子谦译文｜创业教什么：六种主流创业理论的对比研究(51)

这里所比较的创业方法的一个关键区别是它们的起源：有些起源是基于学术性的，有些是实践性的，这是一种有目的的抽样策略，目的是在更深层次上揭示了这一关键差异。表1显示，在策略层面上，效果逻辑理论、发现驱动型计划和规范型创业方法是缺乏的，尤其是与以实践为基础的创业方法相比，这些方法为管理创业过程的不同方面提供了相当大的帮助。先前的研究表明，为了触发行为，必须给出详细的指示和行为处方。如果行为策略使创业方法具有可操作性，并反过来与从业者相关，那么表1可以解释为什么以实践基础的创业方法如此广泛，正如Blank和Christiansen所证明的那样，而这也印证了之前的说法，即以学术基础的方法很难被从业者理解。同样，Fisher指出，“对于广大观众来说，理解和解释效果逻辑理论的含义真的很难，就像帽子戏法一样。
”这种比较以一种新颖的方式说明了为什么很多人认为学术基础上的创业方法是缺乏的。

While Table 1 shows that all the entrepreneurial methods exhibit an overarching logic of some kind, the more fine-grained analysis in Table 2 reveals a number of shortcomings for practitioner-grounded entrepreneurial methods in terms of theoretical basis. Neither business planning nor design thinking provides articulated underpinnings of uncertainty management. Moreover,while the lean startup methodology discusses uncertainty to some extent, it does not engage in an ontologically or epistemologically sound discussion around what constitutes uncertainty, beyond referring to the need to eliminate it from entrepreneurial processes. Given that uncertainty is a fundamental charac teristic underlying entrepreneurship (McMullen and Shepherd 2006), its absence or weak presence in practitioner grounded entrepreneurial methods may indicate a lack of rigor. These key differences are illustrated through a polar chart in Fig. 3, which shows an evaluation of the six entrepreneurial methods in terms of core, explicit, implicit, or no focus in discussions on uncertainty management.