Context and interdisciplinarity in entrepreneurship research. Do you see the elephant?


entrepreneurship research
gendered innovations

How to Cite

Tegtmeier, S. (2023). Context and interdisciplinarity in entrepreneurship research. Do you see the elephant?. Piccola Impresa Small Business, (3).


Purpose. This editorial argues for putting emphasis on context and interdisciplinarity in entrepreneurship and innovation research.

Design/methodology/Approach. I propose a conceptual discussion about the topic.

Findings. Following Welter (2011), this editorial shows that entrepreneurship and innovation need to be contextualized, that contexts can be intertwined, and that recursive relationships may exist. The case of gendered innovations strikingly demonstrates the role of context and supports the argument that diversity in entrepreneurship and innovation asks for specific targeted research.

Pratical and social implications. To properly research complex phenomena, such as entrepreneurship and innovation, this also calls for more interdisciplinary research in this field. Exemplarily, the decisive role entrepreneurs' voices play in presenting their business case to relevant gatekeepers supports the argument of making contributions to expand knowledge in this field following an interdisciplinary approach in research. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984, 1986a, b) as a dual-process model is presented as an example to highlight a contribution from research on attitude formation to the field of entrepreneurship.


Agthe, M., Spörrle, M., & Maner, J. K. (2011). Does being attractive always help? Positive and negative effects of attractiveness on social decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), 1042–1054.

Allison, T. H., Davis, B. C., Webb, J. W., & Short, J. C. (2017). Persuasion in crowdfunding: An elaboration likelihood model of crowdfunding performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(6), 707–725.

Birkner, S., Sundermeier, J., & Tegtmeier, S. (2020). E-health value creation revisited: Towards a gender-aware typology of digital business models. In Gender Differences in Technology and Innovation Management: Insights from Experimental Research (pp. 87–103). De Gruyter.

Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Fundamental processes leading to attitude change: Implications for cancer prevention communications. Journal of Communication, 56(SUPPL.), 81–104.

Brooks, A. W., Huang, L., Kearney, S. W., & Murray, F. E. (2014). Investors prefer entrepreneurial ventures pitched by attractive men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(12), 4427–4431.

Choi, B.C., Pak, A.W. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351–364.

Crano, W. D., & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(June 2014), 345–374.

Criado Perez, C. (2020). We Need to Close the Gender Data Gap By Including Women in Our Algorithms. Time,

Darley, W. K., & Smith, R. E. (1993). Advertising Claim Objectivity: Antecedents and Effects. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 100.

Della Corte, L., Di Filippo, C., Gabrielli, O., et al. (2020). The burden of endometriosis on women’s lifespan: A narrative overview on quality of life and psychosocial wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 17. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17134683.

Dhar, N., Chaturvedi, S., & Nandan, D. (2011). Spiritual health scale 2011: defining and measuring 4 dimensions of health. Indian Journal of Community Medicine: Official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine, 36(4), 275-282.

Ettl, K., Brink, S., Tegtmeier, S. “Concepts and Facets of Entrepreneurial Diversity: Moving the Discussion Forward”, in: International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 2021, 13(3), 217-230.

European Commission (2013). Gendered innovations: How gender analysis contributes to research. Eur 25848.

Glänzel, W., & Debackere, K. (2022). Various aspects of interdisciplinarity in research and how to quantify and measure those. Scientometrics, 127(9), 5551–5569.


Horne, A.W., & Saunders, P.T. (2019). SnapShot: Endometriosis. Cell, 179(7), 12 December 2019, 1677:

Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78. Retrieved from

Lemay, E. P., Clark, M. S., & Greenberg, A. (2010). What is beautiful is good because what is beautiful is desired: Physical attractiveness stereotyping as projection of interpersonal goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 339–353.

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

Niebuhr, O., Tegtmeier, S., Brem, A. (2017). Advancing Research and Practice in Entrepreneurship Through Speech Analysis – From Descriptive Rhetorical Terms to Phonetically Informed Acoustic Charisma Metrics. Journal of Speech Sciences, 6(1), 3-26. (open access)

Niebuhr, O., Tegtmeier, S., Schweisfurth, T. (2019). “Female speakers benefit more than male speakers from prosodic charisma training – A before-after analysis of 12-week and 4-hour courses”, in: Frontiers in Communications, 4: 12. 2019.00012

Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume 1 (pp. 224–245).

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), NA-Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 11, pp. 668–672). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19(C), 123–205.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Strathman, A. J., & Priester, J. R. (2005). To think or not to think: exploring two routes to persuasion. In T. Brock & M. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological Insights and Perspectives ((2. Ed.), pp. 81–116). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. The Handbook of Social Psychology, (January 1998), 323–390.


Porter, D. (1999). The history of public health: current themes and approaches. Hygiea Internationalis, 1(1), 9-21.

Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bio-nanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263–287.

Rousseau, D. & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1), 1–13.

Schiebinger, L. (2014). Scientific research must take gender into account. Nature, 507(7490), 9.

Schiebinger, L., & Klinge, I. (2015). Gendered innovation in health and medicine. GENDER–Zeitschrift für Geschlecht, Kultur und Gesellschaft, 7(2).

Schiebinger, L., & Schraudner, M. (2011). Interdisciplinary Approaches to Achieving Gendered Innovations in Science, Medicine, and Engineering. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(2), 154-167.

Shafrir, A.L., Farland, L.V., Shah, D.K., Harris, H.R., Kvaskoff, M., Zondervan, K., Missmer, S.A. (2018). Risk for and consequences of endometriosis: A critical epidemiologic review. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 51(Aug.), 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.06.001.

Shepherd, D. A., & Wiklund, J. (2020). Simple Rules, Templates, and Heuristics! An Attempt to Deconstruct the Craft of Writing an Entrepreneurship Paper. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(3), 371–390.

Stanford University (2011). What is Gendered Innovations? http://genderedinnovations.

Sundermeier, J., Birkner, S., Ettl, K., Kensbock, J., & Tegtmeier, S. (2020). Hello Diversity! Opportunities and Challenges of Entrepreneurial Diversity in the Digital Age. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 47, pp-pp.

Surrey, E., Soliman, A.M., Trenz, H., Blauer-Peterson, C., Sluis, A. (2020). Impact of endometriosis diagnostic delays on healthcare resource utilization and costs. Advances in Therapy. 37, 1087-1099.

Tegtmeier, S., Birkner, S. (2021) Gendered Innovations - mit Forschung eine faire Zukunft gestalten. Bunsen-Magazin - Zeitschrift der Deutschen Bunsen-Gesellschaft für physikalische Chemie, 6, 310-312.

Tegtmeier, S., Niebuhr, O., Schweisfurth, T. How Money Talks: Speech Melody and Venture Evaluation. Paper presented at the RENT 2020 Conference – Research in Entrepreneurship and Small Business, virtual, 18.-20.11.2020.

The Royal Society. (2016). Response to the British Academy’s call for evidence on Interdisciplinarity. Accessible at: https:// royal

Wang, J., Thijs, B., Glänzel, W. (2015). Interdisciplinarity and Impact: Distinct Effects of Variety, Balance and Disparity. Plos One, 10(5): e0127298

Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing Entrepreneurship—Conceptual Challenges and Ways Forward. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184.

Westwood, S. et al. (2023). Disparities in Women with Endometriosis Regarding Access to Care, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Management in the United States: A Scoping Review. Cureus, 15(5), May 2023, e38765: https://www.ncbi.nlm.

WHO (1946). Constitution of the World Health Organization. Off. Rec. World Health Organisation, 2(100).

World Economic Forum (2024). Closing the Women’s Health Gap: A $1 Trillion Opportunity to Improve Lives and Economies Insight Report.

Yang, S. ‐C., Hung, W. ‐C., Sung, K., & Farn, C. ‐K. (2006). Investigating initial trust toward e‐tailers from the elaboration likelihood model perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 429–445.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2024 Silke Tegtmeier