子谦译文｜第五类（代）创业教育理论：价值创造

“What is Value?” – A Framework for Analyzing and Facilitating Entrepreneurial Value Creation
什么是价值？--一种分析和促进创业价值创造的框架
子谦译文
英文原文作者：Martin Lackéus 马丁·拉克乌斯
文章来源：www.idunn.no
翻译：高文、朱燕空
推荐语
从创业教育理论的演化来看，创业教育的内容与方法一直在更迭。在内容上先后出现了特质论、过程论、认知论与方法论（海迪 M.内克，Heidi M.Neck）以及最新的基于“价值创造”的创业教育。基于“创造新价值”这种创业认知视角，重在学生的创业思维培养，能够更好地将创业融入教育，实现创业教学的三个匹配（理论与实践的匹配、学习内容与学习对象的匹配、教学内容与教学方法的匹配），培养出富有创业精神的、能够创造社会创造价值的接班人。
今年最值得关注的一本书是高瓴资本张磊出版的《价值》。张磊以乐观主义创业者的心态创立高瓴,坚持价值投资理念,以长期主义和研究驱动发现价值,创造价值。他认为“价值投资已经从只是单纯地发现静态价值向发现动态价值并帮助被投企业创造价值转化”，“只要是为社会疯狂创造价值的企业，它的收入、利润早晚会兑现”；“任何创业都不可能一夜成功，但如果坚持不看短期利润，甚至不看短期收入，不把挣钱当做唯一重要的事，而把价值观放在利润的前面，坚信价值观是这个企业真正核心的东西，那么利润将只是做正确的事情后自然而然的结果。”
2020年，阿里巴巴深陷“伪金融创新”的旋涡；小罐茶风光不在，跌落"神坛"消声灭迹......只有抓住商业的‘根’和‘本’，专注创造价值，而非创造概念，就一定能提供有价值的产品和服务。基于“价值创造”的创业教育契合了张磊的观点，既关注经济价值，也关注娱乐价值、社会价值、和谐价值和影响力价值；既关注利己的价值，也关注利他的价值。
既不单纯关注狭义的创业实践教育，也不能只谈广义的创业者教育，而更多关注基于价值创造的创业教育。基于“价值创造”的创业教育从核心价值出发，不仅关注人在专业的提升，更强调其在专创融合方面的成长、能力体系培养，实现对整体价值的提升，让人不仅具备干事的水平，更要学会成事的能力。这种教育更适合所有的的高校本专科阶段的学生和教师共学、共创、共享，所以在大学低年级开设创业教育课程应具体体现在“创业思维层面”，高年级则体现在价值创造层面即创业能力 专创融合。创业教育作为通识必修课也成为更具时代感的教育理论。
ABSTRACT
摘要
Entrepreneurship viewed as new value creation is a perspective gaining ground in entrepreneurial education. Educators have found it to be a helpful approach in order to escape a situation where the two established ways to infuse entrepreneurship into education are both quite problematic. A value creation view on entrepreneurship, however, currently lacks a clear answer to a crucial question: What is value? Responding to this research gap, the article presents a value framework consisting of five different kinds of value: economic, enjoyment, social, harmony and influence value. Each kind of value can be experienced and created both for oneself and for others, thus constituting a total of ten different perspectives on value. This value framework has in practice been useful for teachers working with educational design. It has also been useful for research on assessment of the impact entrepreneurial education has on students, leading to new insights that could improve the effectiveness of entrepreneurial education. The value framework also casts new light on what entrepreneurship is and why people engage in entrepreneurship. A limitation of the work presented here is the inherent difficulty in conducting a systematic literature review on a term as generic as“value”.
创业被视为一种新的价值创造，是创业教育中一个正在兴起的观点。教育工作者发现，这是一种有用的方法，可以避免将创业融入教育的既定方法所造成的两种困境的情况的出现。然而，关于创业的价值创造观这个关键问题，到目前还缺乏明确的答案，那就是：什么是价值？因此针对这一研究空白，本文提出了一个由经济价值、娱乐价值、社会价值、和谐价值和影响力价值五种不同价值构成的价值框架。每种价值都可以为自己和他人体验和创造，因此构成了总共十种不同的价值观。这个价值框架在实践中对从事教育设计工作的教师非常有用。它对评估创业教育对学生的影响也很有用，可以帮助学生提出新的见解，从而提高创业教育的有效性。价值框架也为什么是创业以及人们为什么要从事创业提供了新的解释。但本文的一个局限性是，在对“价值”这样的通用术语进行系统的文献综述时还存在内在的困难。
Keywords
关键词
entrepreneurship, value creation, entrepreneurship education, enterprise education, valuation studies, economic sociology
创业，价值创造，创业实践教育，创业者教育，价值评估，经济社会学
1
INTRODUCTION 导言
There are two established ways to infuse entrepreneurship into education (QAA, 2012; Jones & Iredale, 2010). One approach is called entrepreneurship education, and is based on entrepreneurship being narrowly defined as starting new businesses (Gartner, 1989). The aim of entrepreneurship education is to educate those relatively few students who are interested in business start-ups, i.e. to prepare people to become entrepreneurs. The other established approach to infuse entrepreneurship into education is called enterprise education, and is based on entrepreneurship being more broadly defined as identifying (Shane, 2003) or creating (Sarasvathy, 2001) new opportunities. Here the aim is to develop students’ creativity, self-confidence, sense of initiative, opportunity orientation, uncertainty to lerance and perseverance, i.e. to make people more entrepreneurial (QAA, 2012).
现在有两种方法可以将创业融入到教育当中去。一种方法被称为创业实践教育，其基础就是狭义地将创业定义为创办新企业，目的是对那些对创业感兴趣、且数量相对较少的学生进行教育，让他们为成为创业者做好准备。另一种成熟方法称为创业者教育，它基础就是将创业更广泛的定义为发现或创造新机会。它的目的是培养学生的创造力、自信心、主动性、机会导向、对不确定性的宽容和保持毅力的能力，即让人更具创业精神。
A new third way to infuse entrepreneurship into education has been discussed by researchers in recent years (Sarasvathy & Venkataraman, 2011; Neck & Greene, 2011; Blenker et al., 2011; Lackéus et al., 2016). While this new approach does not have an established term yet, it is here provisionally termed value creation-based entrepreneurial education. It is based on entrepreneurship being defined as new value creation for others (Bruyat & Julien, 2001; Moroz & Hindle, 2012). According to Bruyat (1993, p. 69), the greater the novelty of the value created, and the greater the impact the process has on the individual managing it, the more people tend to describe a process as entrepreneurship. Such a view of entrepreneurship is well established among both scholars and practitioners (Gartner, 1990), but has Christian Bruyat and his colleagues (Bruyat & Julien, 2001; Bruyat, 1993; Fayolle, 2007), there is little recent work to rely on.
近年来，研究人员讨论了将创业融入到教育的第三种新方法，虽然这种新方法还没有一个确定的术语定义，但在这里先暂时称之为基于价值创造的创业教育，它是基于为他人创造新的价值的创业。根据布鲁亚特（Bruyat）的说法，创造的价值越新颖，对个人管理的过程所产生的影响就越大，人们就越倾向于把这个过程描述为创业。这种创业观在学者和实践者中都得到了很好的确立，但是对克里斯蒂安·布鲁亚特（Christian Bruyat）和他的同事布鲁亚特和朱利安来说，最新的研究依据几乎没有什么可依赖的。
The emphasis on learning and personal development in a value creation based view of entrepreneurship makes it particularly relevant to educators. It offers teachers a solution to the troubling dilemma that the two main approaches to infuse entrepreneurship into education are both quite problematic (Lackéus, 2017a). Entrepreneurship education based on a business start-up logic (Gartner, 1989) is problematic for many teachers due to its connotations with capitalism (Rae, 2010).Enterprise education based on an opportunity identification logic (Shane, 2003; QAA, 2012) suffers from fuzziness and weak effects on students (Moberg, 2014; Leffler, 2009). The resulting dilemma where many teachers are caught between two inappropriate alternatives could explain why infusing entrepreneurship into education has remained a challenging and marginal endeavor in practice (Eurydice, 2016; Pittaway & Edwards, 2012).
在以价值创造为基础的创业观中，强调学习和个人发展使其与教育工作者产生了很强的关联性，因为它为老师提供了一个解决困难的方法，即将创业融入教育的两种主要方法都是相当有问题的。基于商业创业逻辑的创业实践教育(Gartner, 1989)对许多教师来说是有问题的，因为它的资本主义的内涵(Rae, 2010)；而基于机会识别逻辑的创业者教育的模糊性和对学生的微弱影响，由此而产生的困境，令许多老师被夹在两个不合适的选择之间，这也解释了为什么将创业和教育融合在实践中仍然是一个具有挑战性和仍处于边缘的原因。

The value creation approach in education is fundamentally about letting students learn by applying their knowledge to create something of value to external stakeholders (Lackéus et al., 2016).Empirical studies have shown that such an approach is capable of escaping the teacher dilemma by allowing for strong development of entrepreneurial competencies, deep integration into the core curriculum and good alignment with many teachers’ humanistic values (Lackéus, 2017a).Yet, as much as this development constitutes a promising path, teachers have also raised a crucial and vexing question that begs for clarification: What is value? If entrepreneurship is claimed to be about new value creation, a clear answer is needed to this question, both within and outside education. The purpose of this article is to attempt to provide exactly that. It is achieved by developing an analytical framework for different kinds of value through a necessarily opportunistic review of literature in economics and sociology. The resulting framework has been deemed useful by scholars analyzing entrepreneurship in education and by teachers attempting to infuse entrepreneurship into education. It remains to be seen whether the framework can be used also to analyze and facilitate entrepreneurship more generally.
教育中的价值创造方法从根本上讲就是让学生通过应用他们的知识来学习，为外部利益相关者创造一些有价值的东西。大量实证研究表明，这种方法能够通过强大的创业能力发展，深度融入核心课程，并将它与许多教师的人文价值相吻合，从而让老师摆脱困境。尽管这是一条充满希望的道路，但老师们也提出了一个至关重要却又令人烦恼且需要澄清的问题：什么是价值？如果创业是关于新的价值创造，那么这个问题需要一个明确的答案，无论是在教育内部还是外部，本文的目的就是试图回答这一问题。它通过对经济学和社会学的文献进行必要的全面的回顾，从而开发出针对不同类型的价值分析框架来实现的，由此产生的框架已经被分析创业教育的学者和试图将创业融入到教育的老师们认为是有用的，但这个框架是否也能被更广泛地用于分析和促进创业，还有待观察。
This article starts with a brief background of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial education and value creation-based entrepreneurial education. This is followed by a literature review of singular and plural conceptions of value, informing the articulation of a framework with five different kinds of value. Finally, some implications for research and practice are summarized.
本文首先简要介绍了创业实践、创业教育和基于价值创造的创业教育的背景。接下来是单一和多元价值概念的文献回顾，一个框架下的五个不同类型的价值。最后，对研究与实践的启示进行了总结。
2
BACKGROUND 背景
Entrepreneurship
创业
It has been argued that there are three main research strands in entrepreneurship research (Fayolle, 2007): studying entrepreneurship (1) as the creation of new organizations, (2) as the discovery or creation of opportunities, or (3) as the creation of new value. The new value creation strand has a long history in entrepreneurship research, with roots in work by Cantillon (1755) and Say (1803). Gartner (1990) has empirically identified new value creation as a main focus of entrepreneurship in the subjective views of entrepreneurship researchers, business leaders and politicians. The value creation perspective of entrepreneurship was further developed by Bruyat (1993), who proposed a definition of entrepreneurship based on two dimensions: the novelty of the value created for others, and the resulting impact of the process on the individual. Bruyat presented entrepreneurship as a dialogic between the individual and the new value created. Entrepreneurship is often assumed by many to be primarily about economic value creation (Korsgaard & Anderson, 2011). This risks neglecting other kinds of value such as social, ecological, mental and physical value potentially created through entrepreneurial processes (Hindle, 2010). Clarification and widening of the term value in connection to entrepreneurship is necessary in order to advance scholarly work in both entrepreneurship and in education.
有人认为在创业研究中有三个主要的研究方向，研究创业：(1)创建新公司，(2)发现或创造机会，(3)新价值的创造。在创业研究中，新价值创造方向有着悠久的历史，其根源可以追溯到坎特隆（Cantillon)和萨伊(Say)当时的研究。高德纳(Gartner)在创业研究者、商业领袖和政治家的主观性的观点中，确定了新价值创造是创业的主要关注点。1993年，布鲁亚特（Bruyat）进一步发展了创业的价值创造视角，他从两个维度对创业进行了定义：为他人创造价值的新颖性，以及在这个过程对个人产生的影响。布鲁亚特将创业描述为个人与新创造价值之间的对话。通常许多人认为创业主要是关于经济价值的创造，但这可能会忽视其他类型的价值，比如通过创业过程可能创造的社会、生态、精神和物质价值，因此明确和扩大与创业相关的术语价值，是推动创业和教育学术工作的必要条件。
Entrepreneurial education
创业教育
The interdisciplinary field occupying the border space between entrepreneurship and education is characterized by two main approaches: a narrow approach termed entrepreneurship education, and a broad approach termed enterprise education (Jones and Iredale, 2010). Entrepreneurship education focuses on developing competencies needed to set up a venture for oneself, and enterprise education is often self-oriented in terms of aiming to develop student self-reliance, self-insight, self-efficacy, creativity, initiative taking and action orientation (QAA, 2012; Mahieu, 2006). In order to avoid the conceptual confusion that two such different approaches could result in, the term‘entrepreneurial education’has been proposed as a unifying term for entrepreneurship education and enterprise education (Erkkil, 2000). This unifying term will be used here, instead of the more common but also more confusing term ‘enterprise and entrepreneurship education’.
占据创业和教育之间的跨学科研究主要有两种类型：狭义的方法称为创业实践教育，而广义的方法称为创业者教育。创业实践教育的重点是培养为自己未来创办企业所需的能力，而创业者教育往往以自我为导向，旨在培养学生的自力更生能力、自我洞察力、自我效能感、创造力、主动性和行动导向的能力。为了避免两种不同做法可能导致的概念混淆，特提议将“创业教育”一词作为创业实践教育和创业者教育的统一术语，而本文将使用这个统一的术语，而不是更常见但也更令人困惑的术语“创业实践教育和创业者教育”。
Value creation based entrepreneurial education
基于创业教育的价值创造
One of the first—or perhaps the first—entrepreneurial education scholars to focus on entrepreneurship as new value creation was Alain Fayolle. In 2007 he published a book (Fayolle, 2007) containing a translation into English of key parts of Bruyat’s (1993) seminal doctoral dissertation in French, presenting entrepreneurship as a dialogic between the individual and the new value created. Fayolle’s book made a value creation-based view of entrepreneurship more widely available and brought these ideas into the scholarly field of entrepreneurial education. According to Bruyat and Julien (2001), the dialogic system of the individual and the value created is an open system, implying that value creation requires interaction with the surrounding environment. Student interaction with external stakeholders thus constitutes a key recommendation in value creation-based entrepreneurial education.
阿兰法约尔(Alain Fayolle)或许是第一批将创业作为新的价值创造加以关注的创业教育学者。2007年，他出版了一本书，其中包含了布鲁亚特具有开创性的法语博士论文的关键部分的英文译本，将创业作为个人与创造的新价值之间的对话。书中提出了一个基于价值创造的更广泛应用创业的观点，并将这些观点带入创业教育的学术领域。根据布鲁亚特的观点，个体与价值创造的对话系统是一个开放的系统，这意味着价值创造需要与周围环境的互动。因此，学生与外部利益相关者的互动构成了基于价值创造的创业教育的重要建议。
The next important step in a value creation-based view of entrepreneurial education came in 2011. Three key contributions were published this year. An attempt to define entrepreneurship as an educationally useful method for value creation was published by Sarasvathy and Venkataraman (2011, p. 120), stating that value creation tools should be taught on a large scale and become “an essential part of basic education.” The same year, Neck and Greene (2011) stated that a focus on methods for value creation represented a new approach to entrepreneurial education. A third article the same year published by Blenker, Korsgaard, Neergaard and Thrane (2011) proposed that entrepreneurial education should be focused on value creation in its broadest sense, as an everyday practice. The following year a definition of entrepreneurial education leaning on value creation was proposed by the Danish Foundation for Entrepreneurship (Vestergaard et al., 2012, p. 11):
基于价值创造的创业教育的另一个重要时间节点是2011年，当年有三篇关键性的文章进行了发表。萨拉斯瓦西（Sarasvathy）和维卡塔拉曼（Venkataraman）发表了一篇文章，试图将创业定义为一种有助于创造价值的教育方法，指出应该大规模地教授创造价值的工具，并使之成为”基础教育的重要组成部分”。Neck和Greene指出，对价值创造方法的关注代表了创业教育的一种新方法。而Blenker，Korsgaard，Neergaard和Thrane发表的第三篇文章提出，创业教育应该将重点放在最广泛意义上的价值创造上，就像日常实践一样。就在第二年，丹麦创业基金会提出了基于价值创造的创业教育的定义。
Entrepreneurship Education is defined from a broad understanding of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurship is when you act upon opportunities and ideas and transform them into value for others. The value that is created can be financial, cultural, or social.
创业教育的定义来自于对创业的广泛理解：创业是利用机遇和想法并将它们转化为对他人有用的价值，它可以是有关经济的、文化的，或者是社会的。
This definition has, in a relatively short period of time, come to influence both theory and practice around Europe. According to a researcher at the Danish Foundation for Entrepreneurship1 , the idea to place value creation at the core of this definition came after Alain Fayolle had visited them and talked about his book from 2007. Based on these developments, and on access to rich empirics from a number of different learning environments, Lackéus, Lundqvist and Williams-Middleton (2016, p. 790) recently proposed a more detailed definition of value creation-based entrepreneurial education: “[Let] students learn by applying their existing and future competencies to create something preferably novel of value to at least one external stakeholder outside their group, class or school”.
这个定义在较短的时间内，影响了整个欧洲的理论和实践。据丹麦创业基金会的一位研究人员介绍，将价值创造置于这个定义的核心的想法，是在阿兰·法约尔(Alain Fayolle)拜访了他们并谈论了他2007年写的一本书之后提出的。在不断更新发展的基础上，以及从一些不同的学习环境中获得丰富的经验，lackéus，lundqvist和williams-middleton等人最新提出了一个更详细的基于价值创造的创业教育的定义：”让学生通过运用他们现有的和未来的能力来创造一些新的价值，最好是跟他们所处的群体、班级或学校之外的至少一个外部利益相关”。
3
VALUE AND ITS CREATION 价值和创造
The main proponents of the value creation strand in entrepreneurship research have not provided much guidance on the deeper meaning of value and its creation. In their seminal article on entrepreneurship as new value creation, Bruyat and Julien (2001, p. 170) merely stated that they did “not need to take up this old (and somewhat outmoded) debate”. Fayolle (2007, p. 46) at least hinted that value “relates to exchanges between market players at prices determined by the market”. Hindle (2010, p. 610) outlined a more pluralistic but equally brief view by stating that “new value may take many forms: economic, social, monetary, ecological, mental, physical, etc.” While these views on value might be enough when studying entrepreneurship in isolation, they do not give teachers enough guidance when the purpose is to infuse entrepreneurship, viewed as new value creation, into education. This review of value creation therefore needs to venture outside the field of entrepreneurship.
在创业研究中，价值创造链的主要支持者并没有提供太多关于价值及其创造的深层含义的指导。布鲁亚特和朱利安在他们关于创业作为新的价值创造的开创性文章中仅仅表示，“不需要进行这种老式的(有点过时的)辩论”。阿兰·法约尔至少暗示了价值“与市场参与者之间的交换有关，其价格由市场决定”。亨德尔（Hindle）概述了一种更多元但同样简短的观点，指出”新的价值可以采取多种形式，可以是经济、社会、货币、生态、心理、身体形式等。虽然在单独研究创业时，这些观点可能足够了，但在将被视为新价值创造的创业融入教育时，这些观点并没有给予教师足够的指导。因此，这种对价值创造的回顾需要在创业领域之外进行探索。

The review starts with an overview of singular and plural conceptions of value. The roots of singular conceptions are traced to 18th century economic thought, and the roots of plural conceptions are traced to 20th century sociological thought. These two differing perspectives on value are then summarized and integrated into a value framework.
本文首先对价值的单一和多元概念进行了概述。单一概念的根源可以追溯到18世纪的经济思想时期，而多元概念的根源可以追溯到20世纪的社会学思想时期。这两种不同的价值观被总结并整合成一个新的价值框架。
Value versus values
价值与价值观
The term “value” has been frequently used in the domain of economics. Among classical economists such as Marx (1867), Smith (1776), and Ricardo (1817), there was consensus around a framework of three phases that value progresses: production (or creation), circulation (or trade/exchange) and consumption (or use/destruction) of value (Mirowski, 1991, p. 143). However, value is more elusive as a concept than such simple frameworks would allow us to believe. Sociology scholars have assumed a more pluralistic view of value. In fact, discussions around value could be viewed as divided between economists and sociologists, illustrated by the example of Parson’s Pact, a deal struck between different departments at Harvard University in the middle of the 20th century: “You, economists, study value; we, the sociologists, will study values” (Stark, 2011, p. 7). Such a division between singular and plural views of value is ultimately a question of degrees of commensurability, calculability and comparability between different, more or less incommensurable kinds of value (Kornberger et al., 2015; Kjellberg et al., 2013).
“价值”一词在经济学领域中经常被使用。在马克思（Marx)、史密斯(Smith )和李嘉图(Ricardo )等古典经济学家中眼中，他们对价值发展的三个阶段的框架有一个共识，即： 价值的产生(或创造)、流通(或贸易/交换)和消费(或使用/毁灭)。然而，价值作为一个概念，它比这些简单的框架更难以让人捉摸，因此社会学家拟定了一个更加多元化的价值观。事实上，围绕价值的讨论可以被看作是经济学家和社会学家之间的分歧，帕森的契约就是一个例子。20世纪中叶，哈佛大学不同部门之间达成了一项协议: “经济学家研究经济学家的价值，社会学家研究社会学家的价值”。单一价值观和多重价值观之间的这种划分归根结底是一个不同的、或多或少不可通约性价值之间的可通约性、可计算性和可比性程度的问题。
A singular and standardized measure of value is often viewed as a requirement for scientific calculations, for example in economics, where such calculations are used to mathematically determine prices and predict markets (Mirowski, 1991). In any such attempt to arrive at a singular notion of value, there is a logically necessary but at the same time detrimental assumption around assumed stability and conservation of value, leading to major difficulties and inconsistencies. This makes modern economic theories apt for treating mature markets where focus is on routine value creation, prices, consumption and situations of equilibrium, yet less useful for analyzing entrepreneurial value creation, innovation, co-creation and production (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013; Mirowski, 1991; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Narrow economic value calculations also marginalize and silence other values such as fairness, ecology, equality and the common good (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013; Kjellberg et al., 2013). Economic sociologist Stark (2011, p.6) asks:：
What counts? Each of us confronts this question on a daily basis. Faced with decisions involving incommensurable frameworks – work versus family life, career opportunities versus loyalty to friends or attachment to a locality, vacations versus investments for retirement, and so on – we ask ourselves what really counts. What is valuable, and by what measures?
单一和标准化的价值衡量常常被视为科学计算的必要要求，例如在经济学中，这种数学计算被用于确定价格和预测市场。在任何这种试图达成单一价值概念的尝试中，都存在一种逻辑上必要但同时又有损于假定的稳定性和价值守恒的假设，从而导致重大困难和矛盾，这使得现代经济理论易于处理常规价值创造、价格、消费和均衡情况的成熟市场，而对于分析创业价值创造、创新、共同创造和生产则不是那么有用。狭义的经济价值计算也使公平、生态、平等和共同利益等其他价值边缘化和沉寂。经济社会学家斯塔克(Stark)问道：什么才是重要的？我们每个人每天都要面对这个问题。面对涉及到不可衡量框架的决定——工作还是家庭生活、职业机会还是对朋友的忠诚或对某个地方的依恋、度假还是退休投资等这些问题时——我们扪心自问，什么才是真正重要的。什么是有价值的，有什么方法可以来衡量它？
Stark draws on Dewey (1939) to point out the dangers of separating the intellectual from the emotive through dichotomies such as value versus values, economy versus society, calculation versus judgment, or estimate versus esteem. They both state that such separations lead to flawed assumptions around human action and valuation. Stark points to the fact that the term “worth” is a bridging term in that it has both an economic and a moral meaning. While semantics does not offer a solution, it helps to illustrate and make us aware of the many false dichotomies at play here. Other bridging terms, such as “socioeconomics,” have been proposed to describe new arenas and forms of value creation in today’s society characterized by openness, sharing, co-creation and global networking, which defy singular categorizations of value (Bollier and Pavlovich, 2008). An emerging scholarly field labeled “valuation studies” represents an attempt to unite a broad number of scholars from many different disciplines grappling with issues related to value and valuation (for an overview, see Helgesson and Muniesa, 2013).
斯塔克引用杜威(Dewey) 的理论，指出诸如价值与价值观、经济与社会、计算与判断、估计与尊重等二分法将知识分子与情感分离的危险。他们都指出，这种分离会导致围绕人类行为和价值的错误假设。斯塔克指出，“价值”一词是一个连接术语，因为它既有经济意义，也有道德意义。虽然语言学没有提出具体的解决方案，但它说明和让我们意识到二分法在这里起的错误作用。其他连接术语，如“社会经济学”，已经被提出用来描述当今社会中以开放、共享、共同创造和全球网络为特征的价值创造的新领域和新形式，它们颠覆了单一的价值分类。一个被称为“估值研究”的新兴学术领域试图将来自许多不同学科的大量学者联合起来，研究与价值和估值有关的问题。
Value according to economists—a singular view
经济学家的价值——一个单一的观点
A common basis for economic views of value is the assumption of homo oeconomicus, i.e. that humans are strictly rational in their daily utility calculations, always aiming to optimize (or at least satisfice) their own interests (Hirshleifer, 1985; Lemke, 2001; Lindenberg, 1990; Ghoshal, 2005). A well-quoted passage in a seminal book by the founder of modern economics, Adam Smith (1776, p. 7), illustrates this well: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”. Such a utilitarian position was also developed by Bentham (1776, p. ii), who stated that what is deemed valuable should be guided by people’s perceived pleasures and pains, and that society therefore should strive for “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” Economists have conceptualized value in at least three main different ways: as an objective substance inherent in valuable artifacts; as a subjective utility perceived by a consumer, and as a creation process where the ability to create value is determined by various circumstances. They will now be briefly outlined.
经济价值观的一个共同基础是经济人的假设，即人类在日常效用计算中是完全理性的，总是以最优化（最少的牺牲）为目标。现代经济学创始人亚当 · 斯密(Adam Smith)在其影响深远的著作中有一段被广为引用的话，很好地说明了这一点：“我们期待我们的晚餐，不是出于屠夫、酿酒师或面包师的仁慈，而是出于他们对自身利益的关心”，边沁（Bentham）也提出了这种类似的功利主义立场。他指出，被认为有价值的东西应该由人们感知到的快乐和痛苦来引导，因此，社会应该为“最大多数人的最大幸福”而奋斗。经济学家至少以三种不同的方式对价值进行了概念化：有价值的工艺品中的客观实体；消费者所感知的主观效用；创造价值的能力取决于不同环境的创造过程。现在我们来对它们进行简单介绍。
Classical economics—value as objective substance
古典经济学ー客观实体的价值
The term “classical economics” refers to ideas developed by a small but influential group of classical economists in the 18th and 19th centuries. A key theme in classical economics was the substance-based value theories developed by Quesnay (1758), Smith (1776), Ricardo (1817) and Marx (1867). These now largely abandoned value theories all stated that the “natural” value of goods was determined by some objectively identifiable substance used for its production, such as corn, stock or labor time (Mirowski, 1991). The shift in the 1870s away from such objective substance theories of value (see next section) was so abrupt that the term “value” was deemed too ambiguous, unscientific and dangerous, and therefore abandoned and delegated to “the dustbin of history by mainstream economics” (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013, p. 179). The following advice from Jevons (1871) is illustrative of the challenges:
“古典经济学”是指18世纪和19世纪由一小群有影响力的古典经济学家发展出来的思想。古典经济学的一个关键主题是由魁奈（Quesnay）、史密斯（Smith）、李嘉图（Ricardo）和马克思（Marx）发展的基于实体的价值理论。这些现在基本上被抛弃的价值理论指出，商品的“自然”价值是由其生产的某些客观实体所决定的，如玉米、库存或劳动时间。19世纪70年代这种客观实体价值理论(见下一节)的转变是如此突然，以至于“价值”一词被认为过于模糊、不科学和危险的，因此被放弃，并被扔到了“主流经济学的历史垃圾箱中去了”。杰文斯（Jevons）以下的建议阐述了这些挑战。
I must, in the first place, point out the thoroughly ambiguous and unscientific character of the term value. Adam Smith noticed the extreme difference of meaning between value in use and value in exchange; (...) I often detect myself using the word improperly; (...) To avoid all difficulty, I shall discontinue the use of the word Value altogether (Jevons, 1871, p. 81–83)
首先，我必须指出“价值”这个术语的完全模糊和不科学的性质。亚当 · 史密斯（Adam Smith）注意到使用价值和交换价值在意义的极端差异；我经常发现自己用词不当。为了避免这一切，我决定完全停止使用“价值”这个词。
The resulting emphasis on demand (i.e. utility) and consequent neglect of supply (i.e. value creation) led, however, to significant limitations in the ability to explain phenomena pertaining to creation of new value (Mirowski, 1991), which is a key topic in entrepreneurship.
然而，由此而产生的对需求(即效用)的强调和对供应(即价值创造)的忽视，导致解释与创造新价值有关的现象的能力受到重大限制，而这是创业的一个关键主题。
Neoclassical and neoliberal economics—value as subjective utility
新古典主义和新自由主义经济学----主观效用的价值
Neoclassical economics studies supply and demand under the assumption that markets consist of rational individuals maximizing their own benefit (or that of their firm). Neoliberalism is neoclassical economics turned into politics, asserting that society maximizes well-being of the collective by letting each individual maximize their own benefit (Harvey, 2005). Neoclassical and neoliberal economics both take a similar position to value as that expressed by Smith and Bentham: what is valuable is simply up to the recipient of value to determine—the utility-maximizing consumer exerting her freedom of choice. Here the term used is not“value,”but instead“utility,”semantically and conceptually in line with Bentham’s utilitarianism. This represents a subjective view of value (Meynhardt & von Müller, 2014), and was introduced in the 1870s by Walras (1874), Menger (1871) and Jevons (1871). These theories of value were all, independently of each other, inspired by new discoveries in physics around field energy equations (Mirowski, 1991). They allowed for solving the puzzling discrepancy between the “natural” (i.e. objective) value of goods and fluctuating market prices (Meynhardt and von Müller, 2014). The solution was simply to say that the market value is the value of goods, illustrated in mathematical terms as a force field of differing levels of utility, and that there is no such thing as a “natural” value of goods. The use of field equations also allowed for unprecedented mathematical precision and complexity in economic calculations of utility, opening up for new levels of analysis,explanation and prediction (Mirowski, 1991).
新古典主义经济学是在这样的假设下研究供给和需求：市场是由使自己（或公司）利益最大化的个体组成的。新自由主义是将新古典主义经济学政治化，主张社会通过让每个个体实现自身利益最大化来实现集体福祉的最大化。新古典主义和新自由主义经济学都采取了与史密斯和边沁所表达的价值相似的立场：价值只是由价值的接受者来决定——效用最大化的消费者行使其自由选择权。这里使用的术语不是“价值”，而是“效用”，在语义和概念上都符合边沁的功利主义。这代表了一种主观的价值观 ，并在19世纪70年代由Walras ，Menger 和杰文斯引入。这些价值理论都是相互独立的，它们的灵感来自于受到场能量方程的物理学启发而新发现的。它们解决了商品的“自然”(即客观)价值与波动的市场价格之间令人费解的差异。简单地说就是，市场价值就是商品的价值，用数学术语表示就是效用程度不同的力场之间不存在商品的”自然”价值这种东西。
场方程的使用还为效用的经济计算带来了前所未有的数学精度和复杂性，为新的分析、解释和预测水平开辟了新道路，
Strategic management—value creation as strategic capability
战略管理----战略能力的价值创造
A practitioner oriented scholarly field that has embraced the term“value” is that of strategic management of firms. Normann and Ramirez (1993, p. 65) start a seminal article in the field by stating that“Strategy is the art of creating value.” Ever since Porter (1985) introduced the idea of analyzing a firm’s “value chain,” i.e. the chain of activities that generate value for a firm’s customers, the term value has been widely used by strategic management scholars and practitioners alike (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013). According to strategic management literature, there are a number of more or less tangible factors determining a firm’s value creation capacity: activities (Porter, 1985), resources (Wernerfelt, 1984), core competencies (Hamel & Prahalad, 1990), social networks for co-creation (Normann & Ramirez, 1993), dynamic capabilities and intellectual assets (Teece et al., 1997). All these attempts to explore where value comes from could be interpreted as an unexpected revival of ideas from classical economics, since they all try to trace the journey of value through the production system in a manner similar to the abandoned substance value theories (LopdrupHjorth, 2013). In recent work studying an increasingly common co-creation logic, such a linear view of production, exchange and consumption of value however falls apart to some extent. In today’s networked society, it has become increasingly difficult to tell producers of value apart from consumers of value. Social media platforms and banks are particular examples of this (Fuchs, 2012).
一个以实践为导向的学术领域，已经接受了术语“价值”是企业战略管理的理念。Normann和Ramirez在这个领域开创性的一篇文章中指出：“战略是创造价值的艺术。”自从 Porter提出了分析企业“价值链”，即为企业客户创造价值的一系列活动的概念以来，价值这个术语就被战略管理学者和实践者广泛使用。根据战略管理文献，有或多或少的有形因素决定了企业价值创造能力：活动、资源、核心竞争力、共同创造的社交网络、动态能力和智力资产等。所有这些探索价值从何而来的尝试都可以被解释为古典经济学思想的意外复兴，因为它们都试图以类似于被抛弃的物质价值理论的方式来追溯价值通过生产系统的旅程。在最近研究一种日益普遍的共同创造逻辑的工作中，这种对价值的生产、交换和消费的线性观点却在某种程度上被推翻了。在今天的网络社会中，区分价值生产者和价值消费者变得越来越困难，而社交媒体平台和银行就是一个特别的例子。

Value according to sociologists—a pluralistic view
社会学家的价值----多元化的观点
A common basis for sociological views of value is the assumption of homo sociologicus, i.e. that humans are socializing, role-playing, volitional, meaning-seeking and docile individuals acting not only on self-interest but also on advice, social status, and norms and values they perceive in society (Simon, 1993; Lindenberg, 1990; Fehr & Gintis, 2007). Sociological views on value are more pluralistic than economic views. This section will therefore necessarily be an arbitrary selection of value related frameworks and perspectives, included based on their utility for the purpose of this article.
社会学价值观的一个共同基础是社会学人的假设，即人是社会化的、角色扮演的、有意志力的、寻求意义的和温顺的个人，其行为不仅基于自身利益，而且还基于他们在社会中感知的建议、地位以及规范和价值观。社会学的价值观比经济学的价值观更加多元化。因此，本节必然是一个与价值相关的框架和观点的任意选择，包括基于他们在本文的目的--实用性。
Economic sociology
经济社会学
Economic sociology is the study of sociological perspectives on economic phenomena (Smelser & Swedberg, 2005). A key argument in the field is that markets need to be viewed as embedded in society (Polanyi, 1944; Granovetter, 1985). Polanyi claimed that any attempt to disembed markets from society will have disastrous consequences, and that such attempts will trigger dangerous counter-movements such as authoritarianism and fascism (Gemici, 2008; Smelser & Swedberg, 2005; Harvey, 2005). This has positioned economic sociology as an attack on both neoclassical and neoliberal views, united as they are in their view of the free and rational homo oeconomicus outlined above (Peck, 2008; Smelser & Swedberg, 2005). Economic sociology has not advanced only through the work of sociologists (Swedberg, 1990); economists have also made attempts to integrate the two fields of economics and sociology. Amartya Sen has stated that “we should not fall into the trap of presuming that the assumption of pure self-interest is, in any sense, more elementary than assuming other values” (Ben-Ner & Putterman, 1999, p. xii).
经济社会学是对经济现象的社会学观点的研究。该领域的一个关键论点是，市场需要被视为嵌入社会当中去。波兰尼（Polanyi）声称，任何将市场从社会中分离出去的企图都将产生灾难性的后果，这种尝试将引发危险的反运动，如威权主义和法西斯主义。这将经济社会学定位为对新古典主义和新自由主义两种观点的攻击，因为它们在上述自由和理性的经济人观点中是统一的。经济社会学不仅仅是通过社会学家的工作取得进步的，而且经济学家曾经还试图整合经济学和社会学这两个领域。阿玛蒂亚森(Amartya Sen)曾经说过: “我们不应该落入这样的陷阱，即在任何意义上，假定纯粹的利己主义者都比假定其他价值观更基本”。
(Ben-Ner & Putterman, 1999, p. xii)。Boltanski and Thévenot (2006) have developed one of the main theoretical frameworks for value analysis in economic sociology. The framework consists of six different “worlds” of value. In the “world of inspiration,” it is qualities such as creativity, imagination and passion that are valued. In the “industrial world,” what is valued is productivity, predictability and performance. The “market world” celebrates competition, rationality and desire for scarce goods and self-benefit. In the “domestic world,” worth is determined by hierarchies, or relationships between people and their associated esteem. The “world of fame” positions value in the number of people who gain their recognition through reliance on “appearance, stardom and superficiality” (Boivin & Roch, 2006, p. 411). Finally, the “civic world” encapsulates collective common good values such as fairness, democracy and solidarity. These six worlds of value are shown in Table 1 below.
波尔坦斯基（Boltanski）和泰弗诺（Thévenot）开创了经济社会学价值分析的主要理论框架之一。这个框架由六个不同的价值“世界”组成。在“灵感的世界”中，诸如创造力、想象力和激情这样的品质是有价值的；在“工业世界”，重视的是生产力、可预测性和表现；“市场世界”崇尚竞争和理性，赞美对稀缺商品和自我利益的渴望；在“家庭世界”中，价值取决于等级制度，或者人与人之间的关系和他们相关的尊重程度；“名人世界”的价值在于通过“表现、明星和肤浅的外表”获得认可的人的数量。最后，“公民世界”涵盖了公平、民主和团结等集体利益价值观。这六个价值世界如下表1所示。
Behavioral economics
行为经济学
Behavioral economics combines economics with other fields that empirically study human behavior—primarily psychology, but also other fields (Weber & Dawes, 2010). A pioneer in this field was Nobel laureate Herbert Simon, who modified the rationality assumption underlying neoclassical economics by stating that rationality is “bounded” (i.e. limited) by lack of information, limitations in human cognitive power and the presence of multiple and shifting personal wants (Simon, 2000). According to Simon (1993; 2005), humans respond to this by carefully listening to others’ advice, constantly learning in social settings and internalizing rules of thumb and heuristics that can be used for future decisions on which actions to take. This results in behavior that at times appears altruistic, i.e. helping others with no expected reciprocity, thereby deviating from the mainstream economic assumption of elf-optimizing behavior. Whether it is in fact altruistic, or rather a futureoriented, dynamic and “intelligent” form of subtle egoism is a question often discussed by scholars (Batson et al., 2008; Simon, 2005; Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981).
行为经济学结合经济学和其他领域的实证研究人类行为----主要是心理学，但也包括其他领域。这一领域的先驱者是诺贝尔经济学奖获得主赫伯特 · 西蒙(Herbert Simon) ，他修正了新古典主义经济学的理性假设，指出理性受到信息缺乏、人类认知能力有限以及存在多重和不断变化的个人需求的“限制”。根据西蒙的研究，人类对此的反应应该是认真听取他人的建议，在社会环境中不断学习，内化经验法则和启发式教学法，这些经验法则将来可用于决定采取何种行动。这导致了有时表现为利他主义的行为，即在没有预期互惠的情况下帮助他人，偏离了自我优化行为的主流经济学假设。它究竟是一种利他主义，还是一种面向未来、动态的、“聪明”的微妙利己主义形式，成为了学者们经常讨论的问题。
A widely applied value framework in behavioral economics has been developed by Sheth, Newman and Gross (1991). They took consumer decisions as a starting point of empirical analysis and ended up with five different values influencing consumer choice: functional, emotional, epistemic, social and conditional value. Functional value refers to consumers’ perceived utility in terms of product function or performance. Emotional value stems from a capacity of products to arouse feelings that consumers value. Epistemic value is based on consumers’ curiosity, novelty, and desire to learn. Social value is derived from utility related to consumers’ participation in groups. Examples include jewelry, clothing, gifts and cars that convey a desirable image to others (Sheth et al., 1991, p. 161). Finally, conditional value depends on needs that arise out of situations such as seasons and cultural events, where consumers would otherwise be at odds with the situation they find themselves in. With its focus on how consumers choose between alternative products, this framework aligns more with the singular view of a self-serving homo oeconomicus. Still, the framework illustrates how consumers combine multiple values to form perceptions of utility. These five consumer values are shown in Table 1 below.
谢斯（Sheth），纽曼（Newman）和Gross提出了一个广泛应用于行为经济学的价值框架。他们以消费者决策为实证分析为出发点，最终得出影响消费者选择的五种不同价值：功能价值、情感价值、认知价值、社会价值和条件价值。功能价值是指消费者对产品功能或性能的感知效用；情感价值是源于产品唤起消费者情感的能力；认知价值是基于消费者的好奇心、新奇感和求知欲；社会价值来源于消费者参与群体的效用；这些例子包括珠宝、服装、礼物和汽车等，它们可以向他人传达理想的形象。最后，这个条件价值取决于季节和文化活动等情况下产生的需求，否则消费者将发现与他们自己所处的实际情况不一致。这个框架聚焦于消费者如何选择替代产品，才能更符合自我主义的经济人的独特观点。尽管如此，这个框架还是说明了消费者如何结合多种价值来形成对效用的认知。
这五个消费者价值观如下表1所示。
Psychology
心理学
Motivation and well-being theories stemming from psychological research constitute one possible starting point in an investigation of what humans find valuable. Fiske (2008) has synthesized the vast literature on motivational research into a framework consisting of five different perspectives. According to Fiske, human motives differ depending on whether we study patients on the psychoanalytic couch, examine our own consciousness, watch students in the classroom, use the computer as a metaphor for cognitive understanding, or study group members in a collective. On the psychoanalytic couch, people appear hedonistically self-focused on maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain, in line with utilitarian economics. When studying people’s conscious experiences, they appear optimistic, futureoriented, trust-based and focused on functional potential to get things done, i.e. an emphasis on the emotional enjoyment and flow inherent in human valued activity. In the classroom, the clear-cut incentives in a constructed learning environment make for behavioristic motives based on students’ expectation of achieving a goal and the perceived value of achieving it. When using the computer as a metaphor for researching human cognition, scientists have studied mental and social aspects of how people process information in order to reach a coherent understanding, i.e. aiming to reach a harmonious experience free from individual and collective disharmony and disjuncture. When studying groups, the motives for belonging to a social collective seem endless, ranging from surviving, reproducing and conforming to collectively acting, understanding and sympathizing. These five perspectives in motivation theory are shown in Table 1 below.
源于心理学研究的动机和幸福感理论构成了一个对人类发现有价值的东西进行研究的可能的起点。约翰·费斯克（Fiske）综合了大量关于动机研究的文献，形成了一个由五个不同视角组成的框架。根据费斯克的研究，人类动机的不同取决于我们是否在为病人做心理分析，检查我们自己的意识、在课堂上观察学生、用计算机作为认知理解的隐喻，或在集体中研究小组成员。在做心里分析时，人们表现出一种享乐主义的自我关注，专注于最大化快乐和避免痛苦，这与功利主义经济学是一致的；在研究人们的意识体验时，他们表现出乐观、面向未来，以信任为基础，关注完成事情的潜力，即强调人的价值活动所固有的情感享受和流动；在课堂教学中，构建一个学习环境中，明确的动机促成了学生对实现目标的期望和价值的感知，进而形成了行为动机；当使用计算机作为研究人类认知的隐喻时，科学家们研究了人们如何处理信息的心理，以便达成一致的理解，即旨在达到一种摆脱个人和集体不和谐和分离的和谐体验；
当研究群体时，归属于一个社会集体的动机似乎是无穷无尽的，从生存、繁衍和到集体行动、理解和同情。动机理论中的这五个观点如下表1所示。
Another value framework anchored in psychology has been developed by Seligman (2012), consisting of five measurable elements of subjective well-being; positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning and achievement. Positive emotion is interpreted as a mood induced by a pleasant life. Engagement is interpreted as being in “flow,” being completely absorbed by a task and losing track of time. Relationships are interpreted as meaningful experiences shared with other people, often in close and long-term relationships. Meaning is interpreted as belonging to and serving something that is bigger than the self, often despite its sometimes detrimental impact on other elements in the framework. Achievement is interpreted as achieving one’s goals solely for their own sake, isolated from any eventual resulting impact on the four other elements of the framework, i.e. winning just for the sake of winning. These five elements of well-being are shown in Table 1 below.
马丁·塞利格曼（Seligman）提出了另一个以心理学为基础的价值框架，它包括主观幸福感的五个可测量元素：积极的情绪、参与、关系、意义和成就因素。积极情绪是指由愉快的生活引起的情绪；参与情绪是处于一种“流动”状态，完全沉浸在任务中，忘记了时间；关系因素是与他人分享的有意义的经历，通常是在亲密和长期的关系中；意义因素是为属于并服务于比自我更重要的东西，尽管它有时会对框架中的其他元素产生不利影响；成就因素是指完全为了自己的目标，与框架中其他四个因素的任何最终影响相无关，即仅仅是为了成功而成功。幸福的这五个要素如下表1所示。
Entrepreneurship
创业
Given the centrality of value creation to entrepreneurship (Bruyat & Julien, 2001; Moroz & Hindle, 2012), it is reasonable to expect that all the previously outlined perspectives on value have already been discussed to some extent by entrepreneurship scholars. The most obvious kind of value associated to entrepreneurship would arguably be economic value. Indeed, Korsgaard and Anderson (2011) state that it is even taken for granted in entrepreneurship. Social value is another major theme in entrepreneurship research, illustrated by a focus on social entrepreneurship (Tan et al., 2005). A less obvious value was put forward by Schumpeter (1934) in the early 20th century, proposing the joy of creating to be an important value for people acting entrepreneurially (Goss, 2005). While a quest for harmony through a search for disharmonies in one’s everyday life is perhaps not a common theme in entrepreneurship research, it has been proposed as a useful and theoretically wellgrounded view of entrepreneurship for educational purposes (Thrane et al., 2016). A fame and achievement oriented view of entrepreneurship as societal change through economic or political history-making has also been proposed in an influential book by Spinosa et al. (1999). These five perspectives on entrepreneurship are shown in Table 1 below.
鉴于价值创造对创业的核心作用，有理由可以预测之前概述的关于价值的所有观点在一定程度上已经被创业学者讨论过。与创业最相关的一种最明显的价值可以说是经济价值了。事实上，Korsgaard 和 Anderson 指出，在创业中，这甚至是理所当然的。社会价值是创业研究的另一个重要主题，以社会创业为例，熊彼特在20世纪早期提出了一个不太明显的价值，认为创造的乐趣是人们创业行为的一个重要价值。虽然通过寻找日常生活中的不和谐来寻求和谐可能不是创业研究的共同主题，但也有人提出，这是一个有用的、理论上有充分根据的观点，可以用于教育目的的创业。Thrane et al。Spinosa 等人在1999年出版的一本有影响力的书中也提出了一种以名誉和成就为导向的观点，认为创业是通过经济或政治历史改变社会的。下面的表1显示了这五个关于创业的观点。
Table 1. Five prototypic kinds of value creation derived from sociological theories.

Notes: a (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006), b (Sheth et al., 1991), c (Fiske, 2008), d (Seligman, 2012), e (Korsgaard & Anderson, 2011), f (Spinosa et al., 1999), g (Goss, 2005), h (Tan et al., 2005), i (Blenker et al., 2011)
Value creation for oneself versus for others
价值创造：为自己与为他人
A key theme emerging from the value literature review is for whom value is created: for oneself versus for others. The scale stretches from Smith’s (1776) famous assertion that the butcher acts solely on self-interest, through Sen’s claim (Ben-Ner & Putterman, 1999) that such an assumption so common in neoclassical economic thinking is in fact a trap, to Simon’s (2005) explanation that the frequent occurrence of altruism in social and economic everyday life comes from people’s strong desires to learn from, belong to, contribute to and develop relations with other human beings. Since space here does not permit a lengthy discussion on altruism versus egoism, some key conclusions from an article by Lackéus (2017b) on this topic will be used to complement the value framework. Instead of making a futile attempt to disentangle doing good from doing well, the differing perspectives will instead be viewed in a Hegelian dialectical way: as two sides of the same coin. Hegel labeled this ‘sublation’, implying a unity of opposites without eliminating or reducing either end position (Hegel, 1807/1977; Palm, 2009). In the resulting value framework in Figure 1 this unity of opposites is therefore illustrated graphically with the yin and yang shape found in Chinese thinking, representing “two primal, separate standing, yet complementary forces found in all things” (Chen et al., 2010, p. 175). This view also aligns with arguments put forward by Dewey (1939), Polanyi (1944) and Stark (2011), all stating that disembedding and dichotomizing self-oriented value creation from others-oriented value creation is a detrimental and dangerous path to take.
价值文献综述中出现的一个关键主题，是：价值是为谁而创建的， 为自己还是为他人？从史密斯的著名断言——屠夫的行为完全出于自身利益，到森(Sen)的说法：这种假设在新古典经济思想里，实际上就是一个陷阱。再到西蒙的解释——利他主义之所以在社会和经济日常生活中频繁出现，是源于人们强烈的向他人学习、归属和促进、发展与其他人的关系的原因。由于篇幅有限，无法就利他主义与利己主义进行冗长的讨论，因此特引用lack éus一篇文章中的关于这一主题的一些关键结论来补充价值框架。不同的观点可以用黑格尔（Hegelian）的辩证方式来看待，而不是徒劳地试图将行善与做得好来区分：就像同一枚硬币的两面一样。黑格尔给这个“分离”贴上标签，意味着对立和统一，且不消除或减少任何一端的位置。因此，在图1的结果价值框架中，这种对立统一被生动地用中国人思维中的阴阳形态表示出来，代表了“万物中存在的两种原始的、独立的、但又互补的力量”。
这一观点也与杜威、波兰尼和斯塔克提出的观点一致，他们都认为将自我导向的价值创造与他人导向的价值创造相分离是一种有害而危险的做法。

Figure 1. Framework for five different kinds of value.
Notes: 1: Korsgaard & Anderson, 2011; Goss, 2005; Tan et al., 2005; Blenker et al., 2012; Spinosa et al., 1999.
2: Fiske, 2008; Seligman, 2012; Frankl, 1985. 3: Sheth et al., 1991. 4: Boltanski & Thévenot, 1991.
Five prototypic kinds of value creation
价值创造的五种原型
The literature review conducted here has resulted in five main kinds of value, see Table 1. While the literature could be summarized as consisting of more, less or indeed other kinds of prototypic value than the ones shown in Table 1, the table nevertheless illustrates that opting for these five main kinds of value creation captures most perspectives in a reasonably consistent way. The five kinds are labeled as follows: economic, enjoyment, social, harmony and influence value creation. Economic value creation could be viewed as primarily self-oriented attempts to create value for oneself by delivering what others want. Enjoyment value creation could be viewed as value creation just for the pure joy and fun of it. Social value creation could be viewed as a others-oriented kind of value creation focused on making other people happier or relieving their suffering. Harmony value creation could be viewed as value creation that makes more sense as a whole, culturally or in relation to collective values such as fairness, ecology, equality and the common good. Influence value creation could be viewed as creating value in order to increase one’s influence, power or historical legacy.
本文进行的文献综述得出了五种主要的价值，见表1。虽然文献可以归纳出比表1更多、更少或包含其他类型的原型价值，但该表还是能说明，这五种主要类型的价值创造可以以合理一致的方式抓住了大多数观点。这五种类型分别为： 经济价值，娱乐价值，社会价值，和谐价值和影响价值。经济价值可以被看作是主要以自我为导向的尝试，通过满足他人的需求来为自己创造价值；娱乐价值纯粹是为了娱乐而创造的价值；社会价值是一种以他人为导向的价值创造，专注于让他人更快乐或减轻他们的痛苦；和谐价值在是在整体上、文化上或与公平、生态、平等和共同利益等集体价值有关的、更有意义的价值创造；影响力价值可以看作是为了增加自己的影响力、权力或历史遗产而来的创造价值。
Towards a value framework
迈向价值框架
While Table 1 clarifies the relationship between different views on value, it does not show how the five different kinds of value relate to egoistic vs altruistic perspectives, or how singular and plural conceptions of value relate to each other. Therefore, a graphical representation of the five different kinds of value is shown in Figure 1, showing how the pluralistic views on value discussed in section 3.3 integrate with the singular view on value discussed in section 3.2. The five different kinds of value creation from Table 1 are illustrated in Figure 1. All five kinds of value are pictured as relying on a common integrated core of value for oneself and for others. Figure 1 thus contains ten different value perspectives: an egoistic and an altruistic take on each of the five different kinds of value. While the usual view on economic value would be to think of it in terms of economic value for oneself, the framework illustrates that economic value can be created also for others. Social value can be created not only for others, but also for oneself. The white line in Figure 1 illustrates a key point made by Polanyi (1944) and Granovetter (1985) around economic value being embedded in society as a whole, and serves here as a reminder of the risks associated with disembedding economic value for oneself from the nine other perspectives on value.
虽然表1阐明了不同价值观之间的关系，但它没有说明五种不同的价值观是如何与利己主义和利他主义的观点相联系的，或者单一和多元的价值观之间是如何相互联系的。因此用图1----五种不同类型价值的图形----来显示多元价值观是如何与单一价值观相结合的。表1中的五种不同类型的价值创造如图1所示。所有五种价值被描绘为依赖于一个共同的、为自己和为他人的综合的核心价值。因此，图1就包含了十种不同的价值观: 利己主义和利他主义对五种不同价值观的每一种都有不同的看法。虽然经济价值的观点通常是认为它的经济价值是为自己的，但这个框架却说明了，经济价值也是可以为他人创造的。社会价值不仅可以为他人创造，也可以为自己创造。图1中的白线说明了Polanyi 和Granovetter提出的一个关键点，即经济价值作为一个整体嵌入社会中，并在此提醒人们从其他九个关于价值的观点中剥离自己的经济价值所带来的风险。
4
DISCUSSION 讨论
The resulting value framework will now be discussed in relation to three different fields: entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurship and valuation studies. Each sub-discussion will treat issues of novelty, usefulness and implications separately for the field in question.
现在将结合三个不同领域讨论由此产生的价值框架: 创业教育、创业和估值研究。每个子讨论将分别针对所讨论的领域处理那些具有新颖性、实用性和影响力的问题。
The value framework in relation to entrepreneurial education
与创业教育相关的价值框架
This exploration into different views of value started as a quest for answers to a simple question posed by teachers. The answer now provided is summarized in the framework in Figure 1, representing one possible and relatively clear answer to that question: What is value? There are at least ten different perspectives teachers can take on value: five self-oriented and five others-oriented. While the framework could give the impression that they are all separate, the literature review has emphasized the importance of regarding all ten perspectives as simultaneously present in all entrepreneurial experiences, albeit to a varying degree for different people and in different situations. All ten perspectives could probably be present to some extent in one single day of the life of a business or student entrepreneur, with the emphasis changing hour by hour or even minute by minute, depending on how the day unfolds.
这种对不同价值观的探索始于对教师提出的一个简单问题的回答。现在提供的答案都总结在图1的框架中，代表了对这个问题的一个可能且相对清晰的回答: 什么是价值？老师们对价值至少有十种不同的看法: 五种以自我为中心，五种以他人为中心。虽然该框架可能给人留下它们都是相对独立的印象，但文献综述强调必须考虑在所有创业经历活动中同时存在十种不同的观点的重要性，尽管对于不同的人和不同的情况而言，只是程度各不相同而已。所有这十种观点都可能在某种程度上出现在一个企业或学生创业者一天的生活中，不管它是随小时变化，还是随分钟变化，这取决于他的一天是如何展开的。
While Figure 1 is indeed a simplification, the broad and interdisciplinary literature review conducted here illustrates the usefulness of a heuristic that can summarize such a complex term as “value” into one single graphical representation. For teachers who need such an overview in order to be able to apply value creation based entrepreneurial education in their teaching, such a simplification could be important. Initial testing of the framework on teachers taking part in professional development activities has confirmed this. The value framework frequently triggered a deeper understanding among teachers. It also helped them in designing value creation assignments for their students by making explicit different possible starting points. The framework has also facilitated scholarly assessment of entrepreneurial education, allowing for detailed comparisons of different kinds of entrepreneurial education along dimensions not previously taken into account (Lackéus, 2017a). An interesting finding from these comparisons is that enjoyment value for others and influence value for oneself seem to be particularly powerful for students in entrepreneurial education. The framework has thus emerged as a useful tool for both practitioners and researchers in recent attempts to develop value creation-based entrepreneurial education. While certainly not the first value framework to be presented, it is particularly suited for issues related to value creation based entrepreneurial education.
虽然图1的确是一个简化形式，但是这里进行的广泛和跨学科的文献综述说明了启发式教学方法的有用性，这种方法可以将诸如“价值”这样的复杂术语总结为一个单一的图形表示。对于需要这种概览的教师来说，这样一种简化是很重要的，因为他们需要这样一种概览，以便能够将基于价值创造的创业教育应用到他们的教学当中去，教师参与专业发展活动的框架的初步测试证实了这一点。这种价值框架还经常引发教师之间更深层次的理解。它还通过明确不同的可能出发点，帮助他们为学生设计有关价值创造的作业。该框架还促进了对创业教育的学术评估，允许以之前从未考虑过的维度，对不同类型的创业教育进行详细比较。在这些比较中，老师们发现了一个有趣的现象：他人的娱乐价值和自身的影响价值似乎对正在接受创业教育的学生来说影响力特别大。因此，在最近发展基于价值创造的创业教育的尝试中，这个框架已经成为实践者和研究者的一个有用工具，尽管它不是第一个被提出的价值框架，但是特别适合于与基于价值创造的创业教育相关的问题。
The value framework in relation to entrepreneurship
和创业有关的价值框架
The framework in Figure 1 could also be viewed as an answer to a modified question that is more general: If entrepreneurship is about new value creation, what, then, is value? The answer provided by Figure 1 could thus trigger new perspectives on entrepreneurship, departing from the common dualistic view of social versus economic entrepreneurship (cf. Austin et al., 2006). A view of entrepreneurship as consisting of ten different perspectives as shown in Figure 1 is more pluralistic, allowing for ten fundamentally different but at the same time integrated motives to engage in entrepreneurship. The value framework thus contributes to a deeper understanding of what entrepreneurship is, and why people engage in entrepreneurship. This also implies a need to avoid separating out social entrepreneurship as one distinct kind of entrepreneurship, since such an act could represent a dangerous disembedding of the market from the society (cf. Polanyi, 1944; Granovetter,1985) or a risky dichotomization of value versus values (Stark, 2011cf. ; Dewey, 1939). Since the framework has not yet been tested outside the field of entrepreneurial education, it remains to be seen if it could be used to analyze and facilitate entrepreneurial processes more in general. This represents a possibility for future work.
图1中的框架也可以被看作是对一个修改过、更普遍的问题的回答: 如果创业是关于新的价值创造，那么到底什么才是价值？因此，图1提供的答案可能引发关于创业的新观点，偏离了社会创业与经济创业的共同二元观点。而正如图1所示的，由十个不同的视角组成的创业观点，会更加的多元化，它允许在创业中有十个根本不同但同时又经过整合的动机。因此，价值框架有助于人们更深入地理解什么是创业，以及为什么人们要创业。这也意味着需要避免将社会创业作为一种独特的创业加以区分，因为这种行为可能意味着市场与社会的危险分离或价值与价值观的危险二分法。由于该框架尚未在创业教育领域之外进行过测试，它是否能够更广泛地用于分析和促进创业进程还有待观察，但它代表了未来工作的一种可能性。
The value framework in relation to valuation studies
与价值观研究有关的价值框架
The framework in Figure 1 represents an alternative to the dualistic Parson’s Pact-based view of separating value from values (Stark, 2011), since economic value for oneself is part of an integrated pluralistic framework rather than put against other kinds of value. The framework also summarizes graphically some important points made by key valuation scholars, such as the importance of viewing multiple kinds of value as simultaneously integrated (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006), the importance of considering both egoistic and altruistic perspectives on value (Simon, 1993) and the risk of disembedding economic value for oneself from the nine other perspectives on value presented here (Stark, 2011; Granovetter, 1985). This summarizing capacity of Figure 1 makes it useful as a graphical heuristic also in valuation studies. Figure 1 could also be one of the first meta-frameworks of value to be proposed, summarizing four established sociological value frameworks and five different kinds of entrepreneurship into one single framework that also integrates singular perspectives on value. The many established and well-researched frameworks and publications informing the articulation of Figure 1 increase the likelihood that it covers most of the essential perspectives on value to be found.
图1的框架还代表了另一种基于多元的帕森的契约的将价值与价值观分离的另一种选择，因为自身的经济价值是整合了多元化框架的一部分，而不是与其他类型的价值相对立。该框架还图形化地总结了由主要价值评估学者提出的一些重要观点，例如同时整合多种价值的重要性，考虑利己主义和利他主义价值观的重要性，以及从其他9种价值观中剥离自身经济价值的风险。图1的这种图形启发式教学方法在估值研究中也很有用。图1也可以是拟议的第一批价值元框架之一，它将四个既定的社会学价值框架和五种不同类型的创业概括为一个单一的框架，该框架还将单一的价值观点纳入其中。图1借鉴了许多既定的、经过充分研究的框架和出版物的阐述，增大了它涵盖大多数关于价值的基本观点的可能性。
Limitations
局限性
Any research endeavor spanning centuries of literature in many scholarly fields runs the risk of overlooking fundamental work, rendering the end result less trustworthy. The literature review conducted here was also not conducted in a structured or even semi-structured manner. Such an endeavor would probably be difficult to undertake given the broad use of the term “value”. Any search in scientific databases for such a broad term would render a useless breadth of results. Faced with these semantic and methodological difficulties, the author has chosen a pragmatic path of presenting the results so far from this admittedly eclectic and opportunistic literature review, letting future applications and interactions inform around the usefulness and trustworthiness of Figure 1.
在许多学术领域，任何跨越几个世纪的文献研究都存在忽视基础工作的风险，使最终结果变得不是那么可靠。本文的文献综述也不是以结构化甚至半结构化的方式进行的。因此，鉴于“价值”一词的广泛使用，这样的努力可能难以进行下去。任何在科学数据库中搜索如此广泛的术语的努力都可能得到很多无用的结果。面对这些语义和方法上的困难，作者选择了一条务实的途径来展示这个公认的折衷和机会主义的文献综述迄今为止的结果，让未来的应用和交互围绕图1的有用性和可信度展示信息。
最新课表
点击