Strengths Section
The main strengths of the article “Strategic Entrepreneurship: Creating Value for Individuals, Organizations, and Society” by Hitt et al. (2011) could be defined as follows. First, the authors have identified the strategic entrepreneurship as the issue they intended to discuss in their article. The fact that the purpose and the main topic are clearly stated in the executive overview makes it easier for the readers to make a judgment about the content of the article and its relevance to their studies. Apart from that, a clear purpose allows the authors to organise their article more conveniently while the reader receives an opportunity of evaluating the study and its consistency. That is, the reader may follow through the sections of the article and find out if the authors managed to achieve their goals.
Second, the authors build their article on the past research. By acknowledging the initial model of strategic entrepreneurship, various definitions of strategic management and entrepreneurship provided by different authors and highlighting other recent studies, Hitt et al. (2011) maintained a high level of academic honesty in their study. Besides, the previous studies used in this article cover various periods of strategic management and entrepreneurship and could be called therefore quite extensive. The authors used the term “integration” for their literature overview section. This appears to be an accurate term since Hitt et al. (2011) do not limit themselves to reciting the information. Instead, they systematise it and build a consistent image of the notions discussed. The fact that the authors took part in previous studies on the matter allows them to cite their previous works and is a sign of their competence. It is obvious that the new article was a step forward in their investigation of the topic and, as they have pointed out, there is still room for research they plan to conduct in future.
Third, the language used in the article could be described as suitable. Admittedly, there are doubts concerning the rules of writing for scientific studies (Van Way 2007, p. 259). Still, a clear and logical line of thought fortified by the use of relevant cohesive devices is usually regarded as a plus; the article by Hitt et al. (2011) does exhibit such a feature. Apart from that, the vocabulary and sentence structures that are used in the article are fittingly academic and emotionless which is commonly appreciated in scientific writing.
Finally and most importantly, Hitt et al. (2011) presented their major conclusion on strategic entrepreneurship supported by a consistent analyses and evidence from other relevant articles. One can conclude that the authors have accomplished their objectives of building a new strategic entrepreneurship model. Moreover, Hitt et al. (2011) expressed the hope that their study would provide a base and support for further studies in strategic entrepreneurship. Taking into account the fact that this field is still evolving, it is not surprising that the results of the work have indeed been used by other scientists that investigated the same topic or related ones.
For example, Chirico et al. (2011) found the issue of resource orchestration process to be consistently researched by Hitt et al. (2011) and used their conclusions for the article “Resource orchestration in family firms: investigating how entrepreneurial orientation, generational involvement, and participative strategy affect performance”. Similarly, the work by Hitt et al. (2011) was found useful by Zur and Walega (2015) who adopted the conclusions made by the authors to suit their study named “Routines do matter: role of internal communication in firm-level entrepreneurship”. This proves that the article by Hitt et al. (2011) has contributed to the scientific research on the topic.
Weaknesses Section
While the article does possess several strengths, certain weaknesses should be dwelled upon for the sake of conducting a complete and unbiased analysis. Surprisingly, the weak points seem to either stem from or be connected to the strong features of the work. Firstly, while the purpose and the topic of the study are identified, they are not directly stated in the work, and neither are the aim, methods, and results. To pursue clarity and definiteness is an important part of the scientific research (Van Way 2007, p. 259). This is the reason for making the statements that may appear perfectly logical to the creator of an article and some of its readers. While occasionally it may seem unnecessary, to avoid confusion and to facilitate the process of reading, it is usually highly recommended to explicitly name all the major constituents of a research (Van Way 2007, p. 259).
Secondly, the structure of the article could be improved. For example, there is no separate section devoted to the methods of the work or that about its results; the discussion and conclusion are united into one section, and while it is not strictly prohibited, it does not facilitate the processes of reading and understanding. Technically, the standard structure of an article is used to express a kind of scientific politeness as it is connected to consistent and defined line of thought that is easy to follow (Van Way 2007, p. 260). At the same time, the standard sectioning of scientific works can be utilised as a tool by the authors themselves. It is used for a better understanding and more accurate evaluation of the research, and the necessity of separating the results and from the conclusion or discussion appears to be mostly caused by this function. Finally, structuring an article properly is another way of achieving the clarity and accuracy that is required for scientific writing. While the authors were free to arrange the materials of their work in any way, they could have considered the more conventional way of organising the information.
Thirdly, while the language of the article is perfectly suitable in most cases, the authors chose to break another standard feature of scientific writing. Even though the usage of personal pronouns in scientific articles is not strictly prohibited, it is considered to be “bad manners” especially by the conservative scientists (Van Way 2007, p. 259). While it is assumed that the usage of these pronouns could help to make the structure of sentences less elaborate and, therefore, more understandable and clear, it is mostly true for the phrases that contain personal opinion.
Hitt et al. (2011) generally use the pronoun “we” in positions where it could be easily substituted with impersonal constructions. Therefore, it was not strictly a necessity. Again, it should be pointed out that this particular weakness could be disregarded by less conservative researchers, and it is not a strict rule that was breached but merely a convention. Unlike the first two points, it does not complicate the process of reading and cannot cause ambiguity. In any case, it would not be regarded as a crucial mistake.
Finally, a major strength of the article, the extensive usage of former studies has a drawback. One could point out that the article relies on the previous research too heavily. While the analysis and consolidation of prior studies is a hard and useful work on its own, the article by Hitt et al. (2011) was not aimed at merely systematising the previously accumulated knowledge. For a study that is supposed to develop a new scientific model, this could be regarded as a significant disadvantage.
Reference List
Chirico, F, Sirmon, D, Sciascia, S & Mazzola, P 2011, ‘Resource orchestration in family firms: investigating how entrepreneurial orientation, generational involvement, and participative strategy affect performance’, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, vol. 5, no. 4, pp.307-326.
Hitt, M, Ireland, R, Sirmon, D & Trahms, C 2011, ‘Strategic Entrepreneurship: Creating Value for Individuals, Organizations, and Society’, Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 25, no. 2, pp.57-75.
Van Way, C W 2007, ‘On Scientific Writing’, Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 259-260.
Zur, A & Walega, A 2015, ‘Routines do matter: role of internal communication in firm-level entrepreneurship’, Baltic Journal of Management, vol. 10, no. 1, pp.119-139.