Issuu

(Ebook PDF) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship 1st edition by Helle Neergaard, John Parm UlhÃ¸i 1843768356 â€Ž978-1843768357 full chapters pdf download https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-handbook-of-qualitativeresearch-methods-in-entrepreneurship-1st-edition-by-helleneergaard-john-parm-ulha-i-1843768356-aeurz978-1843768357-fullchapters-23164/

Explore and download more ebooks or textbooks at ebookball.com

Get Your Digital Files Instantly: PDF, ePub, MOBI and More Quick Digital Downloads: PDF, ePub, MOBI and Other Formats

(Ebook PDF) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship 1st edition by Helle Neergaard, John Parm UlhÃ¸i 1843768356 â€Ž978-1843768357 full chapters https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-handbook-of-qualitativeresearch-methods-in-entrepreneurship-1st-edition-by-helleneergaard-john-parm-ulha-i-1843768356-aeurz978-1843768357-fullchapters-23164/

(Ebook PDF) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship 1st edition by George Saridakis 1786430967 9781786430960 full chapters https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-handbook-of-qualitativeresearch-methods-in-entrepreneurship-1st-edition-by-georgesaridakis-1786430967-9781786430960-full-chapters-23362/

(Ebook PDF) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing 1st edition by Russell W. Belk 1845421000 978-1845421007 full chapters

https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-handbook-of-qualitativeresearch-methods-in-marketing-1st-edition-by-russell-wbelk-1845421000-978-1845421007-full-chapters-22994/

(Ebook PDF) Research Design Qualitative Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches 1st edition by John Creswell 1452226105 978-1452226101 full chapters https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-research-designqualitative-quantitative-and-mixed-methods-approaches-1stedition-by-john-creswell-1452226105-978-1452226101-fullchapters-23032/

Progress in Entrepreneurship Education and Training 1st Edition by Joern Block, Jantje Halberstadt, Nils Hogsdal, Andreas Kuckertz, Helle Neergaard ISBN 3031285611 9783031285615 https://ebookball.com/product/progress-in-entrepreneurshipeducation-and-training-1st-edition-by-joern-block-jantjehalberstadt-nils-hogsdal-andreas-kuckertz-helle-neergaardisbn-3031285611-9783031285615-24244/

(Ebook PDF) Methods Beyond Interviewing in Qualitative Market Research 1st edition by Philly Desai 9781849209465 full chapters

https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-methods-beyondinterviewing-in-qualitative-market-research-1st-edition-byphilly-desai-9781849209465-full-chapters-23042/

(Ebook PDF) Qualitative Research Methods 1st edition by Sarah Tracy 1118378814 9781118378816 full chapters

https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-qualitative-researchmethods-1st-edition-by-sarah-tracy-1118378814-9781118378816-fullchapters-22998/

(Ebook PDF) Keywords in Qualitative Methods A Vocabulary of Research Concepts 1st edition by Michael Bloor, Fiona Wood 1446230813 9781446230817 full chapters https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-keywords-in-qualitativemethods-a-vocabulary-of-research-concepts-1st-edition-by-michaelbloor-fiona-wood-1446230813-9781446230817-full-chapters-23034/

(Ebook PDF) Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration 1st edition by Sondra Brandler, Camille Roman 1420013270 9781420013276 full chapters https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-handbook-of-researchmethods-in-public-administration-1st-edition-by-sondra-brandlercamille-roman-1420013270-9781420013276-full-chapters-14852/

HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship

Edited by

Helle Neergaard Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, the Aarhus School of Business, Denmark

John Parm Ulhøi Professor in Organization and Management Theory, the Aarhus School of Business, Denmark

Edward Elgar Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

© Helle Neergaard and John Parm Ulhøi 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited Glensanda House Montpellier Parade Cheltenham Glos GL50 1UA UK Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. William Pratt House 9 Dewey Court Northampton Massachusetts 01060 USA

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship / edited by Helle Neergaard, John Parm Ulhøi. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Entrepreneurship. 2. Entrepreneurship–Research. I. Neergaard, Helle, 1960– II. Ulhøi, John P. HB615.H2659 2006 338 .04–dc22 2006011747

ISBN 978 1 84376 835 7 (cased) Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall

Contents List of contributors Acknowledgements Foreword by Sara Carter

vii xiii xv

Introduction: Methodological variety in entrepreneurship research Helle Neergaard and John Parm Ulhøi PART I

CHOOSING A VEHICLE

1. The entrepreneurship paradigm (I) revisited William D. Bygrave 2. Critical realism: a suitable vehicle for entrepreneurship research? Richard Blundel 3. Researching entrepreneurship as lived experience Henrik Berglund PART II

49 75

STARTING OUT AND GEARING UP

4. Ethnographic methods in entrepreneurship research Bruce A. Johnstone

5. Building grounded theory in entrepreneurship research Markus M. Mäkelä and Romeo V. Turcan

122

6. An action research approach to entrepreneurship Claire Leitch

144

7. Recognizing meaning: semiotics in entrepreneurial research Robert Smith and Alistair R. Anderson

169

8. Media discourse in entrepreneurship research Leona Achtenhagen and Friederike Welter

193

9. A Foucauldian framework for discourse analysis Helene Ahl

216

Contents

PART III

GAINING SPEED

10. Sampling in entrepreneurial settings Helle Neergaard 11. Catching it as it happens Ethel Brundin 12. Techniques for collecting verbal histories Brian McKenzie 13. Using e-mails as a source of qualitative data Ingrid Wakkee, Paula D. Englis and Wim During 14. The scientification of fiction Jesper Piihl, Kim Klyver and Torben Damgaard

253 279 308 331 359

PART IV WINDING DOWN AND ASSESSING THE RIDE 15. Assessing the quality of qualitative research in entrepreneurship 383 Caroline Wigren 16. A critical realist approach to quality in observation studies 406 Anne Bøllingtoft 17. Daring to be diﬀerent: a dialogue on the problems of getting qualitative research published 434 Robert Smith and Alistair R. Anderson 18. Avoiding a strike-out in the first innings 460 Candida Brush Postscript: Unresolved challenges? John Parm Ulhøi and Helle Neergaard Index

477

481

Contributors

Leona Achtenhagen holds an Associate Professorship at Jönköping International Business School, Sweden. Based on a background in strategy and organization studies, her research interests are mainly related to growth processes of firms, discourse analyses and media industries. Helene Ahl is a research fellow at the School of Education and Communication at Jönköping University, Sweden, and an aﬃliated researcher at Jönköping International Business School. Her current research focuses on discourses of lifelong learning. She has published books and articles on the motivation concept, empowerment, pricing practices and interorganizational learning. Her 2004 book, The scientific reproduction of gender inequality, JIBS Dissertation Series, no. 015: JIBS, and Ph.D. dissertation, for which she received an award at the Academy of Management Critical Studies Division, was a feminist analysis of entrepreneurship discourses. Alistair R. Anderson is Professor of Entrepreneurship and Director of the Centre for Entrepreneurship at Aberdeen Business School, Scotland, UK. After some years of starting and running small businesses, his curiosity about entrepreneurial people drove him to study entrepreneurship at Stirling University. Unfortunately he found that rather than answering his initial questions, he simply found that there were many more interesting questions! He is still trying to answer some of them, especially in the social realms of entrepreneurship. Current themes being explored are social capital, social constructions and associated topic areas. Henrik Berglund recently received his Ph.D. in Technology Management and Economics from Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden. He is currently engaged in a number of research projects, including a comparative study of the behaviours and strategies of early-stage venture capital firms in California and Nordic countries. He teaches entrepreneurship and qualitative methodology in various masters and Ph.D. programmes. Richard Blundel is a senior lecturer at Brunel University, UK and a member of Brunel Research in Enterprise, Innovation, Sustainability and Ethics (BRESE). Current research interests include the role of entrepreneurial networks in technological innovation, business historical perspectives on vii

viii

Contributors

industrial dynamics, and emerging models of socially and environmentally oriented enterprise. He has published related articles in Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Industry and Innovation and the Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Richard is also the author of Effective Organisational Communication: Perspectives, Principles and Practices (FT Prentice Hall, 2004). Anne Bøllingtoft is Assistant Professor at the Department of Management, the Aarhus School of Business, Denmark. In 2005, she handed in her thesis titled ‘The Bottom-up Business Incubator: A Collaborative Approach to (Entrepreneurial) Organizing?’ Her research area covers entrepreneurship with specific focus on business incubators and new organizational structures and forms. Ethel Brundin is Assistant Professor in the Department of Entrepreneurship, Marketing and Management at Jönköping International Business School, Sweden. Her research interests include micro processes of new business ventures, family businesses and different areas of strategic leadership. She is currently involved in a set of projects in which emotions are in focus. She is project manager for an international research project between Sweden and South Africa on entrepreneurial learning and sustainability. She has published in international journals and edited books on immigrant, ethnic and social entrepreneurship as well as strategic leadership. She was an entrepreneur before entering academia. Candida Brush is Professor of Entrepreneurship and holder of the President’s chair in Entrepreneurship at Babson College, Wellesley, MA, USA. She also serves as Chair of the Entrepreneurship Division and is Director of the Ph.D. programme. She was formerly Associate Professor of Strategy and Policy Director of the Council for Women’s Entrepreneurship and Leadership (CWEL), and Research Director for the Entrepreneurial Management Institute at Boston University, USA. She is a founding member of the Diana Project International, a research collaborative of scholars from 20 countries studying finance strategies of women entrepreneurs. Her current research investigates resource acquisition strategies in emerging organizations, the influence of gender in business start-up, and growth strategies of women-led ventures. William D. Bygrave is the Frederic C. Hamilton Professor for Free Enterprise. He joined The Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at Babson College, Wellesely, MA, USA in 1985 and directed it from 1993 to 1999. He was also the director of the annual Babson College–Kauffman

Contributors

Foundation Entrepreneurship Research Conference in 1994 and 1995. He teaches and researches entrepreneurship, specifically financing of start-up and growing ventures. He has written more than 50 papers on topics that include venture capital, entrepreneurship, nuclear physics, hospital pharmaceuticals and philosophy of science. Sara Carter is Professor of Entrepreneurship in the Department of Management and Organization and Director of the Entrepreneurship Centre at the University of Stirling, Scotland, UK. Prior to her Stirling appointment in September 2005, Sara was Professor of Entrepreneurship at the University of Strathclyde, Scotland, UK. Sara has undertaken several research projects in the area of small business and entrepreneurship. Her publications include two textbooks OEEnterprise and Small Business: Principles, Practice and Policy (2001, 2006 2nd edition) and OEWomen as Entrepreneurs (1992) in addition to several academic and policy papers on entrepreneurship and small business. Sara is editor of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice and a member of the editorial boards of nine peerreviewed journals. Torben Damgaard is Associate Professor at the Southern University of Denmark. His research areas include business-to-business marketing, strategy and methodology. He has participated in several research projects in cooperation with both advisers and companies. In these studies interactive research methods are used to develop theories and methods. Wim During is Emeritus Professor of Innovatory Entrepreneurship at the Dutch Institute of Knowledge Intensive Entrepreneurship at Twente University. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Enschede and is currently enjoying retirement. Paula D. Englis is Associate Professor at the Campbell School of Management at Berry College, Mount Berry, GA, USA, and at the Dutch Institute of Knowledge Intensive Entrepreneurship. She holds a Ph.D. from the University of Memphis, TN, USA. Her research has been published in numerous journals, such as the Academy of Management Review, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Family Business Review and Journal of Small Business Management. Her research focuses on strategic management with an international emphasis, including application in entrepreneurship, technology and knowledge management, and value chain management. Bruce A. Johnstone is completing a Ph.D. at Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. He has a degree in Broadcasting Communications

Contributors

and received his MBA from Henley Management College, UK, and a Post Graduate Certificate in Business Research from Waikato University, New Zealand. He is also a Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Management. His Ph.D. research uses ethnographic methods to study how advisory and support services associated with New Zealand’s Growth and Innovation Framework aﬀect a group of entrepreneurs. Kim Klyver recently received his Ph.D. from the University of Southern Denmark and is shortly taking up a position as Westpac Post Doctoral Fellow in Entrepreneurship at Swinburne University of Technology, Australia. He works with entrepreneurship, social networks and small business management. In his Ph.D. research he focused on how independent entrepreneurs’ social networks develop during the entrepreneurial process. He works with both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Claire Leitch is a senior lecturer at Queen’s University, Belfast, UK. Her research interests include developing an understanding of the learning company and applying it as a company development process; the application of action learning and other client-centred learning approaches, within entrepreneurial and executive education and development; gaining a deeper knowledge of the dynamics of leadership in the process of organizational transformation; entrepreneurial learning and business development; and developing a fuller understanding of the technology transfer process. Markus M. Mäkelä is Professor of Software Product Development (acting) at the University of Turku, Finland, and works part time as research director at Helsinki University of Technology, from where he obtained a Ph.D. in Strategy and International Business. His domain of research is software business, wherein he studies issues of strategy, technology management, entrepreneurship, internationalization and venture capital finance. Markus has won the Haynes Prize for the Most Promising Scholar of the Academy of International Business and the Eldridge Haynes Memorial Trust. He has previously worked at Stanford University, CA, USA, Helsinki School of Economics and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. Brian McKenzie is Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship at California State University, East Bay, USA. His research and teaching draws heavily on his 30 years as a successful entrepreneur and small business manager. Brian received his BA from the University of British Columbia in 1974, his MBA from the University of Victoria, British Columbia, in 1997 and his Ph.D. from the University of Victoria in 2003. He also holds a certificate of qualification as a master boat-builder. Brian has been awarded the 1999

Contributors

AOM Entrepreneurship Division Innovations in Pedagogy Award, the 2000 USASBE Model Undergraduate Program Award and the 2004 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Best Conceptual Paper Award. Helle Neergaard currently holds an Associate Professorship in Entrepreneurship at the Department of Management, the Aarhus School of Business, Denmark. Her predominantly qualitative research is published in, for example, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, International Small Business Journal, Journal of Enterprising Culture and International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. She has also written several book chapters published in, for example New Movements of Entrepreneurship. Her current research interests include strategic and managerial aspects of entrepreneurship, female entrepreneurs and internationalization. Jesper Piihl is Associate Professor at the University of Southern Denmark. His research interests are focused on organization theory, leadership and entrepreneurship. Jesper Piihl has a special interest in developing theoretical insights from non-modern perspectives such as actor-network theory. Robert Smith is a doctoral student at the Centre for Entrepreneurship at Aberdeen Business School, Scotland, UK. His research interests include the social construction of entrepreneurship, dyslexia and entrepreneurship, rural entrepreneurship, criminal entrepreneurship and criminology. Robert won the Raymond Family Business Institute Award for the best paper presented on the topic of family business at the 2002 Babson–Kauﬀman Entrepreneurship Research Conference at Boulder, Colorado, USA. Romeo V. Turcan is a doctoral researcher at the Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. His research interests centre around entrepreneurial international withdrawal and re-birth of small and medium-sized high-technology firms. Before starting his Ph.D. endeavour, he worked as an adviser to the Government of the Republic of Moldova on behalf of the United States Agency for International Development primarily in the electronics, food processing and power sectors. He has been employed in activities related to organizational reengineering; project management; business development; international marketing strategies development; and electric power sector regulatory reforms. John Parm Ulhøi is Professor in Organization and Management Theory, the Aarhus School of Business, Denmark. His areas of research include

xii

Contributors

technological innovation studies; organization development; entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship; business incubators; and human and social capital theory. His numerous publications appear in journals such as Journal of Business Venturing; European Journal of Operational Research; Scandinavian Journal of Management and Managerial & Decision Economics, Dr Ulhøi frequently serves as international research evaluator for diﬀerent national science councils, the European Science Foundation and the EU Directorate-General. Ingrid Wakkee is working as a Post Doctoral Researcher at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. She received her Ph.D. from the Dutch Institute of Knowledge Intensive Entrepreneurship at Twente University in the fall of 2004. Her current research interests include entrepreneurships in networks, international entrepreneurship and global start-up firms. Friederike Welter is Professor for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) at the University of Siegen, Germany and visiting professor at Jönköping International Business School, Sweden. She also holds the TeliaSonera Professorship at SSE Riga, Latvia. Based on a background in economics and SME management studies, her research interests are mainly related to nascent entrepreneurship, strategy processes in small firms, and discourse analyses. Caroline Wigren holds a position as research fellow at Jönköping International Business School, Sweden. Her main research interests are entrepreneurship and regional development, and she has a genuine interest in methodological issues, with a focus on qualitative methods and interactive research.

Acknowledgements

The idea of this Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship first emerged in a discussion with Francine O’Sullivan from Edward Elgar in the spring of 2003. Edward Elgar had already commissioned a volume on international business and we agreed that the field of entrepreneurship needed a similar eﬀort. However, at the time we did not know where this informal talk would lead. So when Francine wanted to know if we would undertake the responsibility for such a volume, we were more than pleasantly surprised. We accepted the commission and we are very satisfied with the fact that we have succeeded in bringing together such a broad and highly competent group of contributors. We know many of the contributors from our professional and personal networks, although some also responded to the call for papers, which was distributed at various American and European entrepreneurship conferences and posted on the Aarhus School of Business website. From the suggestions for chapters forwarded to us we selected 17 original contributions for publication in the Handbook and one reprint of a seminal article. We thoroughly enjoyed working with the 23 contributors from Scandinavia, Europe, the USA and New Zealand. We were very fortunate to receive abstracts from both junior and more experienced researchers, which has provided an excellent basis for methodological innovation, experimentation as well as refined and well-tested approaches. The contributions cover a wide spectrum and the editorial process has provided us with much opportunity to gain new insight into familiar methodologies and techniques, and to learn about those with which we were less well acquainted. Warm thanks therefore go to all the contributors to this volume. Some have in the process even become personal friends. During the process we have talked to many people about the book and have consistently encountered encouragement and appreciation of our work with this Handbook. According to the comments we have received, the book seems to be much needed and truly fills a gap. We would therefore like to thank all those who have expressed their appreciation of our eﬀorts; it makes all the hard work worth it. All the chapters have been through a blind review process. Therefore we would like to express our sincere gratitude to our panel of reviewers, who did a marvellous job. All the contributions have benefited tremendously from your helpful comments and careful advice on how to improve the chapters. xiii

xiv

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Alistair Anderson, Anne Bøllingtoft, Candida Brush, Christian Lystbæk, Colette Henry, Colin Mason, Erik Kloppenborg Madsen, Frances Hill, Grethe Heldbjerg, Hanne Kragh, Isa Kjærgaard Jensen, Jakob Lauring, Jan Karlsson, John Howells, Jon Sundbo, Lars Fuglsang, Maria Anne Skaates, Mary Barrett, Mette Mønsted, Mette Rosenkrans, Mona Madsen, Paula Kyrö, Per Darmer, Pernille Kræmmergaard Jensen, Sara Carter, Susan Ainsworth, Susan Marlow, Thomas Gulløv and Thomas Cooney. It has been a challenging endeavour for us to produce such an extensive volume, and we have encountered many challenges, some easier to overcome than others. Last, but not least, we would like to thank Francine O’Sullivan for her patience with the process and for her continuous encouragement and support. Helle Neergaard and John Parm Ulhøi Aarhus, January 2006

Foreword Sara Carter

I am delighted to have been asked to write a foreword for this exceptional book. Helle Neergaard and John Parm Ulhøi have compiled a remarkable collection of work that both represents the range of methods and demonstrates the depth of insight that can be achieved through qualitative approaches. This book is not simply a handbook of qualitative research methods, though it well achieves this aim; it is also an important contribution to the field of entrepreneurship research. The development of an academic field occurs in fits and starts, often sparked by the publication of an important article or book. Certain publications emerge, usually unplanned, as being significant points in the development of a discipline that act as ‘moments of reflection’ within a subject, enabling a periodic stock-taking of the subject’s domain, content, approaches and boundaries. This book provides a ‘moment of reflection’ for entrepreneurship research. There has been a tendency within entrepreneurship, as with many of the social science and management disciplines, for individual researchers to be associated with either qualitative or quantitative methods, the two approaches erroneously juxtaposed in opposition. One of the founders of entrepreneurship research in Europe, James Curran, viewed research as a craft, and researchers as skilled craftsmen and women capable of using all of the methodological tools at their disposal. No researcher can be expert in all methodologies and personal preferences may favour one approach over another, but every researcher should be aware of the range of available approaches. As the editors state in their introduction, this book represents a ‘methodological toolbox’ that can be used to refresh the memories of some researchers and introduce new methods and techniques to others. Three issues emerge from reading this book. First, the book makes plain the sheer range and diversity of qualitative research methods and their potential contributions to our understanding of entrepreneurship. Second, qualitative research emerges as a deeply personal experience, and researchers’ passion for their subject shines through each chapter. Third, qualitative approaches, most often associated with the European research tradition, are becoming increasingly valued by North American scholars. Good research is not based on the geographical location of its practitioners, nor on their specific methodological traditions, but on how deeply they xv

xvi

Foreword

engage with their academic and research subjects, their ability to draw together theory and practice, and the truths that emerge from their studies. This book widens the options for entrepreneurship researchers, allowing them to ask more interesting questions and accommodate greater complexity in their research findings. In so doing, researchers can more accurately reflect the lives of entrepreneurs and their experiences of entrepreneurship.

Introduction: Methodological variety in entrepreneurship research Helle Neergaard and John Parm Ulhøi

Introduction Although entrepreneurship in its broadest interpretation is as old as civilization itself, and theory on the individual’s role in the organizational genesis can be dated back some centuries, entrepreneurship theory is still considered quite a young academic field (Bygrave 1989; Brazeal and Herbert 1999; Low 2001). Nevertheless, it has become an increasingly popular field of inquiry in the past quarter of a century with a growing research community of scholars from a broad spectrum of disciplines entering the field (Aldrich 1992; Low 2001; Acs and Audretsch 2003; McDonald et al. 2004). The implication is that entrepreneurship can be studied using a variety of methods, including both quantitative and qualitative techniques (Perren and Ram 2004). Despite this richness in methodological approaches, entrepreneurship is still considered a field lacking in methodological diversity and rigour (Wortman 1987; Aldrich 1992; Huse and Landström 1997; Low 2001); a criticism repeatedly directed at both quantitative and qualitative contributions since the late 1980s (Hornaday and Churchill 1987; Bygrave 1989; Low 2001, Hindle 2004). Indeed, it is argued that ‘Entrepreneurship is less steeped in the rigors of traditional disciplines’ (Low 2001: 20). Whilst this may be so, we would ask whether the pattern is a reflection of entrepreneurship being an applied science rather than a ‘pure’ science. Further, does not the entrepreneurial phenomenon itself, in all its complexity and dynamics, invite a methodological toolbox of broad variety? Indeed, entrepreneurship is a phenomenon in a state of constant flux, shaped by the behaviour of entrepreneurs whose responses to perceived opportunities may be highly diﬃcult to predict. In entrepreneurship research, calls for more qualitative approaches are made at regular intervals (e.g. Bygrave 1989; Huse and Landström 1997; Gartner and Birley 2002; Hindle 2004), seemingly without much eﬀect. A less pessimistic angle is that the field is not lacking methodological diversity; rather qualitative entrepreneurship research merely faces a liability of legitimacy from mainstream editors which in part may be due to a varying quality of qualitative contributions. Often researchers who advocate 1

Introduction

qualitative research blame this on lack of rigour (see e.g. Hindle 2004). Indeed, Hindle (2004: 577) express his opinion in no uncertain terms: Unless entrepreneurship . . . begin[s] to embrace higher volumes of higher calibre qualitative research, the relevance and potency of the entrepreneurial canon will be severely compromised by a lack of the methodological variety that is so strongly displayed in other social sciences.

Research in entrepreneurship has, in other words, to a large extent been descriptive in nature, and empirical research has predominantly been based on structured surveys (see also Bygrave, Chapter 1 in this volume). When a qualitative research approach was adopted and reached publication, often such studies were based on single or multiple case studies in which the primary sources of information were archival data and/or interview data, the latter being procured by means of a structured or semi-structured survey. More innovative qualitative research in entrepreneurship is more often disseminated via journals explicitly aimed at the qualitative paradigm and anthologies such as the New Movements of Entrepreneurship series, also published by Edward Elgar. Keeping in pace with a growing demand for expanding the repertoire of research designs, analytic techniques and more interpretative approaches to understanding the phenomenon of entrepreneurship (Bygrave 1989; Aldrich 1992; Davidsson and Wiklund 2001), it is important to provide an outlet for such approaches. Simultaneously, it is necessary to respond to the call for more stringency in research methods. This handbook can be perceived as a response to the trend and critique directed at the entrepreneurship field for producing (i) predominantly descriptive research and (ii) qualitative research of doubtful standard. We can only second that qualitative methods are ‘demonstrably underrepresented in entrepreneurship research’ (Hindle 2004: 577) at least when we are concerned with publications in peer-reviewed mainstream journals. The first reason for this pattern may be that the use of quantitative approaches has traditionally resulted in more publications compared with other methodologies (Huse and Landström 1997). Indeed, Chandler and Lyon (2001) found only 18 per cent of the contributions in their sample of 418 papers to be qualitative. A more recent review of 2234 articles by McDonald et al. (2004) also demonstrates the dominance of positivist approaches and research methods. A second reason for this situation is the pressure for publication for untenured faculty. This is particularly found among American scholars, whereas European academics have until recently been faced with less publication pressure. Therefore they have had the freedom to adopt a greater methodological diversity. Further, Europeans tend to be more tolerant of methodological diversity (Huse and Landström 1997).

Introduction

Since so few qualitative studies apparently find their way into the mainstream journals, we felt obliged to check whether the pattern found in these journals reflects the direction of the field’s research efforts. To this end, we reviewed abstracts from a randomly selected Babson–Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference (2002). This review is by no means exhaustive, but it none the less provides an interesting indication of the pattern of methodological choices of American and European researchers respectively, as illustrated in Box I.1. Simultaneously, it shows that there is a great difference between the kind of research presented at one of the most prestigious entrepreneurship conferences and what is being published in entrepreneurship journals. As the evidence shows, the number of abstracts purporting to use some form of qualitative research method is considerable, particularly among European researchers. This suggests that qualitative research proliferates,

BOX I.1

METHODOLOGICAL CHOICES IN CONFERENCE ABSTRACTS

An assessment of conference abstracts accepted for presentation at the Babson–Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference 2002 revealed that there was a profound difference in the type of research method chosen by American and non-American researchers. Researchers from American universities authored 108 abstracts. Only six of these were exclusively case or interviewbased, five were triangulated using both case method and survey or database, four were conceptual, seven did not give any method indication and four were literature reviews or other method. Further, there was one quasi-experiment, two experiments and one simulation study. The rest were based on surveys (42), existing databases (30), a combination of these (3), desk research and (3) or face-toface administered structured questionnaires (1). In contrast, scholars from non-American universities authored 111 abstracts. Nine of these were written together with American researchers, of these only one was case based. Of the remaining 102 articles there were 47 case or interview-based contributions, i.e. almost 50 per cent in comparison with less than 10 per cent of those written by researchers from American universities. In research teams of mixed origin, quantitative research also dominated.

Introduction

at least in Europe. It is also a trend that we have encountered in the profile of the contributors to this handbook. Despite our continued efforts, only six of our contributors are from outside Europe. However, although the publication pressure trend has taken considerably longer to hit Europe, European business schools and universities are increasingly hiring and promoting faculty primarily based on research productivity measured by publication in highly ranked international journals (Gartner and Birley 2002). It is therefore time to consider whether and how it is possible to avoid falling into the trap of enforced methodological orthodoxy that such a strategy might well entail. On the other hand, we need to consider the consistent criticism directed at qualitative research for lacking rigour and stringency as a stumbling block to publication of qualitative research. In sum, these observations collectively point to a need for a handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship research. As qualitative research in entrepreneurship is often rejected by mainstream journals due to lack of sufficient methodological detail and rigour (Gartner and Birley 2002), a better set of method selection guidelines therefore seems to be needed (Hindle 1994). The aim of this handbook is to introduce a spectrum of the qualitative research methods currently used, to increase the understanding of the versatility, usefulness and systematic rigour of these research methods, and to provide guidance on how they can be appropriately and fruitfully employed. The handbook aspires to assist existing and future researchers to make informed choices of design by providing concrete examples of research experiences, and offering tangible ‘how-to’ advice. We hope that by clarifying what these methods entail, how they are currently being used, and how they can be evaluated, this handbook may come to be perceived as ‘a methodological toolbox’. Ultimately, we hope that it will enable advocates to respond to reasonable criticism, enlighten the critics and cut off unfounded attacks while at the same time demonstrating the width, scope and variety of qualitative methods. The goal of qualitative research is to develop concepts that enhance the understanding of social phenomena in natural settings, with due emphasis on the meanings, experiences and views of all participants. The general assumption underpinning this handbook is that the phenomenon of entrepreneurship is too dynamic and complex to be captured by a single method. This is not advocating that ‘anything goes’, but should be seen as an encouragement of methodological pluralism and tolerance. We believe that qualitative research has the ability to explore hitherto uncharted depths in the field of entrepreneurship and to contribute significantly to the advancement of the field. The audience for this book, therefore, includes all academics who wish to study the entrepreneurship phenomenon, based upon qualitative approaches.

Introduction

In the process of producing this book we have discussed its potential merits with several national and international colleagues. A question that kept cropping up was ‘What is qualitative research?’ That is a reasonable question to ask, particularly because several chapters compare qualitative to quantitative research. One definition, provided by Denzin and Lincoln (1994), is considered by many an authoritative contribution on qualitative research methodologies. They define qualitative research as multi method in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meaning in individuals’ lives. (Denzin and Lincoln 1994: 2)

Clearly, entrepreneurship is a field that abounds in such empirical material. This handbook will adhere to the definition above. The next question that springs to mind is ‘Why do we undertake qualitative research?’ A simple answer is that we use qualitative approaches when we wish to go beyond mere description at a generalizable level in our empirical investigations. Qualitative and quantitative approaches are frequently presented as adversaries in a methodological battle. However, even within qualitative research a similar battle is taking place as we write. Basically, qualitative researchers adopt two opposing approaches. On the one hand, there are those who are totally committed to using qualitative methods and advocate these even to the extent that they may dig new trenches from which they can shoot at quantitative research. On the other, there are those who choose between qualitative and quantitative methods depending on the topic of interest and the related research questions (Brannen 1992). We perceive ‘trench warfare’ as unproductive. We embrace the scope and richness of qualitative entrepreneurship research while at the same time acknowledging the qualities of the more established, traditional or wellaccepted approaches, both qualitative and quantitative. Various forms of quantitative approaches are indeed useful when there is a need to provide generalizable and representative description as well as statistical analyses. A key issue is therefore to combine respect for the current traditions with an open mind to innovative approaches. However, the adoption of diﬀerent and sometimes (at least at first sight) contradictory research methods into the same subject, we would hold, may often pave the way for new inspiration and insight. As this is a handbook of qualitative research methods, we do not include contributions that are quantitative in their approach,

Introduction

although some contributions may use certain types of quantification. We further interpret qualitative studies quite broadly and have chosen to include in this volume contributions that represent both well-known and tested as well as some more daring approaches to conducting qualitative research in the field of entrepreneurship. This notwithstanding, we take the stance that qualitative approaches cannot be adequately understood independently of the ontological and epistemological basis and the related research questions. We also hold that concepts, terms and assumptions surrounding qualitative research should be explicitly stated and assessed on their own terms. Finally, we perceive individual approaches as embedded in the research process. In consequence we have organized the book around a procedural perspective. The structure of the handbook The handbook aims to provide a reference point for some of the most essential elements and critical choices in qualitative research design, reflecting the steps of the research process. We perceive the various choices in the research process as arising from the research questions; hence we adopt a pragmatic approach to the study of entrepreneurship (Schulz and Hatch 1996). According to Kyrö and Kansikas (2005: 124), ‘adopting pragmatism to the research process requires parting from the traditional way of describing it as theoretical and empirical parts and instead views it as a process, in which the previous step creates presumptions and leads to the next step’. Accordingly, we have organized the handbook into four parts, each representing a step in the research process (see Figure I.1). Research question(s)

PART I Research philosophy considerations

PART II Research strategies

PART III Data collection and analysis

Source: Inspired by Saunders et al. (2003).

Figure I.1

Steps and choices in the research process

PART IV Quality considerations and publication

Introduction

Metaphors abound in entrepreneurship research. The most often used is the biological metaphor. Most entrepreneurial processes and acts are likened to the development of human beings and means of sustaining life. However, the research process can be described by means of various metaphors. The vehicle metaphor conveys a number of diﬀerent associations. For example, according to Collins English dictionary, a vehicle can be interpreted in four ways. Each interpretation may be applied in the production of entrepreneurial knowledge: (i) it may be a medium of expression, communication or achievement of ideas; or (ii) it enables a performer to display his or her talents; or (iii) it constitutes a base in which composite elements are suspended; and last but not least (iv) it may give associations to an automobile. Each of these are valid interpretations with regard to qualitative research methods. Entrepreneurial ideas certainly need to be expressed, communicated and achieved in order to contribute to advancement of society (i). Indeed, entrepreneurs need to display their talents in some way or other (ii). However, most entrepreneurial inventions or innovations are made up of numerous and sometimes complex ingredients without which entrepreneurship could not take place (iii). And finally, entrepreneurship itself and the entrepreneurial process starts with the perception of some idea that is brought to fulfilment, often in a race against time (iv). It is the last interpretation that guides the structure of this book. The research process begins with the choice of vehicle, a paradigm in which the research is anchored. It starts out by delimiting the research challenge and choosing a research strategy. It then gains speed as it proceeds through the turns and straights of planning how to collect data and analyse them. It winds down in considering various approaches to assessing quality and achieving publication. Part I: Choosing a vehicle Considerations concerning the ontological and epistemological underpinnings of research or the so-called paradigmatic dimensions of science easily generate controversy and heated debate. It is, however, only through such debate that a field advances. According to Kuhn (1962/70), a paradigm emerges when a group of researchers agree on operating within specifically agreed boundaries, which define what is important, legitimate and reasonable research, an idea that is broadly accepted (McDonald et al. 2004). Over time social consensus is reached on a specific point of reference concerning a definitive set of precepts and methodological procedures (Gummesson 1991). Paradigms in Kuhn’s understanding exist primarily in mature fields of science and not, for example, in the social sciences and humanities. Such areas are often described as fragmented in terms of theory and methodology. There are researchers who perceive the field of entrepreneurship as an

Introduction

example of such a pre-paradigmatic research field, in the Kuhnian sense of the word. However, there are also some who contest this perception. The debate typically hinges on the various definitions of a paradigm that researchers invoke. However, the concept is often used arbitrarily, thus masking the fundamental meaning (Morgan 1980). Some use the concept about schools of thought, others use the term to describe basic theoretical perspectives or research domains. Not all readers may agree with these definitions. They may instead choose to define entrepreneurship as a discipline, a theoretical field of academic inquiry. Differently put, it is difficult to see how the field of entrepreneurship can be contained within a single or unifying paradigm in the Kuhnian sense; rather it constitutes what Aldrich (1992), for example, would call a pragmatic stance. In methodological terms, according to this stance a researcher should choose the procedure, that is most suitable with respect to the research question(s). It means that for a given research project within entrepreneurship the researcher may choose between a number of research strategies – and even mix them. The importance of understanding alternative paradigms lies in augmenting the individual’s understanding of how certain world-views delimit methodological flexibility and adaptation. This is not to say that ‘anything goes’, but is rather a question of understanding how important research questions may best be addressed. This sentiment is echoed by, for example, Hofer and Bygrave (1992). We advocate if not an elimination of paradigm boundaries, then a recognition that paradigms are not incompatible, that paradigm boundaries can be penetrated, and that paradigms, even if they cannot be united, may interact instead of being sharply delimited. This approach is proposed by an increasing number of scholars, for example Gioia and Pitre (1990), Hassard (1991), Schulz and Hatch (1996) and Lewis and Kelemen (2002). This invites researchers to look at the world in new ways. Part I will debate the consequences of a researcher’s world-view for the research process. There are fundamentally two ways in which to view the relationship between philosophy and research method: whether the research question(s) (and hence the theory) frame the philosophical stance, or whether the philosophical stance directs the choice of research questions (Creswell 1998; Saunders et al. 2003). In this book we include both approaches. However, the relationship between the philosophical debates and the methods used in the research process is often poorly understood and badly accounted for (Knox 2004), and it is one of the areas that qualitative researchers need to address. The three chapters in this part therefore represent different philosophical arguments and alternatives. However, they should not be seen as exclusive with regard to the approaches that are applied by scholars in the field.

Introduction

Chapter 1, ‘The entrepreneurship paradigm (I) revisited’, includes two contributions. The first is a reprint of Bygrave’s seminal article, which is next updated with a commentary by Bygrave himself on the developments in the field since 1989. Bygrave invokes the interpretation of the word paradigm as a research domain starting the chapter with ‘Entrepreneurship is one of the youngest paradigms in the management sciences’ (ibid.: 28). Bygrave’s original article probably does not need any introduction. However, in his update he looks back to look ahead, and provides an insight into the background for the original article as well as leaving the distinct impression that the field has not changed significantly in the past 17 years with regard to methodological advancement. In Chapter 2 Blundel introduces critical realism as one philosophical alternative. ‘Critical realism: a suitable vehicle for entrepreneurship research?’ provides an outline of the origins and principal features of critical realist social theory and reviews of the methodological implications of this philosophical perspective. The chapter also considers how critical realism might oﬀer a suitable ‘vehicle’ for qualitative research in the field of entrepreneurship and assesses its explanatory potential. Berglund in Chapter 3, ‘Researching entrepreneurship as lived experience’, presents aspects of philosophical phenomenology that are relevant to entrepreneurship and exemplifies how phenomenology can be used to capture and communicate the meanings of diﬀerent entrepreneurial experiences, allowing for a more detailed understanding of how theoretical concepts and empirical events are understood and translated into action by entrepreneurs. Part II: Starting out and gearing up The six chapters in this part deal with focusing and delimiting the research challenge and choosing a relevant research strategy. Some research strategies are deductive (quantitative in nature), others inductive (qualitative in nature). However, research strategies are not necessarily mutually exclusive. To illustrate, Saunders et al. (2003) operate with case studies, grounded theory, ethnography and action research as examples of research strategies. However, a grounded theory study may well be a case study and vice versa. Moreover, in this section we include semiotics and discourse analysis. It is arguable whether these constitute research strategies or are techniques/ methods for data collection, because in reality there is no hard-and-fast boundary between the two. A research strategy leads seamlessly into the choice of data collection methods. However, the research strategy is concerned with the overall approach that is adopted, whereas the data collection methods constitute operational, methodological decisions. The first three chapters in Part II deal with more conventional types of field studies, whereas the last three chapters represent in our view more

Introduction

unorthodox approaches to the study of entrepreneurship, advocating sign and text analysis as a way to produce new knowledge. What distinguishes the latter from the former is predominantly that they do not necessarily include interaction with the field. In Chapter 4, ‘Ethnographic methods in entrepreneurship research’, Johnstone invites the reader to consider the potential of an ethnographic research strategy for developing grounded theory in entrepreneurship. Ethnography originates in the anthropological field, and the purpose is to access the interpretation of world of the research subjects. It is a very timeconsuming research strategy that requires the researcher to be flexible and responsive to the research subjects. It is definitely a very appropriate strategy for entrepreneurship researchers. Johnstone discusses the cyclical nature of ethnography and considers the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. Mäkelä and Turcan discuss ‘Building grounded theory in entrepreneurship research’ in Chapter 5. They describe the history of grounded theory methodology and the location of the methodology within the umbrella of qualitative research methods, reaching out to the field of entrepreneurship. In order to make the discussion more topical, throughout they illustrate the discussion with examples from contemporary grounded theory research. Chapter 6, ‘An action research approach to entrepreneurship’ by Leitch, illustrates the relevance of the entrepreneurship discipline to the world of practice through an action research approach. Leitch argues that such an approach not only enhances our understanding of entrepreneurship in action, it also helps entrepreneurs develop their organizations, partly because it creates ownership of the entrepreneurial process. In Chapter 7 Smith and Anderson propose that semiotics, the doctrine of signs, is a practical tool for exploring the depth and scope of what we mean by entrepreneurship. Consequently the chapter, ‘Recognizing meaning: semiotics in entrepreneurial research’, argues that an appreciation of entrepreneurial semiotics enables an understanding of the meanings of enterprise; what it is; how it is practised; why it is practised and why it is encouraged. The authors operationalize and explain semiotics so that even the layperson should be able to apply this technique. Chapters 8 and 9 both present discourse analytical approaches to female entrepreneurship. Achtenhagen and Welter introduce discourse analysis as applied to the representation of female entrepreneurs in the printed media in Chapter 8, ‘Media discourse in entrepreneurship research’. Using German newspaper articles as their basis, Achtenhagen and Welter illustrate how discourses continually contribute to shaping the entrepreneurial environment (and vice versa) and provide an understanding of how understanding a particular discourse can generate new insights.

Introduction

Chapter 9, ‘A Foucauldian framework for discourse analysis’ by Ahl, develops a discourse analytical approach of research texts on female entrepreneurs building on an interpretation and translation of Foucault’s theories of discourse analysis. Ahl provides a detailed description of her interpretation of Foucault and introduces a step-by-step account of her analytical approach. In this unfolding of the research it becomes apparent just how much discursive practices in research influence the general understanding of women’s role in and execution of entrepreneurship. Part III: Gaining speed The four chapters in this part of the book primarily focus on techniques for collecting information. Apart from the first chapter, which concentrates on the issue of identifying and choosing informants and cases, the chapters are concerned with diﬀerent ways of working with ‘text’, making sense of the information and developing the findings for publication. The examples included here are by no means exhaustive of the variety of techniques for collecting and analysing data; indeed the area is so varied that it really warrants a book exclusively on data collection techniques. Before the researcher can start to collect data and indeed think of analysing it, it is highly appropriate to consider who or what may be the best information source. In Chapter 10, ‘Sampling in entrepreneurial settings’, Neergaard highlights the need to document sampling procedures and provides guidance on how to select cases and informants purposefully. Neergaard argues that sampling constitutes a crucial element in securing the quality of the outcome of a research project, and that all research projects need to choose cases and informants that are able to provide the best possible information. This can only be achieved through purposeful sampling. Brundin concentrates on real-time methodologies for collecting empirical material and how these can contribute to enhance our knowledge of entrepreneurial processes in Chapter 11, ‘Catching it as it happens’. Realtime methodologies have the advantage that they do not rely on historical recall and therefore the danger of informants recollecting incorrectly or leaving out embarrassing occurrences and the like is reduced. Brundin accounts for a range of real-time methodologies and provides an example from her own research which illustrates a rarely investigated phenomenon, namely the feelings and emotions of entrepreneurs. She shows how using a real-time methodology can lead to an alternative understanding of the entrepreneurial process. This is followed by McKenzie in Chapter 12, ‘Techniques for collecting verbal histories’, which focuses on concrete techniques for obtaining the life stories of the entrepreneur. McKenzie’s honest and down-to-earth

Introduction

account of the challenges in achieving access to these stories emphasizes the quality dimension of interviews and how to ensure that the reporting is accurate. E-mails are quite a recent phenomenon research-wise as a means of gathering data, but with the increase in the use of the Internet for business correspondence, they are very likely to become an important source of data in the future. In Chapter 13, ‘Using e-mails as a source of qualitative data’, Wakkee, Danskin and During seek to explain the value of e-mails, distinguish them from other sources of data, and provide suggestions for analysing the text. They oﬀer a step-by-step account of the procedure from obtaining access to the analysis and presentation of the data. Chapter 14, ‘The scientification of fiction’, by Pihl, Klyver and Damgaard, introduces the construction of dialogue and drama as a way to understand entrepreneurial perceptions and processes. They suggest that this alternative way of approaching the empirical field may provide a useful shortcut to theorizing. Part IV: Winding down and assessing the ride This part addresses criteria of goodness and quality assessment as well as the challenge of publication. Earlier, we noted that qualitative research was rarely published in mainstream journals. The quality of qualitative research has often been under scrutiny from quantitative researchers – and unfortunately not always unfoundedly. The lack of generally agreed upon rules for what good quality is in qualitative research may indeed be one of the reasons that publication in mainstream journals is notoriously hard to achieve. The two first chapters in this part therefore address the quality control issue from two diﬀerent points of view. The remaining two chapters focus on the important issue of getting qualitative research published, one from an author’s point of view and the other seen from an editor’s perspective. The criteria of representativeness and reliability generally do not belong in the qualitative research tradition. Further, the traditional validity concept is increasingly being substituted by other concepts. The crux of the matter here is that, as researchers, we have an obligation to conduct rigorous, correct and credible research and we must expect to be held accountable in this respect. Therefore we must provide detailed descriptions of how knowledge has been procured and how it is possible to establish that it is valuable knowledge. It has to be transparent how the research has led to certain findings and conclusions. This should not, however, be confused with the existence of any objective truth to which an account should be compared (Maxwell 1996). Validity as a constituent of the research design consists of the strategies used to rule out the threat of alternative explanation. It is, unfortunately, the exception rather than the rule that qualitative research

Introduction

explicitly addresses this issue (Andersen and Skaates 2005). Identifying how to evaluate qualitative research is not a clear cut case, the criteria for evaluation depend on both the paradigm in which the research is embedded and the research strategy chosen, as Wigren shows in Chapter 15, ‘Assessing the quality of qualitative research in entrepreneurship’. Wigren starts out by presenting an overview of quality criteria, after which she discusses particular quality criteria that can be applied to ethnographic research. From a critical realist approach, Bøllingtoft in Chapter 16, ‘A critical realist approach to quality in observation studies’, focuses on how to incorporate quality criteria into the process of an observation study, and thus overcome some of the potential problems of this technique. Ensuring quality in observation is probably the greatest challenge of all, because observation is inherently subjective and relies excessively on the observer’s ability to disengage and be neutral. Bøllingtoft suggests stringent procedures as a solution to minimizing researcher bias. In Chapter 17 Smith and Anderson present a dialogue on the problems of getting qualitative research published. Smith provides an insightful account into the frustrations of a doctoral student trying to make publication headway. Anderson enters the discussion from a seasoned supervisor point of view providing, probably to some, provocative ideas. ‘Daring to be diﬀerent’ is exactly that and, together with Chapter 18, we believe a fitting way to end the book. In Chapter 18, ‘Avoiding a strike-out in the first innings’, Brush provides hands-on useful guidelines on how to get published. It answers many of the questions that particularly Ph.D. students and junior researchers may have, not only in entrepreneurship, but across various disciplines. Finally, in closing we address a few remaining key challenges for those scholars who conduct qualitative research in entrepreneurship. References Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B. (2003) Introduction to the handbook of entrepreneurship research. In Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B. (eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Aldrich, H. (1992) Methods in our madness? Trends in entrepreneurship research. In Sexton, D.L. and Kasarda, J.D. The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship. Boston, MA: PWS–Kent Publishing Company. Anderson, P.H. and Skaates, A.-M. (2005) Ensuring validity in qualitative international business research. In Marschan-Piekkari, R. and Welch, C. (2004) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Brannen, J. (1992) Mixing Methods: qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot: Avebury. Brazeal, D.V. and Herbert, T.T. (1999) The genesis of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3): 29–45. Bygrave, W. (1989) The entrepreneurship paradigm (I): A philosophical look at its research methodologies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(1): 7–26.

Introduction

Chandler, G.N. and Lyon, D.W. (2001) Issues of research design and construct measurement in entrepreneurship research: the past decade. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Summer: 101–13. Creswell, J.W. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davidsson, P. and Wiklund, J. (2001) Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current research practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4): 81–100. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, Chapter 1: 1–17. Gartner, W.B. and Birley, S. (2002) Introduction to the special issue on qualitative methods in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5): 387–96. Gioia, D.A. and Pitre, E. (1990) Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15(4): 584–603. Gummesson, E. (1991) Qualitative Methods in Management Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hassard, J. (1991) Multiple paradigms and organizational analysis: A case study. Organization Studies, 12(2): 275–99. Hindle, K. (2004) Choosing qualitative methods for entrepreneurial cognition research: A canonical development approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(6): 575–607. Hofer, C.W. and Bygrave, W.D. (1992) Researching entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(3): 91–100. Hornaday, J.A. and Churchill, N.C. (1987) Current trends in entrepreneurial research. In Churchill, N.C., Hornaday, J.A., Kirchhoﬀ, B.A., Krasner, O.J. and Vesper K.H. (eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA. Huse, M. and Landström, H. (1997) European entrepreneurship and small business research: methodological openness and contextual diﬀerences. International Studies of Management and Organization, 27(3): 3–12. Knox, K. (2004) A researcher’s dilemma – philosophical and methodological pluralism. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 2(2), www.ejbrm.com. Kuhn, T. (1962/70) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. London: University of Chicago Press. Kyrö, P. and Kansikas, J. (2005) Current state of methodology in entrepreneurship research and some expectations for the future. In Fayolle, A., Ulijn, J. and Kyrö, P. (2004), Entrepreneurship Research in Europe: Outcomes and perspectives. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Lewis, M.W. and Kelemen, M.L. (2002) Multiparadigm inquiry: Exploring organizational pluralism and paradox. Human Relations, 55(2): 251–74. Low, M.B. (2001) The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: specification of purpose. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4): 17–25. Maxwell, J.A. (1996) Qualitative research design. An interactive approach. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 41. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McDonald, S., Gan, B.C. and Anderson, A. (2004) Studying entrepreneurship: A review of methods employed in entrepreneurship research 1985–2004. Paper presented at RENT XVIII, Copenhagen, Denmark, 25–26 November. Morgan, G. (1980) Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4): 605–23. Perren, L. and Ram, M. (2004) Case-study method in small business and entrepreneurial research: Mapping boundaries and perspectives. International Small Business Journal, 22(1): 83–101. Saunders, M.; Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003) Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education. Schulz, M. and Hatch, M.J. (1996) Living within multiple paradigms: the case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies. Academy of Management Review, 21: 529–57. Wortman, Jr M.S. (1987) Entrepreneurship: An integrating typology and evaluation of the empirical research in the field. Journal of Management, 13(2): 259–80.

PART I CHOOSING A VEHICLE

The entrepreneurship paradigm (I) revisited William D. Bygrave

Introduction In 1988, I had one doctorate in physics from Oxford University and was – to say the least – a mature student trying to finish my second doctorate, in business, at Boston University. I was a tenure-track associate professor of entrepreneurship at Babson College. Between my first and second doctorates, I worked in the USA and Europe for a Route 128 venture-capitalbacked company – actually the first start-up ever to be backed by formal venture capital; founded a Route 128 venture-capital-backed company; managed a small division of a high-tech company listed on the New York Stock Exchange; and while working on my second doctorate, I took an unpaid leave of absence from academia to co-found a medical database company that we eventually sold to a New York Stock Exchange company. Along the way I had also been a business angel investor. I was born and brought up in a mom-and-pop business in England; many of my relatives in England owned mom-and-pop businesses. One of my enduring hobbies is the history of science, in particular physics. Entrepreneurship scholarship at the end of the 1980s In 1988, very few senior scholars were researching exclusively entrepreneurship. Most tenured and tenure-track professors in the field of entrepreneurship had appointments in classic departments such as management, policy, strategy, finance and organizational behaviour. There were no departments of entrepreneurship on a par with the classic business school disciplines. For instance, at Babson College, which by 1989 was regarded as a leader in the emerging field of entrepreneurship, the department of entrepreneurship was part of the management division. To be a scholar solely of entrepreneurship was very risky in 1988 for an untenured faculty member because junior professors who had chosen that lonely career path had rarely received tenure, and as it turned out, a few well-known entrepreneurship scholars were even denied tenure. There were, however, glimpses that entrepreneurship was gaining legitimacy as an academic pursuit: a few prominent business schools, most notably Harvard and Wharton, were making significant commitments to 17

Choosing a vehicle

entrepreneurship. More and more endowed chairs in entrepreneurship were being funded. The annual Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference with its proceedings, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, was established in 1981; and in 1984 the first doctoral consortium was held in conjunction with that conference. In the USA, the Journal of Business Venturing was founded in 1985, and in the late 1980s the American Journal of Small Business was repositioned and renamed Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice; in Europe, the Small Business Economics journal was founded in 1987. The Academy of Management reluctantly promoted entrepreneurship from a special interest group to a division in 1986 but did not organize an entrepreneurship doctoral consortium until the early 1990s. Looking back to the 1980s, it is clear that the entrepreneurship paradigm was in the making. Development as an entrepreneurship scholar When I enrolled as a part-time student at Boston University’s School of Management’s doctoral program in 1981, I was the only student – out of more than 80 – who wanted to study entrepreneurship. There was no entrepreneurship department and only one faculty member who specialized in small business. Hence, I had to tailor my own program within the strategy/ policy group. By good fortune I knew Jeff Timmons, who was then at Babson College. Jeff invited me to join him and Norman Fast (then vice president of Venture Economics) on a major research project on venture capital. Boston University allowed Jeff Timmons to be my doctoral adviser. In those days, earning a doctoral degree at Boston University was onerous. Students were required to have an MBA degree, and if they did not, they had to take MBA courses as well as doctoral courses. Between 1981 and 1989, when I finally completed my dissertation, I took at least a dozen courses or waiver exams at Boston University and received transfer credit for another half-dozen courses from my executive MBA degree. I learned a great deal from some of the courses, but the most valuable learning came through the papers that I wrote in the seminars. Each paper was focused on my venture-capital research with Jeff Timmons and Norman Fast; most of them were presented at the Babson Entrepreneurship Conference and published in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, and some were published in the Journal of Business Venturing. As soon as I had completed the comprehensive exams at Boston University, I wrote a dissertation based on those papers. Origins of ‘The entrepreneurship paradigm: A philosophical look at its research methodologies’ To be frank, the doctoral program by and large was not an uplifting experience. Too much of it was bogged down in pedantry that drove out

The entrepreneurship paradigm (I) revisited

imagination and creativity. In my bleaker moments, earning a business doctorate seemed more like a fraternity hazing than a celebration of intellect. It felt as if I was earning my membership of a guild rather than discovering knowledge that would improve the practice of entrepreneurship. As soon as I had completed my doctorate, I rewarded myself by doing entirely diﬀerent research for a few months. I was already a reviewer for the three major entrepreneurship journals. Probably because of my physics background, journal editors had asked me to review papers that tried to introduce the relatively new science of chaos theory into entrepreneurship. Reviewing them actually made me angry because it was obvious that the authors were being opportunistic and simply using ‘chaos’ as a buzzword. It was doubtful that the authors had even read Gleick’s book Chaos: Making a new science (1987) that popularized chaos theory, let alone understood even the most elementary mathematics explaining it. My reviews were the harshest that I have ever written because the papers represented entrepreneurship scholarship at its worst. It was the kind of research that invited ridicule from our academic colleagues in established disciplines. Partly out of remorse at being so harsh and partly out of curiosity, I decided to read some of the scholarly literature on chaos. That led me to develop mathematical models that were metaphors for entrepreneurial chaos. One of the most exhilarating moments in my life as a researcher was when I made an infinitesimal change to one of the model parameters and the beautifully smooth sigmoid curve representing the growth of an industry suddenly and quite unexpectedly broke up into numerous peaks and valleys on the computer screen. It certainly felt like entrepreneurial chaos. At that point I intended to write a paper on chaos and entrepreneurship, but before embarking on such a task, I decided to look at catastrophe theory, which might be a metaphor for the entrepreneurial event. One thing led to another before I realized that ‘physics envy’ was getting the better of me. So instead of writing a conceptual article on chaos and entrepreneurship, I combined my thoughts on entrepreneurship methodology that had been presented to the doctoral consortium at Calgary in 1988 with my work on mathematical models that might be relevant to entrepreneurship theory. It resulted in two papers, ‘The entrepreneurship paradigm (I): A philosophical look at its research methodologies’ (1989), reprinted in this book, and ‘The entrepreneurship paradigm (II): Chaos and catastrophes among quantum jumps’ (1989), followed by a third paper ‘Theorizing about entrepreneurship’, co-authored with Charles Hofer (1991). All three papers were published in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. By 1989 I was already apprehensive about where the infant entrepreneurship paradigm was heading. My principal concerns were that the field

Choosing a vehicle

was being driven more and more by theory often built on flimsy foundations; that the research method was becoming dominated by increasingly complex statistical analysis, predominantly SPSS; that there was a dearth of field research; that there were far too few longitudinal studies; that too many studies were on secondary data sets; that too many of the primary data sets were produced from self-reported subjective questionnaires; and that we needed to keep in mind that entrepreneurship is holistic and tends to decompose when researchers try to break it into its component parts. Assessment of entrepreneurship research in 2005 Let’s see where we have made progress in the last 17 years, and where, in my opinion, we have either stood still or regressed. But before you read this section, I ask you to read the following three articles: ‘How business schools lost their way’ (Bennis and O’Toole 2005), ‘Issues of research design and construct measurement in entrepreneurship: The past decade’ (Chandler and Lyon 2001); and ‘What entrepreneurship research can do for business and policy practice’ (Davidsson 2000). Demographics of entrepreneurship scholarship In 2005, there are hundreds of chairs in entrepreneurship at universities throughout the world. The field has grown so rapidly that the demand for entrepreneurship academics is still outstripping the supply. Top scholars are in great demand to fill endowed chairs and as a result salaries have shot up. The number of entrepreneurship doctoral students increased steadily throughout the 1990s and continues to rise. This can be exemplified by looking at the number of students applying to attend the annual Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference doctoral consortium. This figure has increased from approximately 30 per year in 1990 to more than 80 in 2005. Many more scholars are studying entrepreneurship and they are producing more and more research, as can be seen from the number of abstracts submitted to the Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference, which rose from 39 at the inaugural conference in 1981 to 354 in 2001 to more than 600 in 2004. What’s more, there is now a proliferation of entrepreneurship conferences throughout the world. Likewise, the number of journals dedicated to entrepreneurship and related fields such as family business has multiplied. However, the question remains, what has this growing army of scholars labouring inside and around the perimeter of the entrepreneurship paradigm produced? Longitudinal studies Perhaps the most important advance in the field is the longitudinal studies that have been undertaken or are now under way. The most prominent one

The entrepreneurship paradigm (I) revisited

on the world stage is the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), which since 1999 has been making annual surveys of the state of entrepreneurship in 46 countries that comprise more than 90 percent of the GDP and twothirds of the population of the entire world.1 More than 120 scholars throughout the world are involved with GEM research. To date more than 620 000 household interviews have been conducted, as have 5000 interviews with key informants. The long-range objective of GEM is to explain the role that entrepreneurship plays in the growth of national economies, a goal that is breathtakingly ambitious – some might even say arrogant. GEM results are already being used by national governments to help set policies to stimulate entrepreneurship at the national level and in some countries such as Germany, the UK and Spain at the regional level. GEM built on the research method that was used by the Entrepreneurship Research Consortium (ERC) study, which was started in the mid-1990s, and the US Panel Study on Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED) study, which is another noteworthy longitudinal study. PSED’s method has stimulated similar studies outside the USA. There is still room for more longitudinal studies because according to Chandler and Lyon (2001) only 7 percent of the 416 empirical entrepreneurship articles published in nine journals between 1989 and 1999 were ‘true’ longitudinal studies. Further, studies of companies as they develop from conception to adolescence are almost never in real time, which is also a severe shortcoming. Data sets Some primary data sets such as the GEM household survey (adult population survey), and GEM key informant interviews, and the PSED are extensive and good but nonetheless have flaws. Too many primary data sets are compiled from subjective replies to multiple-choice questions administered to anonymous respondents via phone, postal mail or email. Chandler and Lyon (2001), for example, found that 195 entrepreneurship articles in their survey used only primary data sets, of which a whopping 142 used paper or phone questionnaires with multiple-item scales. That might be satisfactory when surveying mom-and-pop businesses, but does anyone imagine that busy entrepreneurs with high-potential businesses have time to respond? Or worse yet, does anyone really believe that general partners of leading venture-capital funds respond to such questionnaires? Having said all that, there is one noticeable improvement in primary data sets: nowadays, unlike 20 or more years ago, we almost never see research based on questionnaires administered to students. Too much research is based on convenient, readily available secondary data sets. There are, for example, far too many papers on venture capital,

Choosing a vehicle

which funds only one out of 10 000 start-ups, and IPOs (initial public offerings), which fund even fewer businesses. On the other hand there is a shortage of research into bank financing. And there is a dearth of research into funding from informal investors – the so-called 4Fs, founders, family, friends and foolhardy strangers – who fund virtually every new business. The amount of research is inversely proportional to the importance of the funding source to entrepreneurs. This situation became so acute that the 2002 Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference deliberately capped the number of venture capital and IPO papers to 20 percent of all the abstracts accepted. Statistical analysis There is far too much complex statistical analysis, almost always with SPSS. For example, approximately 395 of the 416 articles surveyed by Chandler and Lyon used statistical analysis; 78 percent (of the 395) used factor, correlation, regression, discriminant or cluster analysis; 9 percent used analysis of variance; 7 percent used logistical regression; and 10 percent used non-parametric statistics. Only 13 percent simply compared means with T-tests. We are now so addicted to SPSS that my 1990 tonguein-cheek comment that our leading journals should print on their mastheads ‘Let no one ignorant of SPSS publish here’ is in danger of becoming a reality. But my greatest gripe with statistical analysis in entrepreneurship is that it is a study of central tendency, whereas Schumpeterian entrepreneurship is all about outliers – sometimes extreme outliers such as Wal-Mart, Southwest Airlines, FedEx, Intel, Microsoft, Genentech, Apple, Dell, Amazon.com and eBay that rearrange the economic order. Another related gripe is that when we make a random survey of entrepreneurs or would-be entrepreneurs in the general population, we almost always fail to acknowledge that half the respondents in our data set are part-time entrepreneurs, and half the full-time entrepreneurs have no employees other than themselves. Hence only one-quarter of the respondents have or intend to have employees, and less than 10 percent of those have businesses that have or expect to have at least 25 employees. Thus a data set of 200 responses has only 50 full-time entrepreneurs with employees and only five with 25 or more employees. Put another way, the data set is dominated by part-time and mom-and-pop businesses – hardly the kind of data set from which we should make generalizations to guide our undergraduate and MBA students with entrepreneurial ambitions. No way is this belittling the important role of mom-and-pops in society; it’s just that I don’t believe that we can learn a lot from mom-and-pops which is relevant to high-potential entrepreneurs.

The entrepreneurship paradigm (I) revisited

Theory No doubt about it, one of the most noticeable differences between articles published in the 1980s and those published today is the increase in the proportion of papers with theoretical front ends. In 2005, except for a few rare instances, it is impossible to get a paper without a theory section accepted for publication in a top entrepreneurship journal. This is an issue where I disagree most profoundly with the journal editors and most members of review boards. It seems to me that more often than not theory developed from sociology, psychology and economics tends to develop esoteric or mundane hypotheses that are of little or no value to the practice of entrepreneurship. Chandler and Lyon (2001) found that 30 percent of all the entrepreneurship articles published in ‘A’ journals had no empirical data. Hence plenty of theory-only papers are being published, so why are editors and reviewers insisting that empirical papers have conceptual front ends? Reflecting on the first few years of the Journal of Business Venturing, it appears that, in general, authors and reviewers back then had a better sense of what was important to the practice of entrepreneurship. True, authors spent little – if any – effort to root their articles in theory, nor did they use unnecessarily complex statistical machinery, but they had something very important to say to practitioners. What I have in mind is Timmons’s work that helped to set up a classification scheme for venture capital; Wetzel’s pioneering work on angel investors that led to setting up angel networks (Wetzel 1987); and Sahlman and Stevenson’s seminal article on capital market myopia, which is one of only a few journal articles that venture capitalists and investment bankers have ever read (Sahlman and Stevenson 1985). None of those papers would have been accepted by today’s generation of reviewers; even worse, they almost certainly would have rejected David Birch’s seminal work on job creation, which was published at the end of the 1970s. Can anyone think of any article published since 2000 in our leading journals that has had as profound an effect on practice as some of the articles published in the 1980s? I should have seen the trend coming in 1988 when one of the reviewers of an article on rates of return of venture capital, of which I was a co-author, commented that it should be presented at a practitioner conference, not the annual conference of the Academy of Management because it lacked theory. Forgive me if this sounds boastful, but the findings in that paper were the most important that I have ever discovered. It changed forever venture capitalists’ and their investors’ expectations of rates of return. A more recent example is an anonymous reviewer who rejected an IPO paper submitted to a leading journal because it did not have a strong enough theory section and its empirical method did not pass muster. (I was

Choosing a vehicle

the other reviewer of the paper.) Unfortunately, the reviewer’s critique revealed that he or she did not know what a secondary oﬀering was! For all I know, that reviewer might have an encyclopaedic knowledge of finance theory and might have complete mastery of the armamentarium of statistics for the social sciences, but clearly he or she is ignorant of very basic practical aspects of raising money on public markets. As a result a solid paper on a current topic of substantial interest to practitioners was not published. My own publications demonstrate that I do believe in theory development. It is simply that I am opposed to making theory a prerequisite for an empirical paper. I repeat what Isaac Newton, the greatest natural philosopher of all time, wrote: ‘Hypotheses non fingo.’ Newton was not only one of the greatest experimentalists, he was also perhaps the greatest theorist who has ever lived. He believed that hypotheses should be induced from experiment and that in sound physics every proposition should be drawn from phenomena and then generalized by induction. I much prefer to heed the findings of a well-designed empirical study with generalizable findings relevant to the practice of entrepreneurship than a paper with hypotheses derived almost entirely from theory. Recently, I read Eve Curie’s touching biography of her mother, Marie Curie, and re-read a compilation of some of the major papers of Luis Alvarez. Curie and Alvarez were two of the greatest experimental physicists of the twentieth century. Both made discoveries that earned Nobel prizes. Nowhere in their articles do you find a theoretical front end from which they derived hypotheses. If we entrepreneurship scholars want to emulate – albeit subconsciously – the hard sciences, then let’s not insist that every paper must have a theoretical front end. Future of the entrepreneurship paradigm If we continue on our present path I am not optimistic about the future of the entrepreneurship paradigm. Look at the evidence: it’s almost impossible to get an empirical-only paper published in an ‘A’ journal no matter how important its findings; our method is almost exclusively quantitative – 95 percent of the entrepreneurship articles published in nine ‘A’ journals used statistical analysis; our prime instrument is the questionnaire – 35 percent of the ‘A’ articles used phone or paper questionnaires with multiple-scale items; only 10 percent were based on interviews, and less than 1 percent on observation; it’s extremely diﬃcult to get qualitative research published in ‘A’ journals; and much of our research is on mom-and-pops instead of high-potentials. Truth be told, our studies derived from theory and driven by methodology produce mostly pedestrian findings that are of little or no interest to practitioners.

The entrepreneurship paradigm (I) revisited

Where have we gone wrong? I think the explanation for the state of the entrepreneurship paradigm today is that we have behaved as if we were researchers in liberal arts departments, especially natural sciences, rather than members of a professional school, such as law or medicine. It seems to me that we suﬀer from far too much physics envy. In our craving for the respect of our academic colleagues we are squandering the opportunity to build a new paradigm with imaginative research methods that are appropriate to a profession instead of a pure science. We entrepreneurship scholars are not alone in the business school because the same criticism can be made of all management disciplines, and most, albeit not all, of the other business disciplines. Surely the primary responsibilities of a professional school are to educate and train students and improve practice. With that in mind, read some recent issues of our leading journals and ask yourself what have you learned that is important to your teaching and advising and the practice of entrepreneurship. Per Davidsson (2000) suggested the following possible replies: ● ● ● ●

Nothing much, really A lot of harm Some good All the diﬀerence in the world.

As I write this piece, I am preparing material for a new textbook on entrepreneurship. I have been reading recent articles in leading entrepreneurship journals, and finding ‘nothing much, really’. In one case, I found ‘a lot of (potential) harm’. I have not yet found one article that makes ‘all the diﬀerence in the world’, and only a few that have given me even a glimpse of ‘some good’. I find that I have to turn to trade articles in magazines such as Inc. to get most of the useful insights for the textbook. To try to stimulate more research with practical implications, the Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference created a $2500 prize for the paper with the most important findings for practitioners. Alas, even with $2500 at stake, most authors did not write even one sentence linking their findings to entrepreneurship practice, from which it might be inferred that most researchers are indiﬀerent to the practical applications of their work. Here is a challenge for you, the reader: for the last 25 years, writing a business plan has probably been the most widely used teaching tool in entrepreneurship education and training. It is central in entrepreneurship process frameworks such as the Timmons model. How would you respond to a bright student raring to be an entrepreneur who asks, ‘Why are you making me take time out to write a business plan?’

Choosing a vehicle

Reach to the academic literature for an answer and you will come up almost empty-handed. One recent paper with a fine theoretical argument and elegant empirical methods reports that if a would-be entrepreneur writes a business plan before talking to a customer he or she has a better chance of surviving as a nascent entrepreneur. Drill deeper into the paper and you will see that it is based on a panel study that suﬀers from some of the defects inherent in random household telephone surveys that I have already discussed. The finding may well be robust for the researcher’s sample, but it would be wrong-headed to induce a proposition that is generalizable to high-potential entrepreneurship. Anyone who is in day-to-day contact with practitioners knows that many of the most successful entrepreneurs not only talk to customers before they write a business plan but many never write a business plan at all. Here are a few famous examples: Bill Gates and Paul Allen were selling software without a plan; Steve Jobs and Stephan Wozniak were selling Apple computers before they wrote a plan; likewise Michael Dell; and more recently, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin had a working prototype and talked with the major portal companies before they wrote a business plan. The fact that journal articles do not satisfactorily answer a question as fundamental as whether or not to write a business plan shows that we are not focused on issues that are important for the practice of entrepreneurship, or worse yet, perhaps we don’t even know what the important issues are. Challenges for the future We are fooling ourselves if we believe we are researching entrepreneurship when we are really studying micro-businesses. It’s time to focus on entrepreneurship instead of tiny businesses. It would be a good start if we said that we would study only entrepreneurs who have or expect to have at least 25 employees. Granted, that would capture relatively few Schumpeterian entrepreneurs, but it would eliminate all the micro-entrepreneurs, and it would get us closer to studying the entrepreneurs who are crucial to the health of an economy because they create most of the jobs and many of the new products and services. Even better from my perspective, it would force us to make in-depth, realtime case studies of actual entrepreneurial businesses from conception to adolescence. Imagine, for example, what we could learn if each of the 600 or so researchers who submitted abstracts to the 2004 Babson conference adopted a high-potential entrepreneur and did a longitudinal study of him or her in action. Also imagine how the emphasis of our scholarship would change if tenure were granted on the basis of how our research improved the practice

(ebook pdf) handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship 1st edition by helle neerga