceeding with actions that they hope will culminate in a solution that fits the market. Thus, contrary to Sergeeva et al.’s (2022) contention, our claim is not that future solutions exist in the present, but rather that problems exist in the present, and that by following a scientific process of creative problem-framing, theorycomposition, testing, feedback, and updating, entrepreneurs compose solutions that enable novel products in the future. 首先，鉴于我们高度关注行动、信念和理论；我们强调不确定性，包括由于反馈带有理论色彩而导致的对如何解读反馈的不确定性；并且我们主要关注检验信念而非检验对象，我们发现很难认同这样的指责，即我们的叙事完全属于发现阵营。相反，我们的创业者专注于一个关于他们认为会奏效的临时理论——这个理论将根据它解决问题的效果或能否使创业者满足市场中未被满足的需求，被贴上成功或失败、有价值或无价值的标签。检验理论是否具有生产力的最终标准是，它是否能产出被消费者接受的产品——一种具有高度市场契合度的产品，这是产品长期创造价值的必要条件（Gimmon & Levie, 2021）。因此，就像科学家一样，我们的创业者不会立即着手检验某个对象的契合度，而是从一个问题开始，构建一个解决该问题的理论，然后采取行动，希望这些行动最终能形成一个契合市场的解决方案。因此，与Sergeeva等人（2022）的观点相反，我们的主张并非未来的解决方案存在于当下，而是当下存在问题，并且通过遵循创造性问题构建、理论构成、检验、反馈和更新的科学流程，创业者能够构建出未来的新颖产品。

Werecognize, however, that claiming our paper was misread makes for rather boring dialogue in AMR. Fortunately, we have a much more provocative claim to make. Our claim is that a pragmatist perspective in entrepreneurship simply has little use for these epistemological debates. Whether the underlying market demand is discovered as the entrepreneur recognizes a problem, oris created by a novel problem framing, or is composed through a novel solution formulation, perhaps supported by a clever marketing effort, or is discovered through the feedback received, is just not relevant to a pragmatist perspective. The key is describing the entrepreneur’s quasi-scientific process rather than assigning it a label of made or found. This claim echoes the sentiments of pragmatists who have critiqued these debates in philosophy, suggesting that pragmatists have little use for ….the objective-subjective distinction" (Rorty, 2007b: 76) or the “made/found distinction” (Williams, 2009: xxviii). As Williams explained, in pragmatism individuals simply fix beliefs—that is, they “make up theories and try to live with them; if they work out well, they count as discoveries.” In this sense, Williams (2009, emphasis in original) noted: “Finding is constrained making.” In other words, pragmatists constrain their making or creating actions with a theory that targets a future solution to a problem observed in the present. If the theory works—if it proves useful in solving the problem—we call it a discovery. Of course, there may be multiple theories that could “work” if explored, and thus multiple possible futures. However, the question of whether that future is made or found is a debate that is of little interest or consequence to the pragmatist. Either way, the entrepreneurs’ actions are theory- and problem-based, as they follow a quasi-scientific process to produce value from uncertainty. 然而，我们认识到，声称我们的论文被误读在AMR（可能指自动音乐识别或其他领域缩写，需根据上下文确定）中会导致相当枯燥的讨论。幸运的是，我们有一个更具挑衅性的观点要提出。我们的观点是，创业领域中的实用主义视角对这些认识论辩论几乎没有用处。无论潜在的市场需求是在企业家识别到问题时被发现的，还是通过新颖的问题框架被创造的，或是通过新颖的解决方案制定（或许得到巧妙的营销努力支持），或是通过收到的反馈被发现的，这对实用主义视角而言都无关紧要。关键在于描述企业家的准科学过程，而非给它贴上“创造”或“发现”的标签。这一观点呼应了实用主义者对哲学中这些辩论的批评，他们认为实用主义者对“客观-主观区分”（罗蒂，2007b：76）或“创造/发现区分”（威廉姆斯，2009：xxviii）几乎没有兴趣。正如威廉姆斯所解释的，在实用主义中，个体只是固定信念——即他们“构建理论并尝试以此生活；如果理论效果良好，它们就被视为发现”。从这个意义上说，威廉姆斯（2009，原文强调）指出：“发现是受约束的创造。”换句话说，实用主义者通过一种针对当前观察到的问题的未来解决方案的理论，来约束他们的创造或构建行为。如果理论有效——如果它在解决问题中被证明有用——我们就称之为发现。当然，可能有多种理论如果被探索都可能“有效”，因此存在多种可能的未来。然而，关于那个未来是“创造”还是“发现”的问题，对实用主义者来说既无兴趣也无重要性。无论如何，企业家的行动都是基于理论和问题的，因为他们遵循准科学过程从不确定性中创造价值。

Importantly for pragmatists, to “fix” a belief does not initiate a causal, discovery-style march to a fully formed, preconceived outcome (Haack, 2009; Peirce, Cohen, & Dewey, 2017). Instead, entrepreneurs fix beliefs to get going—to establish their priors. However, these beliefs are quite provisional in nature and quite difficult to judge ex ante. Just like scientists, entrepreneurs take samples; they run experiments that inform how productive their theories are. And since much can go wrong in the process of forming, testing, and responding, the belief’s value often remains unknown even after the deployment of the three entrepreneurial actions we outline in our paper. With each step, uncertainty allows corresponding doubts to arise. To say that entrepreneurs are like scientists is thus not to say that “they get things right,” as interpreted by Sergeeva et al. (2022: 694), but rather that they behave as scientists—that they follow a scientific process and that in doing so they increase their odds of finding value. They increase the odds of solving the problems they confront and frame. 对实用主义者来说，重要的是，“修正”一个信念并不会开启一场因果性的、类似发现的、走向完全形成的、预先设想的结果的进程（Haack, 2009；Peirce, Cohen, & Dewey, 2017）。相反，企业家修正信念是为了推进行动——建立他们的先验假设。然而，这些信念本质上相当临时且难以事前判断。就像科学家一样，企业家会取样；他们进行实验，以了解自己的理论有多有效。而且，在形成、测试和回应的过程中可能会出现很多问题，因此即使在我们论文中概述的三种创业行动实施之后，信念的价值往往仍然未知。每一步，不确定性都会引发相应的疑虑。因此，说企业家像科学家，并非像Sergeeva等人（2022: 694）所解读的那样“他们总能做对”，而是说他们的行为像科学家——他们遵循科学的流程，并且通过这样做，增加了发现价值的可能性。他们增加了解决所面临和构建的问题的可能性。

They increase the odds of composing a productive belief, updating with data and feedback, and ultimately producing value. 它们增加了形成有价值信念的可能性，通过数据和反馈进行更新，并最终产生价值。

Some years ago, Richard Rorty (2007a) famously admonished his fellow philosophers to set aside epistemological questions for a more productive, pragmatic pursuit. As he articulated, “instead of asking epistemological questions about sources of knowledge, or metaphysical questions about what there is to be known, philosophers should do what Dewey tried to do: help their fellow-citizens balance the need for consensus and the need for novelty” (Rorty, 2007a: 85). Our appeal to those seeking to advance entrepreneurship is precisely parallel—to set aside epistemological questions about what is known or knowable or whether valuable production represents creation or discovery (Ramoglou & Gartner, 2022), and instead take up the pragmatist agenda of providing guidance to entrepreneurs seeking to generate novel value, while also providing guidance about how to build consensus, basic support, or resources necessary to pursue it. Our claim is that these epistemological debates are oflimited consequence in advising the entrepreneur who seeks to act pragmatically—to solve a problem by acting as a pragmatist scientist. Such individuals seek out novelty enabled by uncertainty; they seek out useful, but abnormal, beliefs. They seek to then discover whether actions derived from these abnormal or contrarian beliefs (Felin, Gambardella, & Zenger, 2021) will produce value amid uncertainty. When these beliefs, most often expressed in sentences, are “working out well,” we may assign the label opportunity (or discovered opportunity) to the achieved result—analogous to what the philosopher might label as truth. However, as Rorty (1982: 13) described with pragmatist flair, this label “truth is simply a compliment paid to sentences seen to be paying their way.” 几年前，理查德·罗蒂（Richard Rorty，2007a）曾告诫他的哲学同仁，要将认识论问题搁置一旁，转而进行更具成效的实用主义探索。正如他所阐述的：“哲学家不应追问关于知识来源的认识论问题，也不应探究关于‘有什么可被认知’的形而上学问题，而应像杜威（Dewey）试图做的那样：帮助同胞平衡共识的需求与创新的需求”（Rorty, 2007a: 85）。我们向那些寻求推动创业实践的人发出的呼吁，与此形成了精准的呼应——即搁置关于“已知或可知的事物”的认识论问题，以及关于“有价值的产出是否代表创造或发现”的认识论问题（Ramoglou & Gartner, 2022），转而践行实用主义议程：为寻求创造新颖价值的创业者提供指导，同时也为他们提供如何构建共识、基本支持或实现这一目标所需资源的指导。我们的主张是，这些认识论辩论在指导那些以实用主义方式行动的创业者时，其意义是有限的——这些创业者会像实用主义科学家那样解决问题。这类个体寻求不确定性带来的新颖性；他们探寻有用但“反常”的信念。随后，他们会尝试发现，源于这些反常或反主流信念的行动（Felin, Gambardella, & Zenger, 2021）是否能在不确定性中创造价值。当这些信念（最常以句子形式表达）“行之有效”时，我们或许会将其成果贴上“机会”（或“已发现的机会”）的标签——这与哲学家可能称之为“真理”的概念类似。然而，正如罗蒂（1982: 13）以实用主义的风格描述的那样，“真理不过是对那些‘兑现了价值’的句子的一种赞美”。

FINAL THOUGHTS

最终思考

For pragmatists of course, the real test ofany theory, including ours, is whetherthe theory works—whether it pays its way—whether the consequences of acting upon itare pragmatically useful (Rorty, 1979). Our theory of entrepreneurs as scientists is meant to be both descriptive of entrepreneurs and normative—a description ofboth how they act and how they should act. Therefore, true to pragmatism, the real test of our pragmatist theory of entrepreneurship, where entrepreneurs behave as scientists, is how entrepreneurs who read this theory as articulated by us and others (e.g., Sergeeva, Bhardwaj, & Dimov, 2021), and believe it to be true (or at least productive), act differently, and whether the outcomes that result are superior.1 Of course, part ofthe challenge in pursuing this test is creating descriptions ofthis theory that are accessible and actionable for entrepreneurs. Early efforts to provide such accessible description (Eisenmann, 2021; Felin et al., 2021) and efforts to teach entrepreneurs to act like scientists (Camuffo, Cordova, Gambardella, & Spina, 2020) pointed to a theory that is “working out well” and “paying its way.” When entrepreneurs are taught to act like scientists, the current evidence is that entrepreneurial outcomes are significantly improved (Camuffo et al., 2020). 当然，对于实用主义者而言，任何理论（包括我们的理论）的真正检验标准是该理论是否有效——是否能实现其价值——以及依据该理论采取行动的后果是否具有实用价值（罗蒂，1979）。我们将企业家视为科学家的理论，既旨在描述企业家的行为，也具有规范性——既描述他们实际如何行动，也说明他们应该如何行动。因此，遵循实用主义的原则，我们关于企业家行为如同科学家的实用主义创业理论的真正检验，在于那些阅读了我们及他人（例如，谢尔盖娃、巴拉德瓦吉和迪莫夫，2021）阐述的该理论，并相信其为真（或至少认为其具有成效）的企业家，会如何采取不同的行动，以及由此产生的结果是否更为优越。1 当然，进行这一检验的部分挑战在于，为该理论创建对企业家而言易于理解且可操作的描述。早期提供此类易懂描述的尝试（艾森曼，2021；费林等人，2021）以及教导企业家像科学家一样行动的努力（卡穆福、科尔多瓦、甘巴德拉和斯皮纳，2020）表明，该理论“运行良好”且“实现了其价值”。现有证据表明，当企业家被教导像科学家一样行动时，创业成果会显著改善（卡穆福等人，2020）。

REFERENCES

参考文献

Bremner, R. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2022. Organizing form, experimentation, and performance: Innovation in the nascent civilian drone industry. Organization Science. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2021.1505.
Bremner, R. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2022. 组织形式、实验与绩效：新兴民用无人机行业的创新。《组织科学》。doi: 10.1287/orsc.2021.1505.

Camuffo, A., Cordova, A., Gambardella, A., & Spina, C. 2020. A scientific approach to entrepreneurial decision making: Evidence from a randomized control trial. Management Science, 66: 564586.
卡穆福（Camuffo, A.）、科尔多瓦（Cordova, A.）、甘巴德拉（Gambardella, A.）和斯皮纳（Spina, C.）。2020年。创业决策的科学方法：来自随机对照试验的证据。《管理科学》，66：564586。

Casson, M. 1982. The entrepreneur: An economic theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
卡森，M. 1982. 企业家：一种经济理论。兰厄姆，MD：罗曼与利特尔菲尔德出版社。

Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Read Books.
杜威，J. 1938. 逻辑：探究的理论。纽约，纽约州：Read Books。

Eisenmann, T. 2021. Why startups fail: A new roadmap for entrepreneurial success. New York, NY: Currency.
Eisenmann, T. 2021. 初创企业为何失败：创业成功的新路线图。纽约，纽约州：Currency出版社。

Felin, T., Gambardella, A., & Zenger, T. 2021. Value lab: The science of entrepreneurial strategy. Management & Business Review, 1: 6876.
Felin, T., Gambardella, A., & Zenger, T. 2021. Value lab: The science of entrepreneurial strategy. Management & Business Review, 1: 6876.

Gimmon, E., & Levie, J. 2021. Early indicators of very long-term venture performance: A 20-year panel study. Academy of Management Discoveries, 7: 203224.
Gimmon, E., & Levie, J. 2021. 长期风险投资表现的早期指标：一项为期20年的面板研究。《管理学会发现》，7：203224。

Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. 1997. Words, thoughts, and theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
戈普尼克（Gopnik, A.）和梅尔佐夫（Meltzoff, A. N.）. 1997. 词语、思想与理论. 剑桥，马萨诸塞州：麻省理工学院出版社.

Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K. 1999. The scientist in the crib: Minds, brains, and how children learn. New York, NY: William Morrow & Co.
戈普尼克，A.，梅尔佐夫，A. N.，& 库尔，P. K. 1999. 婴儿中的科学家：心智、大脑与儿童如何学习。纽约，纽约州：威廉·莫罗公司。

Haack, S. 2009. Evidence and inquiry: A pragmatist reconstruction of epistemology. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
哈克，S. 2009. 证据与探究：认识论的实用主义重构。纽约布法罗：普罗米修斯图书公司。

Peirce, C. S., Cohen, M. R., & Dewey, J. 2017. The fixation of belief. London, U.K.: Routledge.
皮尔士，C. S.，科恩，M. R.，& 杜威，J. 2017. 信念的确定。英国伦敦：劳特利奇出版社。

Ramoglou, S., & Gartner, W. B. 2022. A historical intervention in the “opportunity wars”: Forgotten scholarship, the discovery/creation disruption, and moving forward by looking backward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. doi: 10.1177/10422587211069310.
拉莫格卢（Ramoglou, S.）和加特纳（Gartner, W. B.），2022年。对“机会战争”的历史性干预：被遗忘的学术研究、发现/创造的颠覆以及通过回顾向前迈进。《创业理论与实践》（Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice）。doi: 10.1177/10422587211069310。

Rorty, R. 1979. The unnaturalness of epistemology, Body, mind, and method. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
罗蒂，R. 1979. 认识论的非自然性，《身体、心灵与方法》。荷兰多德雷赫特：斯普林格。

Rorty, R. 1982. Consequences of pragmatism: Essays, 19721980. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
罗蒂，R. 1982. 实用主义的后果：1972-1980年论文集。明尼阿波利斯，明尼苏达州：明尼苏达大学出版社。

Rorty, R. 2007a. Grandeur, profundity, and finitude. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
罗蒂，R. 2007a. 崇高、深邃与有限性。英国剑桥：剑桥大学出版社。

Rorty, R. 2007b. Philosophy as cultural politics: Volume 4: Philosophical papers. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
罗蒂，R. 2007b. 哲学作为文化政治：第4卷：哲学论文集。英国剑桥：剑桥大学出版社。

Sergeeva, A., Bhardwaj, A., & Dimov, D. 2021. In the heat of the game: Analogical abduction in a pragmatist account of entrepreneurial reasoning. Journal of Business Venturing, 36: 106158.
谢尔盖娃（A. Sergeeva）、巴拉德瓦杰（A. Bhardwaj）和季莫夫（D. Dimov）。2021年。《比赛的热度中：实用主义视角下创业推理的类比溯因》。《创业杂志》，36: 106158。

Sergeeva, A., Bhardwaj, A., & Dimov, D. 2022. Mutable reality and unknowable future: Revealing the broader potential of pragmatism. Academy of Management Review, 47: 692696.
谢尔盖娃（A. Sergeeva）、巴拉德瓦杰（A. Bhardwaj）和季莫夫（D. Dimov）。2022年。《可变的现实与不可知的未来：揭示实用主义的更广泛潜力》。《管理学会评论》，47卷：692-696。

Shane, S. A., & Venkataraman, S. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25: 217226.
Shane, S. A., & Venkataraman, S. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25: 217226.

Williams, M. 2009. Introduction to the thirtieth-anniversary edition. In, Philosophy and the mirror of nature: xiiixxx. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Williams, M. 2009. 第三十周年纪念版序言。载于《哲学与自然之镜》，第xii-xiii页。普林斯顿，新泽西州：普林斯顿大学出版社。

Zellweger, T. M., & Zenger, T. R. Forthcoming. Entrepreneurs as scientists: A pragmatist approach to producing value out of uncertainty. Academy of Management Review. doi: 10.5465/amr.2020.0503. Zellweger, T. M., & Zenger, T. R. 即将发表. 企业家作为科学家：一种从不确定性中创造价值的实用主义方法. 管理学会评论. doi: 10.5465/amr.2020.0503.

Thomas Zellweger University of St. Gallen 托马斯·策尔韦格 圣加仑大学

Todd Zenger University of Utah https://doi.org/AMR_2022.0163 Todd Zenger 犹他大学 https://doi.org/AMR_2022.0163

M M

Thomas Zellweger (thomas.zellweger@unisg.ch) is Professor of Management at the University of St. Gallen. His research focuses on the strategic management and governance of owner-managed firms, and entrepreneurship. 托马斯·策尔韦格（thomas.zellweger@unisg.ch）是圣加仑大学的管理学教授。他的研究重点是家族企业的战略管理与治理，以及创业学。

Todd Zenger (todd.zenger@utah.edu) is the N. Eldon Tanner Professor of Strategy and Strategic Leadership at the Eccles School of Business at the University of Utah. His research focuses on corporate strategy, organization design and entrepreneurship. He is incoming Editor-in-Chief at Strategy Science. Todd Zenger（todd.zenger@utah.edu）是犹他大学埃克尔斯商学院的N. Eldon Tanner战略与战略领导力教授。他的研究重点是企业战略、组织设计和创业。他即将担任《战略科学》（Strategy Science）的主编。

Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. 《管理学会评论》的版权归管理学会所有，未经版权所有者明确书面许可，其内容不得复制、发送至多个网站或发布到电子讨论组。不过，用户可打印、下载或通过电子邮件发送文章供个人使用。