Nörobilim Yaklaşımıyla Girişimcilikte Farklı Bir Boyut: Nörogirişimcilik

Year 2021, Issue: 22, 184 - 194, 31.01.2021

Abdullah Ballı , Ali Aycı

https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.849788

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Nörobilim (Sinirbilim), sinir sisteminin nasıl geliştiğini, yapısını ve ne yaptığını incelemekte olup matematik, dilbilim, mühendislik, kimya, felsefe, psikoloji ve tıp gibi diğer disiplinlerle yakın ilişki kuran disiplinler arası bir bilimdir. İşletme disiplininde nörobilimsel yaklaşım nöropazarlama ve nörogirişimcilik olarak yer almaktadır. Sosyo-ekonomik önemleri nedeniyle girişimcilik araştırmaları literatür zenginliğinin yanı sıra bulgularının uygulamaya aktarılması ile ülkelerin refah seviyelerinin arttrılmasında büyük önem taşımaktadır. Nörogirişimcilikgirişimci davranışlarını ve bu davranışlarla ilgili değişimleri anlamak ve analiz etmek için nörobilimsel yöntemlerin uygulanması oluparaştırmacılar ile nörobilim uzmanlarının bir araya gelerek multidisipliner bir yaklaşımla araştırmalar yürütmesi neticesinde nörogirişimcilik alanında önemli kazanımlar elde edilmiştir. Dopamin hormonu ile girişmcilik davranışı ilişkisi, girişimcilerin girişimci olmayan bireylere göre farklı zihinsel kaynakları ve sinirsel yapıları kullanmaları gibi literatür sonuçları girişimcilik disiplinine farklı bir boyut getirmektedir. Nörogirişimcilik literatürünün yeni oluşması bu çalışmanın kısıtını oluşturmakta olup konunun artan önemi ve nörobilimdeki farklı disiplinlerde yürütülen çalışmalar ile yakın gelecekte nörogirişimciiğe ilişkin yürütülen çalışmaların sayısında da önemli bir artış olacağı öngörülmektedir. Nörobilimde kullanılan görüntüleme ve diğer teknolojik araştırma imkânlarının hızla gelişmesi ve araştırmacılar için ulaşılabilir olması nörogirişimciliğin gelişme sürecini hızlandırmaktadır. Araştırmaları daha öncelerde başlayan ve bulguları pratik uygulamalarda çok fazla kabul gören nöropazarlama araştırmaları ile nöropazarlama araştırmalarında kullanılan teknolojiler nörogirişimciliğin gelişmesine zemin hazırlamaktadır. Bu çalışmada dünyada henüz emekleme döneminde olan nörogirşimcilik literatürüne bilgi ve bulguların derlenmesi yolu ile katkı sağlanması amaçlanmaktadır. Gelecekte yapılacak olan çalışmalar, duygusal, davranışsal, kültürel, hesaplamalı, sosyal sinirbilim, nöroinformatik ve sistem sinirbiliminin girdilerini hesaba katarak, özellikle girişimci karar almanın arkasındaki mekanizmalar ve genel olarak girişimcilik sürecinin bilişsel, motivasyonel, duyuşsal ve hormonal süreçlerin derin bir analizine imkân sağlayacaktır.

Keywords

Nörobilim, Nörogirişimcilik, Nöropazarlama

A Different Dimension in Entrepreneurship with a Neuroscience Approach: Neuroentrepreneurship

Abstract

Neuroscience is an interdisciplinary science that studies how the nervous system develops, structure and does what it does, and establishes close relationships with other disciplines such as mathematics, linguistics, engineering, chemistry, philosophy, psychology, and medicine.In the business discipline, neuroscientific approach takes place as neuromarketing and neuroentrepreneurship. Due to their socio-economic importance, entrepreneurship researches are of great importance in increasing the welfare of countries by putting their findings into practice as well as the richness of the literature.Neuro-entrepreneurship is the application of neuroscientific methods to understand and analyze entrepreneurial behavior and the changes associated with these behaviors.Significant gains have been achieved in the field of neuro-entrepreneurship as a result of conducting research with a multidisciplinary approach by gathering researchers and neuroscientists.The literature results such as the relationship between dopamine hormone and entrepreneurial behavior, the use of different mental resources and neural structures by entrepreneurs compared to non-entrepreneurs bring a different dimension to the entrepreneurship discipline.The new formation of neuroentrepreneurship literature is the limitation of this study. With the increasing importance of the subject and studies carried out in different disciplines in neuroscience, it is predicted that there will be a significant increase in the number of studies on neuro-entrepreneurship in the near future.The rapid development of scanning and other technological research facilities used in neuroscience and their availability for researchers accelerates the development process of neuroscience. Neuromarketing researches, whose researches have started earlier and whose findings are widely accepted in practical applications, and technologies used in neuromarketing researches lay the groundwork for the development of neuroentrepreneurship dicipline.In this study, it is aimed to contribute to neuroentrepreneurship literature, which is still in its infancy in the world, by compiling information and findings.Future studies will allow for a deep analysis of the cognitive, motivational, affective and hormonal processes of the entrepreneurial process in general and the mechanisms behind entrepreneurial decision-making in particular, taking into account the inputs of emotional, behavioral, cultural, computational, social neuroscience, neuroinformatics and systems neuroscience.

Keywords

Neuroscience, Neuroentrepreneurship, Neuromarketing

References

• Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., and Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105–23.
• Arığ, E.& Turan M. (2020). Video Duygu Analizi. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, (Special Issue), 59-67.
• Arenius, P., Minniti, (2005). M. Perceptual Variables and Nascent Entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 24, 233–247.
• Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitude, Personality and Behavior (2nd ed.). Poland, EU: Open University Press.
• Barnea, A., H. Cronqvist, and S. Siegel (2010), “Nature or nurture: what determines investor behavior?” Journal of Financial Economics, 98 (3), 583–604.
• Baron, R. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when entrepreneurs think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 275–294.
• Baron, R.A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs ‘connect the dots’ to identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 104–19.
• Baucus, D.A., M.S. Baucus, and R.K. Mitchell (2014), “Lessons from the neural foundation of entrepreneurial cognition: the case of emotion and motivation,” in J.R. Mitchell, R.K. Mitchell, and B. Randolph-Seng (eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurial Cognition, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 254–315.
• Berridge, K.C. and M.L. Kringelbach (2008), “Affective neuroscience of pleasure: reward in humans and animals,” Psychopharmacology, 199 (3), 457–80.
• Bird., B. (1988). The operation of intentions in time: The emergence of the new venture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice., 17(1), s. 11-20.
• Blair, E.S. (2010), “What you think is not what you think: unconsciousness and entrepreneurial behavior,” in A.A. Stanton, M. Day, and I.M. Welpe (eds), Neuroeconomics and the Firm, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 50–65.
• Boyd, N.,& Vozikis, G. (1994). “The Influence of Self-Efficacy on the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, s. 63-75.
• Carter, R., Aldridge, S., Page, M., Parker, S. (2019). The Human Brain Book. Division of Penguin Random House LLC, New York.
• Camerer, C.F., and Fehr, E. (2006). When does ‘economic man’ dominate social behavior? Science, 311(5757), 47–52.
• Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., and Morris, K.J. (1985). Semantic, evaluative, and self-referent processing: Memory, cognitive effort, and somatovisceral activity. Psychophysiology, 22(4), 371–84.
• Coates J, Herbert J (2007). Endogenous steroids and financial risk taking on a london trading floor. PNAS 105(16):6167–6172.
• Custodio, P. (2010). Use of EEG as a Neuroscientific Approach to Advertising Research. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 11(4) 284-292.
• Day M., Boardman M.C., and Krueger N.F. (2017). Handbook of Research Methodologies and Design in Neuroentrepreneurship. In Colosio, M., Bellavitis, C., and Gorin, A.A., “Human psychophysiological and genetic approaches in neuroentrepreneurship”. Elgar Publishing, Massachusetts.
• Day M., Boardman M.C., and Krueger N.F. (2017). Handbook of Research Methodologies and Design in Neuroentrepreneurship. In Holan P.B. and Couffe C., “Unpacking neuroentrepreneurship: conducting entrepreneurship research with EEG Technologies”. Elgar Publishing, Massachusetts.
• Ernst, B. and M. Steinhauser (2015), “Effects of invalid feedback on learning and feedbackrelated brain activity in decision-making,” Brain and Cognition, 99, 78–86.
• Eser, Z., Isin, F. B., & Tolon, M. (2011). Perceptions of marketing academics, neurologists, and marketing professionals about neuromarketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7-8), s. 854-868.
• Gani, M., Reza, S., Rabi, M. ve Reza, S. (2015). Neuromarketing: Methodologies of Marketing Science. International Journal of Business and Management Study – IJBMS, Volume 2: Issue 2 294-298.
• Guiso, L.,& Rustichini, A. (2011). Understanding the size and profitability of firms: The role of a biological factor (European University Institute Working Paper ECO 2011-01). Retrieved from http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/15642.
• Martin de Holan, P., E. Ortiz-Terán, A. Turrero, and T. Alonso (2013), “Towards neuroentrepreneurship? Early evidence from a neuroscience study,” Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 33 (5); http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol33/iss5/12.
• Hoskisson, R.E., J. Covin, H.W. Volberda, and R.A. Johnson (2011), “Revitalizing entrepreneurship: the search for new research opportunities,” Journal of Management Studies, 48 (6), 1141–68; http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00997.x
• Krueger, N. (2000). The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 24(3): 5–23.
• Krueger, N.,& Brazeal, D. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3): 91–104.
• Krueger, N., Reilly, M., & Carsrud, A. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5/6): 411–532.
• Krueger, N., and I. Welpe (2008), “Experimental entrepreneurship: a research prospectus and workshop,” paper presented at the USASBE Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX, 10–13 January.
• Krueger, N. (2011). Neuroentrepreneurship: what can entrepreneurship educators (& practitioners) learn from neuroscience? December, 2011. NeuroPsychoEconomics Conference Proceedings.
• Krueger, N., and I. Welpe (2014), “Neuroentrepreneurship: what can entrepreneurship learn from neuroscience?” in M.H. Morris (ed.), Annals of Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 60–90.
• Lawrence, A., Clark, L., Labuzetta, N.J., Sahakian, B. (2008). The innovative brain. Nature, 456, 168-169.
• Laureiro-Martínez, D., N. Canessa, S. Brusoni, M. Zollo, T. Hare, F. Alemanno, and S.F. Cappa (2014), “Frontopolar cortex and decision-making efficiency: comparing brain activity of experts with different professional background during an explorationexploitation task,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 927; http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00927.
• McMullen, J.S., M.S. Wood, and L.E. Palich (2014), “Entrepreneurial cognition and social cognitive neuroscience,” in J.R. Mitchell, R. Mitchell, and B. Randolph-Seng (eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurial Cognition, vol. 29, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 723–40.
• Miljkovic, M.,& Alcakovic, S. (2010). Neuromarketing: Marketing research future. Menadzment, Marketing, Trgovina, 274-883.
• Mitchell, R.K., and Chesteen, S.A. (1995). Enhancing entrepreneurial expertise: Experiential pedagogy and the new venture expert script. Simulation & Gaming, 26(3), 288–306.
• Mitchell, R. K., Smith, B., Morse, E., Seawright, K., Peredo, A., & McKenzie, B. (2002). Are entrepreneurial cognitions universal? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2).
• Mitchell, R.K., Busenitz, L., Bird, B., Gaglio, C., McMullen, J., and Morse, E. (2007). The central question in entrepreneurial cognition research. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 31(1), 1–27.
• Morin, C. (2011). Neuromarketing: The New Science of Consumer Behavior. Symposıum: Consumer Culture In Global Perspectıve Springer Science+Business Media, s. 131-135.
• Ngrams, (2020). Analiz Raporları, https://books.google.com/ngrams/Erişim:29.12.2020
• Nicolaou, N. and S. Shane (2014), “Biology, neuroscience, and entrepreneurship,” Journal of Management Inquiry, 23 (1), 98–100.
• Nicolaou, N., Patel, P. C., & Wolfe, M. T. (2018). Testosterone and Tendency to Engage in Self-Employment. Management Science.
• Nofal, A. M., Nicolaou, N., & Symeonidou, N. (2017). Biology and Entrepreneurship. In G. Ahmetoglu, T. Chamorro-Premuzic, B. Klinger and T. Karcisky (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Entrepreneurship: Wiley.
• Nordqvist, C. (2014), “What is neuroscience?” Medical News Today, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/. Erişim:29.12.2020
• Ortiz-Terán, E., A. Turrero, J.M. Santos, P.T. Bryant, T. Ortiz, E. Ortiz-Terán and T. Ortiz (2014), “Brain cortical organization in entrepreneurs during a visual Stroop decision task,” Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry, 6, 45–56.
• Patel, P.C. and J.O. Fiet (2010), “Enhancing the internal validity of entrepreneurship experiments by assessing treatment effects at multiple levels across multiple trials,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 76, 127–40.
• Peelen, M.V., and Kastner, S. (2014). Attention in the real world: toward understanding its neural basis, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.
• Perez, V. (2017), “Brain-driven entrepreneurship research: a review and research agenda,” in M. Day, M. Boardman, and K. Norris (eds), Handbook of Research Methodologies and Design in Neuro-entrepreneurship, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Poldrack, R. A. (2008). The role of fMRI in cognitive neuroscience: Where do we stand? Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18, 223-227.
• Santos, Susana C., Sílvia F. Costa, Xaver Neumeyer, and António Caetano. (2016). Bridging Entrepreneurial Cognition Research and Entrepreneurship Education: What and How. In Annals of Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, ed. Michael H. Morris and Eric Liguori, 83–108. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Sarasvathy, D.K., Simon, H.A., and Lave, L. (1998). Perceiving and managing business risks: Differences between entrepreneurs and bankers, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 33(2), 207–25.
• Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–69.
• Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual–Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
• Shapero, A., (1985). Why entrepreneurship? Journal of Small Business Management, 23(4): 1–5.
• Shapero, A.,& Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In The Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Singh, R.P., Ronch, J.L. (2011). Changing Entrepreneurial Cognitive Processes with Age: A Conceptual Discussion Based on Neuroscience. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, Vol. 5(6), 94-103.
• Soon, C.S., M. Brass, H.-J. Heinze, and J.-D. Haynes (2008), “Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain,” Nature Neuroscience, 11 (5), 543–5; http://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2112.
• Simon, H. 1997/1963. Administrative Behaviour (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
• Şeşen, H.,& Basım, N. (2012). Demografik Faktörler ve Kişiliğin Girişimcilik Niyetine Etkisi: Spor Bilimleri Alanında Öğrenim Gören Üniversite Öğrencileri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Ege Akademik Bakış, 12, s. 21-28.
• Theodoridis, A. G.,& Nelson, A. J. (2012). Of BOLD claims and excessive fears: A call for caution and patience regarding political neuroscience. Political Psychology, 33, 27-43.
• Toga, A.W. and P.M. Thompson (2005), “Genetics of brain structure and intelligence,” Annual Review of Neuroscience, 28 (1), 1–23.
• Treadway MT, Buckholtz JW, Schwartzman AN, Lambert WE, Zald DH (2009) Worth the ‘EEfRT’? The Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task as an Objective Measure of Motivation and Anhedonia. PLoS ONE 4(8): e6598.
• Treadway, M. T., Buckholtz, J. W., Cowan, R.L., Woodward, N.D., Li, R., Ansari, M.S., Baldwin, R. M., Schwartzman, A. N., Kessler, R. M., Zald, D. H. (2012). Dopaminergic mechanisms of individual differences in human effort-based decision-making. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32 (18), 6170–6176.
• Tumasjan, A., Welpe, I.M., and Spörrle, M. (2012). Easy now, desirable later: The moderating role of temporal distance in opportunity evaluation and exploitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(4), 859–88.
• White, R.E., Thornhill, S., Hampson, E. (2006). Entrepreneurs and evolutionary biology: The relationship between testosterone and new venture creation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 21–34.
• Wood, M.S. and D.W. Williams (2014), “Opportunity evaluation as rule-based decision making,” Journal of Management Studies, 51 (4), 573–602; http://doi.org/10.1111/ joms.12018.
• Wolfe, M. T.,& Patel, P. C. (2017). Two are better than one: Cortisol as a contingency in the association between epinephrine and self-employment. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8: 78-86.
• Zaro, M.A., Fagundes, L.C., Rocha, F.T., Nunes, W.S. (2016). Cognitive brain mapping used in the study of entrepreneurial behavior – pilot test with the use of electroencephalogram- EEG during the process of identification of business opportunities. American Journal of Educational Research, 2016, 4 (6), 472-478.
• Zhang, Z., M.J. Zyphur, J. Narayanan, R.D. Arvey, S. Chaturvedi, B.J. Avolio and G. Larsson (2009), “The genetic basis of entrepreneurship: effects of gender and personality,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110 (2), 93–107.