The methodology for this article appears to be:

1. Listen to 14 podcast episodes
2. Take some quotes
3. One episode is enough to define a 5 year era
4. Build a narrative around this
5. Call it a "discursive analytic method"

It particularly highlighted the reasons taking big risks with entrepreneurship might be the biggest way to make an impact on the lives of others. The main rationale for this is that even failing on a startup can potentially earn the entrepreneur a lot of money.

The source they cite says:

Over 90% of the wealth gained by founders came from the top 10% of firms, those which returned over $10 million, and almost half the wealth came from the top 2% of firms, returning over $100 million.

Kind of remarkable that they got the explanation exactly backwards. 

I was about to debunk some arguments then decided it was a waste of time, as the quality of methodology, and argument is too low to even bother poking holes in.

Sentences like this belong in a blog post or opinion piece, not in the methodology section of a peer reviewed paper.

"we painstakingly pored through hundreds of hours of podcasts content, dozens of pages of various content including blog posts/articles and career review."

How a piece like this ends up in the frontiers of psychology journal, which had a decent impact factor, I do not know