子谦译文｜创业教什么：六种主流创业方法的比较(4)

然而由于缺乏严谨性和相关性，规范性创业因此而广受批评。实践派创业方法因缺乏理论严谨性而遭受到批评，这就导致了一些不良后果的产生，比如一些创业者过早的放弃。学术派的创业方法被认为既缺乏实践相关性，也缺乏理论严谨性；受创业的特定背景影响，这个方法的一个缺点是缺乏信任价值，因此很大程度上限制了大部分未经测试的方法的适用性；另一个经常被提及的缺点是由于缺乏有效可行的建议而缺乏实用性，比如最近关于效果逻辑的辩论。有人认为它是一个欠成熟的理论，是一个缺乏实用性的管理工具，有可能会导致创业者产生危险的行动；更令人担忧的是，它甚至可能会诱使创业者忽视竞争的风险、甚至是忽视最基本的计划的必要性。
In an attempt to further the development of the field of entrepreneurial methods, this article compares effectuation in a highly detailed manner with five other entrepreneurial methods. Similarities, differences, strengths, weaknesses, overlaps, and gaps are explored along nine key conceptual dimensions. This process helps organize the field of entrepreneurial methods in a more comprehensible way for both scholars and practitioners. Increased clarity and visibility across the range of entrepreneurial methods may serve as a source of inspiration for work to improve existing entrepreneurial methods as well as to develop new ones. Thus, this article lays a foundation for proponents of entrepreneurial methods to use in future work. Proponents of practitioner-grounded entrepreneurial methods could increase the theoretical rigor of their prescriptions by drawing on scholarly grounded entrepreneurial methods. Similarly, proponents of scholarly grounded entrepreneurial methods could use this comparison to increase their practical relevance by drawing on practitioner-grounded entrepreneurial methods. Works that build on the comparison conducted here can serve as a bridge between different prescriptive endeavors in entrepreneurship that are developed in relative isolation.