子谦译文｜创业教什么：六种主流创业理论的对比研究(50)

虽然一些创业方法包含了这九个维度的大部分内容，但为了更容易被理解，它们仍然可以从进一步的阐述中获益。例如，尽管效果逻辑理论的利益相关者在互动性方面得分很高，这一事实并不一定意味着就单个创业者如何形成和利用这种互动给出了实用的指示。同样的，精益创业在持续性学习上得分很高，这也不一定意味着规范的学习机制是建立在对持续学习的理论理解之上。总而言之，创业方法强调的是一种特定的维度，但这种强调并不具有可操作性和严谨性。
In an attempt to deepen the surface-level observations for gaps, similarities, and differences shown in Table 3 and Fig. 2, two key themes will now be explored. The first describes two approaches to bridge the rigor–relevance gap in entrepreneurship. The second highlights three different venture phases, with implications for which methods are appropriate to follow during each phase.
为了加深对表3和图2所示的差距、相似点和差异的表层观察，这里将探讨两个关键主题。第一个主题描述了缩小创业当中严密性-相关性差距的两种方法，第二个主题重点介绍了三个不同的创业阶段，以及在每个阶段中应遵循的方法。
5.2Bridging the rigor–relevance gap: two new ways
缩小严格性-相关性差距的两种新方法
A key difference between the entrepreneurial methods compared here is their origins: some are scholarly grounded and others are practitioner-grounded. This was a purposeful sampling strategy, and the comparison conducted here sheds a new light on this key difference on a deeper level. Table 1 revealed that effectuation, discovery-driven planning, and prescriptive entrepreneurship are lacking on the level of tactics, especially when compared to practitioner-grounded entrepreneurial methods that offer rather large toolkits for managing different aspects of the venture creation process. Previous research indicates that, in order to trigger actions, detailed instructions and prescriptions for behavior must be given (Fishbein and Ajzen 2010). If behavioral tactics are what make entrepreneurial methods actionable and in turn relevant to practitioners (Romme 2003), Table 1 can explain why practitioner grounded entrepreneurial methods are so widespread, as evidenced by Blank (2013) and Christiansen (2009). This also lends credence to previous claims that scholarly grounded methods are difficult for practitioners to understand (Romme 2016). In the same vein, Fisher (2012,p.1044) notes hatitis “really difficult for a wide audience to understand and interpret what is meant by effectuation.” This comparison has illuminated, in a novel way, reasons why many scholarly grounded entrepreneurial methods are perceived by many as lacking practical relevance.