Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review existing literature at the intersection of resilience and entrepreneurship. It identifies six scholarly conversations, each of which draws on distinct notions of resilience and entrepreneurship. Based on those conversations, shortcomings in the existing literature are discussed and avenues for future research are outlined. Design/methodology/approach A systematic multi-disciplinary review of 144 papers that are categorized into six scholarly conversations to build the foundation for a critical discussion of each line of inquiry. Findings This paper identifies six conversations or research streams at the intersection of entrepreneurship and resilience: resilience as traits or characteristics of entrepreneurial firms or individuals, resilience as a trigger for entrepreneurial intentions, entrepreneurial behavior as enhancing organizational resilience, entrepreneurial firms fostering macro-level (regions, communities, economies) resilience, resilience in the context of entrepreneurial failure, and resilience as a process of recovery and transformation. The review revealed these publications imprecisely define constructs and use a limited amount of the extant scholarship on both entrepreneurship and resilience. Future research should take a more holistic approach to explore entrepreneurship and resilience from a multi-level and longitudinal perspective, especially in the context of socio-ecological sustainability. Originality/value This paper incorporates insights on resilience and entrepreneurship across academic disciplines to show how future contributions could benefit by incorporating research from other fields. In doing so, it provides a starting point for more nuanced discussions around the interrelationships between the different conversations and the role entrepreneurs can play in promoting a positive, long-term trajectory for a socio-ecological system.

It is crucial to assess how technology and innovation management (TIM) scholars use casebased research. Our study provides a theoretical systematic review of qualitative casebased articles published in 31 TIM journals from 2013 to 2018. Our analysis of 311 articles uncovers patterns regarding rigor (including case justification and selection), transparency (including data collection and analytical methods), and paradigmatic consistency and pluralism. Our findings show some evidence of emerging pluralism in how TIM researchers perform qualitative case studies, but also highlight some worrying trends: paradigmatic inconsistencies, lack of transparency, and over-reliance on specific approaches, all of which affect the value of case study research. We provide methodological guidelines for improving the use of qualitative case research in TIM. 2009), and thereby constrain novel approaches that could advance the field (Bluhm et al., 2011;Bansal and Corley, 2012). For example, Van de Ven and Poole (2005) note that variance methods, which imply a positivistic view of organizations, have been Are rigor and transparency enough? R&D Management 50, 3, 2020 311Are rigor and transparency enough? R&D Management 50, 3, 2020 323 study practices can seriously hinder the progress of our field (see Pratt et al., 2019).

Based on an autoethnographic study of early career researchers’ field research experiences, we show how individuals deal with moments of discrimination that present identity threats. This is accomplished through participating in the construction of a shared holding environment to provide emotional shelter and resources for resultant identity work. We show how they collectively develop anticipatory responses to future identity threats and inadvertently how this allows the effects of discrimination to be both unchallenged and amplified. We draw implications for identity work theory, adding to current understandings of identity threats, tensions, and challenges and the dynamics through which these are addressed, avoided, or worked around, as well as the shadow side of such activities. We also offer practical implications about the business schools’ role in nurturing early career researchers’ identity work.

No abstract

Grand Challenges are complex issues that require collaborative innovation among heterogeneous actors who draw upon contradictory institutional logics. While existing literature shows how social enterprises and individual organizations reconcile tensions between economic and environmental logics, scholars know less about how and when a broad set of actors adopt practices and priorities that balance economic and environmental values. This article explores how three agricultural cooperatives act as metaorganizations and facilitate collaborative innovation and sustainable transitions to address grand challenges regarding land use. We find that the cooperatives stimulate awareness of environmental challenges and local experimentation, orchestrate collaborative solutions by enrolling and engaging a broad set of actors, and coordinate the diffusion of novel practices across the institutional field. We add new insights into producer cooperatives' role as metaorganizations in facilitating the creation, validation, and diffusion of practices that balance business and sustainability. Based on our findings, we argue that by metaorganizing, producer cooperatives can galvanize field-level shifts in institutional logics through framing, knowledge sharing, and knowledge brokering mechanisms. Index Terms-Agriculture, collaborations in technology management, collective action, environmental issues in technology management, innovation management, knowledge management, knowledge transfer. I. INTRODUCTIONL ARGE, complex issues with a global impact, referred to as grand challenges (GCs), pose societal, technological, and developmental tensions that require unconventional approaches to resolve them [1], [2]. Land use, the focus of this article, is a GC faced by agricultural organizations involved in land-based food production [3]. Industrialized agriculture has exacerbated land degradation by draining natural aquifers for farming, polluted land and water with effluent run-off, and Manuscript