Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research:Vol5.Issue1.1999:
Small business and enterprise
development: questions about
research methodology
Jimmy Hill and Pauric McGowan
Small business
and enterprise
development
5
School of Management, University of Ulster at Jordanstown,
Northern Ireland
Keywords Qualitative techniques, Research methodology, SMEs
A bstract T his paper examines the traditional and contemporary approaches to conducting
research into the marketing management activities of entrepreneurial small firms (ESF). It
argues that these approaches are inappropriate in that they fail to take adequate account of the
nature and characteristics of such enterprises and the individuals who manage them. It is
contended that the best approaches are to be found under the auspices of the wider qualitative
paradigm. In particular a syncretised qualitative methodology within a multiple reality ontology is
offered for consideration.
Importance of entrepreneurial small firms (ESF) to the macro
economy
Hodgetts and Kuratko (1995) suggest that small businesses not only create
employment but are the economic engine driving the global quality of life (see
Hills (1995)). Indeed, Storey (1994) specifically notes that small firms, however
they are defined, constitute the bulk of enterprises in all economies in the world.
Undoubtedly small firms and entrepreneurship do play a major role in the
world economy (Bygrave, 1994; Timmons, 1994).
Growth of research interests in the ESF
A s small firms become an increasingly mo re impo rtant part of global
economies, then more and more researchers are seeking to understand the
practices and activities of these enterprises. T his often reflects the interest of
government, government agencies and particularly those that are charged with
responsibility for enterprise development. Such research has to date been broad
in its remit, extending from the traditional functional areas of management to
funding, cultural and even research issues.
Over the past 20 years in particular, there has been the steady emergence of
a range of academic journals which are focusing specifically on small firms’
research agenda. T hese include the Journal of Small Business Management,
T he International Small Business Journal, Entrepreneurship: T heory and
Practice , Journal of Business Venturing, Small Business Economics, T he A sia
Pacific International Management Forum, T he Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development and the Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development. In addition, there is the imminent launch of a new International
International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, 1999,
pp. 5-18. © MCB University Press,
1355-2554
IJEBR
5,1
6
Journal of Marketing/Entrepreneurship. We have had a recent special issue of
T he European Journal of Marketing dedicated to research in this area.
In addition, there has been a steady growth in the number of international
conferences for the presentation and dissemination of findings from studies into
small firms. T hese include the ICSB, UKEMRA , the Small Business and
Enterprise Development Conference, RENT, the Babson Frontiers of
International Research, the Special Interest Groups of the UIC/A MA and
MEG/UK, the Scandinavian Conferences and the EIA SM offerings.
Conventional approaches
T he implication of all of this is that a pletho ra of research studies has been
conducted into almost every aspect of small firms’ activities.
A s a parallel to all of this, however, there has been a steady but slowly
accelerating change in the research methodologies of management research. A s
a consequence, traditional research approaches in marketing management have
been g rounded in predominantly positivist/quantitative methodologies. One
can readily speculate as to the reason for the dominance of these particular
research traditions. The first, and most obvious, is that many researchers have
entered the management arena or have approached management research from
a background in the traditional sciences, economics, psychology, sociology, etc.
T hese are disciplines w ith a histo rical and evolutionary attachment to
positivistic, single reality philosophical orientations manifest in the use of
quantitative approaches. Second, these researchers have in turn nurtured
student researchers in these traditions and as a consequence the methodological
approaches that have predominated have been self-perpetuating from one
generation of researchers to the next. W hat is happening to an extent is mere
square pegging from traditional disciplines into the rounder holes of small
firm/entrepreneurship research. T hird, the self-perpetuation of positivistic/
quantitative methodologies is largely being driven by government funding
agencies, which seemingly are only placatable when blinded by statistics, tables
and colourful graphs all too often generated from statistical packages such as
SPSS.
A series of research studies, fo r ex ample, Sex ton (1987), Hills (1987),
Churchill and Lewis (1986), Romano and Ratnatung a (1995), Carson and
Coviello (1995), note the strong predominance of positivistic methods, the
singular most popular method, using the Churchill and Lewis classification
system and the Paulin et al. (1987) classification, being the survey method and
permutations thereof.
A lternative approaches
A s researchers we should state that we have reservations about such
methodolog ies. T his paper, however, is not about damning fo r eternity
quantitative methods or the offerings of the positivist paradigm. Instead we
seek to draw attention to an alternative approach. Something which is based on
our experiences and indeed the experience of considerable and significant
others, and we feel in need of being given a decent hearing. The questions you
might well ask are: W hat is wrong with existing methodologies? W hy the need
for an alternative approach? W hat is the alternative?
A moot starting point is to consider the emerg ing research trends in
marketing management w hich have been in that “other” paradig m, the
qualitative one. In particular, since the late 1980s, there has been a steady
emergence of quality articles reflecting this alternative research paradigm.
Befo re developing these alternative methodolog ical approaches it is
necessary to briefly give consideration to some other pertinent issues. Small
firms are different. How many times and in how many ways has it been said
that small firms are not simply small large firms. In what ways then do we
recognise that the small firm is actually different?
Understanding the entrepreneurial small firm (ESF) and the
significance of the individual entrepreneur
In order to understand how the ESF is different we first need to consider the key
issue of entrepreneurship. T here is, however, no ag reed definition or clear
understanding in view of the large literature that exists of who the entrepreneur
is or what it is they do. Entrepreneurship is probably best understood as a
process, the constituents of which are the entrepreneur, their persistent search
for opportunities, usually g rounded in the marketplace, and their efforts to
marshal the resources needed to exploit those opportunities. Innovation and
change, the risks people take and the roles they play to bring change about,
appear to be core themes in understanding the entrepreneurial process. Central
to it, however, is the individual entrepreneur who is the driving force behind the
process. Without that individual’s commitment, determination, vision, energy,
tolerance of risk, and ambition, to mention but a few of the key personality and
behavioural attributes of an entrepreneur, the process would not happen.
A ny enterprise, therefo re, w ill be entrepreneurial only because its
management is consistently so. T he enterprise in terms of its character and
culture reflects the individual personality and behaviour of its management.
The degree to which that individual will remain entrepreneurial will depend on
a commitment to and ability to manage the entrepreneurial process and the
impact of success in doing so on the enterprise.
A s the individual entrepreneur strives to obtain and maintain a fit between
the elements of this dynamic process, decision making will be characterised as
largely confused, chaotic, unstructured, certainly non-linear and definitely timecompressed. Such individuals and the enterprises that they develop cannot
meaningfully be amassed as one homogeneous g roup. T he ESF defines a
unique enterprise. T he reflection of the individual personality of the founding
entrepreneur in what occurs in their enterprise recognises that person’s unique
contribution to its development. The individual is the product of all manner of
complex antecedent variables and ongoing influences w hich define a
personality and behaviour, determining their own unique view of the world.
Small business
and enterprise
development
7
IJEBR
5,1
8
There is a need therefore for approaches to research the ESF which reflect its
individual and unique characteristics and circumstances in addition to taking
account of the personalities active within it (Hofer and Bygrave, 1992; Chell and
Haworth, 1992; Stewart, 1991; Gibb, 1990; Byg rave, 1989). It is simply too
difficult to capture every aspect of the many and diffuse issues reflected by
these characteristics and circumstances. To fully comprehend these issues and
the relationships between them which are peculiar to the individual ESF it is
imperative to embark on an in-depth research prog ramme which not only is
qualitative but also manifests much of the ethnographic tradition.
On account of the above it is contended that marketing management activity
in small firms is different (Carson et al., 1996). A s a consequence of this
difference we are merely asserting that a new approach is required. W hat then
is this new approach and w hat are the philosophical o rientations and
underpinnings of such an approach? Our first consideration therefore needs to
be the selection of an appropriate research paradigm.
Selecting a suitable paradigm
Paradigms in the human and social sciences help us to understand phenomena
(Creswell, 1994). The concept of the paradigm was initially brought to the fore
by Kuhn (1962), who in the structure of scientific revolution made the powerful
assertion which has shaped conventional thinking on the role of paradigms in
developing research methodolog y. T hat is that different paradig ms are
incommensurable. T hey picture the world in incompatible ways, so that the
data are interpreted differently by those working in different paradigms. We
adopt Gummesson’s (1991) definition of a paradigm here, however, which
defines a paradigm as a world view representing people’s value judgements,
norms, standards, frames of reference, perspectives, ideologies, myths, theories,
and so forth. A nything in fact that governs their thinking and action.
T he paradigm advocated here is the qualitative one. Others describe this
paradigm variously as the constructivist approach (Lincoln and Guba, 1985),
the interpretivist approach (Smith, 1989), or the post-positivist approach
(Carson and Coviello, 1995) or the postmodern paradigm (Brown, 1995).
T he qualitative paradigm advocated here (see Figure 1) is based on several
important assumptions. T he first of these being what academic researchers
refer to as the ontological issue. T his simply means how do people view their
world, what do they see as reality? We recognise that everyone, just like the
people reading this paper, views the world differently, each according to his or
her own paradigm. We are suggesting that the only reality is that actually
constructed by individuals involved in any research situation. T hus multiple
realities exist in any given situation. T hese are those of the researcher, those
individuals being investigated and the reader or audience interpreting a study
(Creswell, 1994).
In respect of small firms, however, we strongly advocate that much more
research be conducted under the auspices of the qualitative paradigm, referred
to as constructivism. A useful definition of constructivism here would be that of
Small business
and enterprise
development
Multiple
Reality
“Getting in
Close”
9
Marketing/
Entrepreneurship
Research
“Pot Pourri”
approach to
analysis &
Interpretation
Value Laden
Dimension
Syncretized
Qualitative
Methodology
Eisner (1991), who says that it is important for researchers to recognise the
individuality, personality and attributes of the individual involved in the
research process. He argues strongly for recognition of the value and role of
people to research. Eisner (1985) also recognises, however, that it is probably
also true to state that many researchers from both the qualitative and
quantitative traditions pay little attention to suc h philosophical issues,
concentrating instead on the quality of their own empirical investigations.
We offer, therefo re, an approach to researching a small firm which is
constructivist (in its ontological orientation). It is an approach which embraces
the notion of multiple realities and accepts that each individual constructs their
own reality as they interpret and perceive their world. To represent this world,
therefore, means that the researcher must represent or reconstruct the world as
seen by others.
T he second philosophical issue which we must consider surrounds the
epistemological question which simply describes the nature of the relationship
between the researcher and the subject(s) of the research. Given our stated
understanding of the small firm and the impact of small firm and
entrepreneurial characteristics on the marketing management activities of such
enterprises, the epistemological stance that we advocate necessitates researcher
immersion in the ESF. The researcher will interact closely with the subjects of
Figure 1.
Dimensions of the
qualitative paradigm
IJEBR
5,1
10
the study, in this case the individual entrepreneur. In essence there will be a
minimisation of distance between the researcher and the subjects of the
research. W hat we mean is getting in close, which is at variance with the
positivist viewpoint.
T he epistemolog ical issue raised by this research approach has clear
implications for the axiological issue, in other words the role of values. T his
research approach by its very nature admits, recognises and embraces the
value-laden nature of the constructivist paradigm and multiple reality ontology
therein. T herefore, it is important that the ESF researcher reports their own
values and biases in addition to the information actually gathered. We hasten to
add therefore that the language of the research analysis and reporting can of
course quite comfortably be first person and personal.
Characteristics of this research approach
From the point of view of this research it is important to make several key
points. First, this research recog nises the diversity of disciplines and
concomitant characteristics that constitute the field of research at the
marketing/entrepreneurship interface. Second, experience from literature,
research and practice suggests that existing approaches for researching in
small firms are inappropriate. T hird, to research entrepreneurial small firms
and to research the lead entrepreneurs in such enterprises sug gests an
epistemological approach which dictates a minimisation of distance between
the researcher and the entrepreneur. Most prior research into small firms has its
roots in positiv ist thinking. W ithout devaluing such prio r research it is
contended here that such approaches do not yield a rich understanding of the
key issues which actually affect and may even determine the small firms’
potential for enterprise development. We deal with the importance of the value
of understanding later in this paper.
Methods and approaches for qualitative research
Given that this research is operating within the qualitative paradigm the
selection of methods and approaches offers numerous traditions. T hese range
from case studies (Yin, 1994; Stake, 1994; Gummesson, 1991), action research
(Gummesson, 1991), g rounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and
Corbin, 1990). Indeed Tesch (1990, 1994) goes as far as offering as many as 20
types of qualitative methods and Creswell (1994) offers ethnography, grounded
theory, case study and phenomenological studies. Quinn-Patton (1987) also
presents various methods for consideration. In other words, the array of methods
available within the qualitative paradigm is extensive (see Martello, 1997).
Method
However, we suggest that, while each of these methodologies has substantial
value and indeed could arguably stand alone in a research project, no one is
particularly suitable on its own. W hat we offer here therefore is a research
approach which borrows from the full menu of possibilities as and when
required. T his does not mean that incommensurability of paradigms is being
advocated. It simply means that a sy ncretised methodolog y w ithin a
constructivist view of the world is proposed. T he ontological stance of this
proposed approach to conducting research at the marketing/entrepreneurship
interface is firmly rooted in the acceptance of multiple realities and in an
epistemological approach which recognises the importance of the minimisation
of distance between the researcher and the small firm entrepreneur. It also
suggests an axiology which recognises the value-laden nature of research into
micro dimensions of small firm entrepreneurship.
T he net result of this is that we advocate the adoption of qualitative
methodologies which we suggest will lead to enhanced understanding as
opposed to the limited understanding offered by single reality ontologies and
concomitant methodologies. T his proposed methodology is simply referred to
in this instance as “a syncretised qualitative methodology for research into
SMEs”.
A s described in Figure 2, and in line with our argument thus far, the research
methodolog y offered for consideration borrows from various qualitative
research traditions many of w hich are mo re readily associated w ith
ethnography. These include observation, participant observation, ethnographic
interviewing and archival data (where available), in-depth interviewing,
grounded theory approaches and the case study.
Small business
and enterprise
development
11
Multiple
Reality
“Getting in
Close”
“Pot Pourri”
approach to
analysis &
Interpretation
Value Laden
Dimension
y
ph
ra
og
hn
Et
Syncretized
Qualitative
Methodology
Case Studies
Research
Archival Data
ups
ic
ph g
ra in
og iew
hn rv
Et nte
I
h ng
pt ewi
e
-d vi
In ter
In
t
an
ip ion
c
rti at
Pa serv
b
O
Focus Gro
Grounded
Theory
Marketing/
Entrepreneurship
Figure 2.
A syncretised
qualitative methodology
for research in ESFs
IJEBR
5,1
12
This approach, therefore, requires a researcher to spend a great deal of time in
a few, even one, entrepreneurial small firms collecting primarily observational
data (Wallen and Fraenkel, 1991). Creswell (1994) citing Grant and Fine (1992)
sug gests that this research approach is flex ible and ty pically evolves
contextually in response to experiences in the research setting.
T he key reasons fo r our advocacy of methods from the ethnog raphic
tradition is that such approaches facilitate the emergence of a holistic aspect to
research at the interface. The “holistic” dimension is particularly appropriate in
small firms research in that it enables the construction of a “holistic” picture of
the small firm entrepreneurs and how they make competent marketing
management decisions. A “holistic” dimension w ithin an ethnog raphic
approach would facilitate such a construction to occur in the context of the
entrepreneurial small firms.
It is important to note, nonetheless, that in spite of our advocacy of what is
broadly an ethnographic method our approach need not be at all confined in its
specific embrace of the ethnog raphic tradition. We clearly recognise the
strictures of pure ethnog raphic method and indeed the constraints and
difficulties that pure ethnography would impose on management and academic
researchers, particularly part-time researchers working at the interface.
T herefore, in the methodological approach offered here we counter these
constraints by suggesting the adoption of those dimensions of qualitative
methods which are deemed appropriate for researching specific areas of
interest at the interface.
T he proposed research can comfortably accommodate substantial in-depth
interviewing of the small firm entrepreneurs with perhaps the application of an
adapted grounded theory approach and case study methodology to manage the
qualitative data amassed. Such an adapted grounded theory approach would
involve the induction of research categories and frameworks from the initial
interviews, and the subsequent refinement of these categories and frameworks
until an informative comparative theory about small firm/entrepreneurial
decision making emerges from the data. In particular we would point
researchers to “intrinsic” case study descriptions as per Stake (1994).
Data collection methods (multiple) to be used here
We propose that data collection should be longitudinal. In essence this means
gathering sufficient data until patterns begin to emerge. T his would probably
entail frequent tape-reco rded interv iew s w ith entrepreneurs, may be an
unspecified series of interviews with secondary informants and, ideally,
observation of daily activities, meetings, and analysis of company documents if
available. We would suggest that “analysis as I go” and “post”-data criteria for
analysis will indicate when few new data are being yielded or when data
g athering in respect of entrepreneurial marketing management decision
making reaches saturation point.
During the data collection phase a field log should ideally be kept. T his
would provide a detailed account of planning for time to be spent in the small
firms, setting aside time for transcription and analysis.
Data analysis procedures and reporting of findings
Like the methodology, the analysis, interpretation and reporting of findings
generated from our approach should not be confined to any one mode of
analysis. We offer instead a “pot pourri” of possibilities. (see Figure 3).
T he approach to analy sis of empirical observations will be as stated,
“analysis as I go”. T his approach entails the generation of frameworks for
analysis for imposition on the data. A s already stated; the frameworks and
criteria for analysis will emerge and evolve throughout the study; hence their
predominantly “post”-data nature. A dapted grounded theory, for example, will
result in emergent data categories and a comparative method which will also
form the basis of data analysis criteria. Indeed there is wide support in the
existing literature for such approaches and in respect of the proposed research
approach, that is, considering the ethnographic dimensions, it can be justifiably
contended that data collection and data analysis should be a simultaneous
process (see Creswell, 1994; Marshall and Rossman, 1989; Kirk and Miller, 1986;
Spradley, 1979; Fetterman,1989; Hammersley and A tkinson, 1995).
Small business
and enterprise
development
13
Multiple
Reality
“Getting in
Close”
“Pot Pourri”
approach to
analysis &
Interpretation
Value Laden
Dimension
g
tin e
ke iv
ar at
M arr
N
Syncretized
Qualitative
Methodology
Comparative
Method
Research
Reduction &
Interpretation
In
as
you go”
ks
or is
ew lys
am na
Fr or a
f
g
lin
el
dw
a
at s
t-D ysi
s
l
Po na
A
“Analysis
Introspection
Marketing/
Entrepreneurship
Figure 3.
A “pot pourri” of
approaches to analysis,
interpretation and
reporting of data
IJEBR
5,1
14
In essence, therefore, the only frameworks for analysis that can be offered are
those frameworks that have emerged inductively from early research stages,
perhaps. The process of data analysis itself is of course eclectic (Creswell, 1994).
Tesch (1990) suggests that there is no right way and that metaphors and
analogies are as appropriate as open-ended questions.
In addition, this research might also usefully adopt the process advocated by
Marshall and Rossman (1989) in respect of the case study dimension. Such
analysis would be based on “reduction” and “interpretation”. Tesch (1990) refers
to this as the process of “decontextualisation” and “recontextualisation”, the
final goal of this research being the emergence of a larger consolidated, rich,
descriptive case (Tesch, 1990; 1994). Finally, the narrative style should
predominate w ith the data analy sis/interpretation/description rich in
metapho rs, and particularly rich in those “cultural metapho rs” of
entrepreneurship.
W hat is being offered here is unashamedly a naturalistic study within the
constructiv ist paradig m. Much “in-dwelling ” is anticipated in such a
methodolog ical approach; therefo re the results mig ht be presented in
descriptive narrative form rather than as a scientific report. T he vehicle for
communicating a holistic picture of the marketing experiences of small firm
entrepreneurs must, therefore, be partly “thick” description (Hill, 1993; Reeves
Sanday, 1979; Schwandt, 1994; Fetterman, 1989). T he final outcome of such a
research approach will, therefore, be to a large deg ree a construction of the
individual entrepreneur’s experiences and the meanings he/she attaches to
them. Not only does this allow for the development of typologies of awareness
contexts but it enables the researcher to vicariously experience the challenges
small-firm entrepreneurs encounter in relation to marketing decision making,
therefore providing a lens through which to view the world of the small-firm
entrepreneur.
Generalisation
Many proponents of the qualitative paradigm suggest radical approaches to
generalisation. Eisner (1985) and others suggest that other disciplines, for
example the arts, do not have hang-ups about generalisation. T his does not
mean that generalisation is not possible. The key issue here though is how does
one generalise from one or two non-randomly selected cases? Generalisation is
possible because of the fairly widely-held belief that the general resides in the
particular and because what one learns from a particular applies to other
situations subsequently encountered (Eisner (1985)). In addition, he considers
literature as the classic ex ample of this by asking the question ... Is
Shakespeare’s portrayal of Lady Macbeth simply a tale about a particular
Scottish noblewoman who lived in the latter part of the eleventh century? W hat
Shakespeare has done here of course is to illustrate significant common human
attributes by the way he has written about particular indiv iduals. Such
approaches to research try to locate the general in the particular. They attempt
to shed light on what is unique in time and space, while at the same time
conveying insights that exceed the limits of the situation in which they emerge.
This of course is precisely what A ristotle meant when he said that “Poetry was
truer than history”. Basically what is being said here is that we shape our
information pick-up system by what we learn from individual cases.
Triangulation
Positivistic criteria for triangulation, for example, internal and external validity,
reliability and objectivity, are inappropriate for evaluating research generated
through the qualitative paradigm. After all, these criteria derive from the specific
metaphy sic underly ing positiv istic science (Hirschmann, 1986). Indeed,
Hirschmann (1986) and Guba and Lincoln (1994) offer the alternative criteria of
credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability as the key ways of
authenticating the outcomes of qualitative research.
In addition, Denzin (1978), Eisner (1985) and Hammersley and A tkinson
(1995) suggest approaches for data triangulation that point to several common
criteria. First, there will be respondent triangulation. T he inferences drawn
from a set of data sources will be checked by collecting data from others. More
specifically, data source triangulation will involve the comparison of data
relating to the same phenomenon but deriving from different phases of the fieldwork, different points in the temporal cycles occurring in the setting or, as in
respondent validation, the accounts of different participants (including the
researcher) differently located in the setting.
The value of understanding
The qualitative paradigm suggested here seeks, as we stated earlier, to gain a
deeper understanding of the numerous and extremely complex research issues
and influences at the marketing and entrepreneurship interface. There is great
value in pursuing this ex tremely testing and rigo rous approach fo r the
researcher. It provides him/her with deep insights into the “exception to the
rule”, addressing the inapplicability of the general data to the individual cases
by focusing on the individual.
T his proposed approach gives the researcher insights into the impact of
contexts and in particular changing or different contexts in which the research
is conducted (what is the entrepreneurial process if not an example of a movie
of dy namic changes po rtray ing numerous and variable contex ts rich in
research data?). This approach also provides significant potential for building
theories. It allows the researcher to uncover emic views so important for
understanding what is going on within a particular social system such as an
ESF. T his particular alternative research approach embraces the discovery
dimensions of inquiry which are so close to the heart of any curious investigator
who wants to understand what is really happening in the entrepreneur’s world.
Conclusion
W hat is offered here of course is a reflection of a research methodology firmly
committed to the qualitative paradigm. In rejecting other positions we do not
Small business
and enterprise
development
15
IJEBR
5,1
16
purpo rt to claim superio rity o r mo ral hig h g round over other research
positions. On the contrary, in the pluralist world of academic research, variety
is the spice of life. We are simply offering an approach to research at the
marketing/entrepreneurship interface which we feel better takes account of the
peculiar and well-documented characteristics of small entrepreneurial firms.
T he approach openly espouses and suppo rts humanistic approaches to
researching such enterprises.
It champions qualitative methodology grounded in the clear recognition of
the existence of multiple realities. It is vital that the academic and management
research community recog nises that in spite of some of the widely -held
reservations about the value of such methods the tide has already started to
turn. Even the established bastions of quantitative/positivist/single reality
methodologies, e.g. JCR, JMS, are embracing and recognising the valuable
contribution that such methodologies are making to academic and management
research projects. Government agencies are cautious in their reception of such
approaches (the positivist paradigm is so much quicker and cheaper, even if the
results are somewhat limited!) but this is changing. Indeed it needs to change or
we are all g uilty of disreg arding our most valuable economic asset, the
individual entrepreneur and the enterprise he/she is seeking to develop in
his/her own unique way.
References
Brown, S. (1995), Postmodern Marketing, Routledge, London.
Bygrave, W.D. (1989), “T he entrepreneurship paradigm (1): a philosophical look at its research
methodologies”, Journal of Entrepreneurship, T heory and Practice, Fall, Vol. 14, pp. 7-26.
Bygrave, W.D. (1994), T he Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Carson, D.J. and Coviello, N. (1995), “Researching the marketing/entrepreneurship interface”,
paper presented at the A MA Marketing/Entrepreneurship Symposium, Melbourne.
Carson, D.J., McGowan, P. and Hill, J. (1996), “Effective marketing education for SME executives”,
Marketing Education Review, Vol. 6 No. 2, Summer, pp. 1-12.
Chell, E. and Haworth, J.M. (1992), “The development of a research paradigm for the investigation
of entrepreneurship: some methodological issues”, UIC/A MA Research Symposium on
Marketing and Entrepreneurship, INSEA D, France.
Churchill, N.C. and Lewis, V. (1986), “Entrepreneurship research: directions and methods”, in
Sexton, D. and Smilor, R. (Eds), A rt and Science of Entrepreneurship, Ballinger, Cambridge,
MA .
Creswell, J.W. (1994), Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative A pproaches, Sage, London.
Denzin, N.K. (1978), T he Research A ct: A T heoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, 2nd
ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Eisner, E.W. (1985), T he Educational Imagination, 2nd ed., Macmillan, New York, NY.
Fetterman, D.M. (1989), Ethnography: Step by Step, Sage, Newbury Park, CA .
Gibb, A . (1990), “Organising small business research to meet the needs of customers in the
twenty-first century”, Proceedings of the 13th National Small Fir ms Policy and Research
Conference, November.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A . (1967), T he Discovery of Grounded T heory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research, A ldine, Chicago, IL.
Grant, L. and Fine, G.A . (1992), “Sociolog y unleashed: creative directions in classical
ethnog raphy”, in LeCompte, M.D., Millroy, W.L. and Preissle, J. (Eds), T he Handbook of
Qualitative Research in Education, A cademic Press, New York, NY, pp. 405-46.
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994), “Competing paradigms in qualitative research”, in Denzin,
N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), A Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA ,
pp. 105-17.
Gummesson, E. (1991), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA .
Hammersley, M. and A tkinson, P. (1995), Ethnography: Principles and Practice , Routledge,
London.
Hill, R.P. (1993), “Ethnography and marketing research: a postmodern perspective”, in Cravens,
D.W. and Dickson, P.R. (Eds), Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, Proceedings
of the A MA Educators Conference, pp. 257-61.
Hills, G.E. (1987), “Marketing and entrepreneurship research issues: scholarly justification?”, in
Hills, G.E. (Ed.), Research at the M arketing/Entrepreneurship Interface , United States
A ssociation for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Marietta, GA .
Hills, G.E. (1995), in Carson, D., Cromie, S., McGowan, P. and Hill, J. (Eds), M arketing and
Entrepreneurship in SMEs: A n Innovative A pproach, Prentice-Hall International, London.
Hirschmann, E.C. (1986), “Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: philosophy, method and
criteria”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXIII, August, pp. 237-49.
Hodgetts, R.M. and Kuratko, D.F. (1995), Effective Small Business Management, 5th ed., Dryden,
Fort Worth, TX.
Hofer, C.W. and Byg rave, W.D. (1992), “Researching entrepreneurship”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship, T heory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 3, Spring, pp. 91-100.
Kirk, J. and Miller, M.L. (1986), Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, Sage, Newbury
Park, CA .
Kuhn, T. (1962), T he Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA .
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (1989), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA .
Martello, W.E. (1997), “Qualitative methodologies for field research: a comparative analysis”,
paper presented at the A cademy of Marketing/UIC/A MA Special Interest Group Symposium
at the Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface, Smurfit School of Management, University
College Dublin, January.
Paulin, W.L., Coffey, R.E. and Spaulding, M.E. (1982), “Entrepreneurship research: methods and
directions”, in Kent, C.A ., Sex ton, D.L. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds), Encyclopedia of
Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 352-73.
Quinn-Patton, M.Q. (1987), How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park,
CA .
Reeves Sanday, P. (1979), “T he ethnog raphic paradigm”, A dministrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 24, pp. 527-38.
Romano, C. and Ratnatunga, J. (1995), “T he role of marketing: its impact on small enterprise
research”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 9-30.
Schwandt, T.A . (1994), “Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry”, in Denzin,
N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, T housand Oaks, CA ,
pp. 118-37.
Sexton, D.L. (1987),”A dvancing small business research: utilising research from other areas”,
Entrepreneurship: T heory and Practice, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 25-9.
Smith, J.K. (1989), T he Nature of Social and Educational Inquir y: Empiricism versus
Interpretation, A blex, Norwood, NJ.
Small business
and enterprise
development
17
IJEBR
5,1
Spradley, J.P. (1979), T he Ethnographic Interview, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers,
Fort Worth, TX.
Stake, R.E. (1994), “Case studies”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative
Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA , pp. 236-47.
Stew art, A . (1991), “A prospectus on the anthropolog y of entrepreneurship”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Practice, Winter.
18
Storey, D.J. (1994), Understanding the Small Business Sector, Routledge, London.
Strauss, A . and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded T heory Procedures and
Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA .
Tesch, R. (1990), Qualitative Research: A nalysis T ypes and Software Tools, Falmer Press, New
York, NY.
Tesch, R. (1994), Qualitative Research: A nalysis T ypes and Software Tools, Falmer Press, New
York, NY.
Timmons, J. (1994), New Venture Creation, 4th ed., Irwin, New York, NY.
Wallen, N.E. and Fraenkel, J.R. (1991), Educational Research: A Guide to the Process, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA .
Further reading
Carson, D.J. and Cromie, S. (1989), “Marketing planning in small enterprises: a model and some
empirical evidence”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, Summer, pp. 33-51.
Carson, D., Cromie, S., McGowan, P. and Hill, J. (1995), Marketing and Entrepreneurship in SMEs:
A n Innovative A pproach, Prentice-Hall International, London.
Eisner, E.W. (1991), T he Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and Enhancement of Educational
Practice, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Fraenkel, J.R. and Wallen, N.E. (1990), How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Gartner, W.B. (1989), “‘W ho is the entrepreneur?’ is the w rong question”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship T heory and Practice, Vol. 13 No. 4, Summer, pp 47-68.
Kuratko, D.F. and Hodgetts, R.M. (1995), Entrepreneurship: A Contemporary A pproach, 3rd ed.,
Dryden, Fort Worth, TX.
development: questions about
research methodology
Jimmy Hill and Pauric McGowan
Small business
and enterprise
development
5
School of Management, University of Ulster at Jordanstown,
Northern Ireland
Keywords Qualitative techniques, Research methodology, SMEs
A bstract T his paper examines the traditional and contemporary approaches to conducting
research into the marketing management activities of entrepreneurial small firms (ESF). It
argues that these approaches are inappropriate in that they fail to take adequate account of the
nature and characteristics of such enterprises and the individuals who manage them. It is
contended that the best approaches are to be found under the auspices of the wider qualitative
paradigm. In particular a syncretised qualitative methodology within a multiple reality ontology is
offered for consideration.
Importance of entrepreneurial small firms (ESF) to the macro
economy
Hodgetts and Kuratko (1995) suggest that small businesses not only create
employment but are the economic engine driving the global quality of life (see
Hills (1995)). Indeed, Storey (1994) specifically notes that small firms, however
they are defined, constitute the bulk of enterprises in all economies in the world.
Undoubtedly small firms and entrepreneurship do play a major role in the
world economy (Bygrave, 1994; Timmons, 1994).
Growth of research interests in the ESF
A s small firms become an increasingly mo re impo rtant part of global
economies, then more and more researchers are seeking to understand the
practices and activities of these enterprises. T his often reflects the interest of
government, government agencies and particularly those that are charged with
responsibility for enterprise development. Such research has to date been broad
in its remit, extending from the traditional functional areas of management to
funding, cultural and even research issues.
Over the past 20 years in particular, there has been the steady emergence of
a range of academic journals which are focusing specifically on small firms’
research agenda. T hese include the Journal of Small Business Management,
T he International Small Business Journal, Entrepreneurship: T heory and
Practice , Journal of Business Venturing, Small Business Economics, T he A sia
Pacific International Management Forum, T he Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development and the Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development. In addition, there is the imminent launch of a new International
International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, 1999,
pp. 5-18. © MCB University Press,
1355-2554
IJEBR
5,1
6
Journal of Marketing/Entrepreneurship. We have had a recent special issue of
T he European Journal of Marketing dedicated to research in this area.
In addition, there has been a steady growth in the number of international
conferences for the presentation and dissemination of findings from studies into
small firms. T hese include the ICSB, UKEMRA , the Small Business and
Enterprise Development Conference, RENT, the Babson Frontiers of
International Research, the Special Interest Groups of the UIC/A MA and
MEG/UK, the Scandinavian Conferences and the EIA SM offerings.
Conventional approaches
T he implication of all of this is that a pletho ra of research studies has been
conducted into almost every aspect of small firms’ activities.
A s a parallel to all of this, however, there has been a steady but slowly
accelerating change in the research methodologies of management research. A s
a consequence, traditional research approaches in marketing management have
been g rounded in predominantly positivist/quantitative methodologies. One
can readily speculate as to the reason for the dominance of these particular
research traditions. The first, and most obvious, is that many researchers have
entered the management arena or have approached management research from
a background in the traditional sciences, economics, psychology, sociology, etc.
T hese are disciplines w ith a histo rical and evolutionary attachment to
positivistic, single reality philosophical orientations manifest in the use of
quantitative approaches. Second, these researchers have in turn nurtured
student researchers in these traditions and as a consequence the methodological
approaches that have predominated have been self-perpetuating from one
generation of researchers to the next. W hat is happening to an extent is mere
square pegging from traditional disciplines into the rounder holes of small
firm/entrepreneurship research. T hird, the self-perpetuation of positivistic/
quantitative methodologies is largely being driven by government funding
agencies, which seemingly are only placatable when blinded by statistics, tables
and colourful graphs all too often generated from statistical packages such as
SPSS.
A series of research studies, fo r ex ample, Sex ton (1987), Hills (1987),
Churchill and Lewis (1986), Romano and Ratnatung a (1995), Carson and
Coviello (1995), note the strong predominance of positivistic methods, the
singular most popular method, using the Churchill and Lewis classification
system and the Paulin et al. (1987) classification, being the survey method and
permutations thereof.
A lternative approaches
A s researchers we should state that we have reservations about such
methodolog ies. T his paper, however, is not about damning fo r eternity
quantitative methods or the offerings of the positivist paradigm. Instead we
seek to draw attention to an alternative approach. Something which is based on
our experiences and indeed the experience of considerable and significant
others, and we feel in need of being given a decent hearing. The questions you
might well ask are: W hat is wrong with existing methodologies? W hy the need
for an alternative approach? W hat is the alternative?
A moot starting point is to consider the emerg ing research trends in
marketing management w hich have been in that “other” paradig m, the
qualitative one. In particular, since the late 1980s, there has been a steady
emergence of quality articles reflecting this alternative research paradigm.
Befo re developing these alternative methodolog ical approaches it is
necessary to briefly give consideration to some other pertinent issues. Small
firms are different. How many times and in how many ways has it been said
that small firms are not simply small large firms. In what ways then do we
recognise that the small firm is actually different?
Understanding the entrepreneurial small firm (ESF) and the
significance of the individual entrepreneur
In order to understand how the ESF is different we first need to consider the key
issue of entrepreneurship. T here is, however, no ag reed definition or clear
understanding in view of the large literature that exists of who the entrepreneur
is or what it is they do. Entrepreneurship is probably best understood as a
process, the constituents of which are the entrepreneur, their persistent search
for opportunities, usually g rounded in the marketplace, and their efforts to
marshal the resources needed to exploit those opportunities. Innovation and
change, the risks people take and the roles they play to bring change about,
appear to be core themes in understanding the entrepreneurial process. Central
to it, however, is the individual entrepreneur who is the driving force behind the
process. Without that individual’s commitment, determination, vision, energy,
tolerance of risk, and ambition, to mention but a few of the key personality and
behavioural attributes of an entrepreneur, the process would not happen.
A ny enterprise, therefo re, w ill be entrepreneurial only because its
management is consistently so. T he enterprise in terms of its character and
culture reflects the individual personality and behaviour of its management.
The degree to which that individual will remain entrepreneurial will depend on
a commitment to and ability to manage the entrepreneurial process and the
impact of success in doing so on the enterprise.
A s the individual entrepreneur strives to obtain and maintain a fit between
the elements of this dynamic process, decision making will be characterised as
largely confused, chaotic, unstructured, certainly non-linear and definitely timecompressed. Such individuals and the enterprises that they develop cannot
meaningfully be amassed as one homogeneous g roup. T he ESF defines a
unique enterprise. T he reflection of the individual personality of the founding
entrepreneur in what occurs in their enterprise recognises that person’s unique
contribution to its development. The individual is the product of all manner of
complex antecedent variables and ongoing influences w hich define a
personality and behaviour, determining their own unique view of the world.
Small business
and enterprise
development
7
IJEBR
5,1
8
There is a need therefore for approaches to research the ESF which reflect its
individual and unique characteristics and circumstances in addition to taking
account of the personalities active within it (Hofer and Bygrave, 1992; Chell and
Haworth, 1992; Stewart, 1991; Gibb, 1990; Byg rave, 1989). It is simply too
difficult to capture every aspect of the many and diffuse issues reflected by
these characteristics and circumstances. To fully comprehend these issues and
the relationships between them which are peculiar to the individual ESF it is
imperative to embark on an in-depth research prog ramme which not only is
qualitative but also manifests much of the ethnographic tradition.
On account of the above it is contended that marketing management activity
in small firms is different (Carson et al., 1996). A s a consequence of this
difference we are merely asserting that a new approach is required. W hat then
is this new approach and w hat are the philosophical o rientations and
underpinnings of such an approach? Our first consideration therefore needs to
be the selection of an appropriate research paradigm.
Selecting a suitable paradigm
Paradigms in the human and social sciences help us to understand phenomena
(Creswell, 1994). The concept of the paradigm was initially brought to the fore
by Kuhn (1962), who in the structure of scientific revolution made the powerful
assertion which has shaped conventional thinking on the role of paradigms in
developing research methodolog y. T hat is that different paradig ms are
incommensurable. T hey picture the world in incompatible ways, so that the
data are interpreted differently by those working in different paradigms. We
adopt Gummesson’s (1991) definition of a paradigm here, however, which
defines a paradigm as a world view representing people’s value judgements,
norms, standards, frames of reference, perspectives, ideologies, myths, theories,
and so forth. A nything in fact that governs their thinking and action.
T he paradigm advocated here is the qualitative one. Others describe this
paradigm variously as the constructivist approach (Lincoln and Guba, 1985),
the interpretivist approach (Smith, 1989), or the post-positivist approach
(Carson and Coviello, 1995) or the postmodern paradigm (Brown, 1995).
T he qualitative paradigm advocated here (see Figure 1) is based on several
important assumptions. T he first of these being what academic researchers
refer to as the ontological issue. T his simply means how do people view their
world, what do they see as reality? We recognise that everyone, just like the
people reading this paper, views the world differently, each according to his or
her own paradigm. We are suggesting that the only reality is that actually
constructed by individuals involved in any research situation. T hus multiple
realities exist in any given situation. T hese are those of the researcher, those
individuals being investigated and the reader or audience interpreting a study
(Creswell, 1994).
In respect of small firms, however, we strongly advocate that much more
research be conducted under the auspices of the qualitative paradigm, referred
to as constructivism. A useful definition of constructivism here would be that of
Small business
and enterprise
development
Multiple
Reality
“Getting in
Close”
9
Marketing/
Entrepreneurship
Research
“Pot Pourri”
approach to
analysis &
Interpretation
Value Laden
Dimension
Syncretized
Qualitative
Methodology
Eisner (1991), who says that it is important for researchers to recognise the
individuality, personality and attributes of the individual involved in the
research process. He argues strongly for recognition of the value and role of
people to research. Eisner (1985) also recognises, however, that it is probably
also true to state that many researchers from both the qualitative and
quantitative traditions pay little attention to suc h philosophical issues,
concentrating instead on the quality of their own empirical investigations.
We offer, therefo re, an approach to researching a small firm which is
constructivist (in its ontological orientation). It is an approach which embraces
the notion of multiple realities and accepts that each individual constructs their
own reality as they interpret and perceive their world. To represent this world,
therefore, means that the researcher must represent or reconstruct the world as
seen by others.
T he second philosophical issue which we must consider surrounds the
epistemological question which simply describes the nature of the relationship
between the researcher and the subject(s) of the research. Given our stated
understanding of the small firm and the impact of small firm and
entrepreneurial characteristics on the marketing management activities of such
enterprises, the epistemological stance that we advocate necessitates researcher
immersion in the ESF. The researcher will interact closely with the subjects of
Figure 1.
Dimensions of the
qualitative paradigm
IJEBR
5,1
10
the study, in this case the individual entrepreneur. In essence there will be a
minimisation of distance between the researcher and the subjects of the
research. W hat we mean is getting in close, which is at variance with the
positivist viewpoint.
T he epistemolog ical issue raised by this research approach has clear
implications for the axiological issue, in other words the role of values. T his
research approach by its very nature admits, recognises and embraces the
value-laden nature of the constructivist paradigm and multiple reality ontology
therein. T herefore, it is important that the ESF researcher reports their own
values and biases in addition to the information actually gathered. We hasten to
add therefore that the language of the research analysis and reporting can of
course quite comfortably be first person and personal.
Characteristics of this research approach
From the point of view of this research it is important to make several key
points. First, this research recog nises the diversity of disciplines and
concomitant characteristics that constitute the field of research at the
marketing/entrepreneurship interface. Second, experience from literature,
research and practice suggests that existing approaches for researching in
small firms are inappropriate. T hird, to research entrepreneurial small firms
and to research the lead entrepreneurs in such enterprises sug gests an
epistemological approach which dictates a minimisation of distance between
the researcher and the entrepreneur. Most prior research into small firms has its
roots in positiv ist thinking. W ithout devaluing such prio r research it is
contended here that such approaches do not yield a rich understanding of the
key issues which actually affect and may even determine the small firms’
potential for enterprise development. We deal with the importance of the value
of understanding later in this paper.
Methods and approaches for qualitative research
Given that this research is operating within the qualitative paradigm the
selection of methods and approaches offers numerous traditions. T hese range
from case studies (Yin, 1994; Stake, 1994; Gummesson, 1991), action research
(Gummesson, 1991), g rounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and
Corbin, 1990). Indeed Tesch (1990, 1994) goes as far as offering as many as 20
types of qualitative methods and Creswell (1994) offers ethnography, grounded
theory, case study and phenomenological studies. Quinn-Patton (1987) also
presents various methods for consideration. In other words, the array of methods
available within the qualitative paradigm is extensive (see Martello, 1997).
Method
However, we suggest that, while each of these methodologies has substantial
value and indeed could arguably stand alone in a research project, no one is
particularly suitable on its own. W hat we offer here therefore is a research
approach which borrows from the full menu of possibilities as and when
required. T his does not mean that incommensurability of paradigms is being
advocated. It simply means that a sy ncretised methodolog y w ithin a
constructivist view of the world is proposed. T he ontological stance of this
proposed approach to conducting research at the marketing/entrepreneurship
interface is firmly rooted in the acceptance of multiple realities and in an
epistemological approach which recognises the importance of the minimisation
of distance between the researcher and the small firm entrepreneur. It also
suggests an axiology which recognises the value-laden nature of research into
micro dimensions of small firm entrepreneurship.
T he net result of this is that we advocate the adoption of qualitative
methodologies which we suggest will lead to enhanced understanding as
opposed to the limited understanding offered by single reality ontologies and
concomitant methodologies. T his proposed methodology is simply referred to
in this instance as “a syncretised qualitative methodology for research into
SMEs”.
A s described in Figure 2, and in line with our argument thus far, the research
methodolog y offered for consideration borrows from various qualitative
research traditions many of w hich are mo re readily associated w ith
ethnography. These include observation, participant observation, ethnographic
interviewing and archival data (where available), in-depth interviewing,
grounded theory approaches and the case study.
Small business
and enterprise
development
11
Multiple
Reality
“Getting in
Close”
“Pot Pourri”
approach to
analysis &
Interpretation
Value Laden
Dimension
y
ph
ra
og
hn
Et
Syncretized
Qualitative
Methodology
Case Studies
Research
Archival Data
ups
ic
ph g
ra in
og iew
hn rv
Et nte
I
h ng
pt ewi
e
-d vi
In ter
In
t
an
ip ion
c
rti at
Pa serv
b
O
Focus Gro
Grounded
Theory
Marketing/
Entrepreneurship
Figure 2.
A syncretised
qualitative methodology
for research in ESFs
IJEBR
5,1
12
This approach, therefore, requires a researcher to spend a great deal of time in
a few, even one, entrepreneurial small firms collecting primarily observational
data (Wallen and Fraenkel, 1991). Creswell (1994) citing Grant and Fine (1992)
sug gests that this research approach is flex ible and ty pically evolves
contextually in response to experiences in the research setting.
T he key reasons fo r our advocacy of methods from the ethnog raphic
tradition is that such approaches facilitate the emergence of a holistic aspect to
research at the interface. The “holistic” dimension is particularly appropriate in
small firms research in that it enables the construction of a “holistic” picture of
the small firm entrepreneurs and how they make competent marketing
management decisions. A “holistic” dimension w ithin an ethnog raphic
approach would facilitate such a construction to occur in the context of the
entrepreneurial small firms.
It is important to note, nonetheless, that in spite of our advocacy of what is
broadly an ethnographic method our approach need not be at all confined in its
specific embrace of the ethnog raphic tradition. We clearly recognise the
strictures of pure ethnog raphic method and indeed the constraints and
difficulties that pure ethnography would impose on management and academic
researchers, particularly part-time researchers working at the interface.
T herefore, in the methodological approach offered here we counter these
constraints by suggesting the adoption of those dimensions of qualitative
methods which are deemed appropriate for researching specific areas of
interest at the interface.
T he proposed research can comfortably accommodate substantial in-depth
interviewing of the small firm entrepreneurs with perhaps the application of an
adapted grounded theory approach and case study methodology to manage the
qualitative data amassed. Such an adapted grounded theory approach would
involve the induction of research categories and frameworks from the initial
interviews, and the subsequent refinement of these categories and frameworks
until an informative comparative theory about small firm/entrepreneurial
decision making emerges from the data. In particular we would point
researchers to “intrinsic” case study descriptions as per Stake (1994).
Data collection methods (multiple) to be used here
We propose that data collection should be longitudinal. In essence this means
gathering sufficient data until patterns begin to emerge. T his would probably
entail frequent tape-reco rded interv iew s w ith entrepreneurs, may be an
unspecified series of interviews with secondary informants and, ideally,
observation of daily activities, meetings, and analysis of company documents if
available. We would suggest that “analysis as I go” and “post”-data criteria for
analysis will indicate when few new data are being yielded or when data
g athering in respect of entrepreneurial marketing management decision
making reaches saturation point.
During the data collection phase a field log should ideally be kept. T his
would provide a detailed account of planning for time to be spent in the small
firms, setting aside time for transcription and analysis.
Data analysis procedures and reporting of findings
Like the methodology, the analysis, interpretation and reporting of findings
generated from our approach should not be confined to any one mode of
analysis. We offer instead a “pot pourri” of possibilities. (see Figure 3).
T he approach to analy sis of empirical observations will be as stated,
“analysis as I go”. T his approach entails the generation of frameworks for
analysis for imposition on the data. A s already stated; the frameworks and
criteria for analysis will emerge and evolve throughout the study; hence their
predominantly “post”-data nature. A dapted grounded theory, for example, will
result in emergent data categories and a comparative method which will also
form the basis of data analysis criteria. Indeed there is wide support in the
existing literature for such approaches and in respect of the proposed research
approach, that is, considering the ethnographic dimensions, it can be justifiably
contended that data collection and data analysis should be a simultaneous
process (see Creswell, 1994; Marshall and Rossman, 1989; Kirk and Miller, 1986;
Spradley, 1979; Fetterman,1989; Hammersley and A tkinson, 1995).
Small business
and enterprise
development
13
Multiple
Reality
“Getting in
Close”
“Pot Pourri”
approach to
analysis &
Interpretation
Value Laden
Dimension
g
tin e
ke iv
ar at
M arr
N
Syncretized
Qualitative
Methodology
Comparative
Method
Research
Reduction &
Interpretation
In
as
you go”
ks
or is
ew lys
am na
Fr or a
f
g
lin
el
dw
a
at s
t-D ysi
s
l
Po na
A
“Analysis
Introspection
Marketing/
Entrepreneurship
Figure 3.
A “pot pourri” of
approaches to analysis,
interpretation and
reporting of data
IJEBR
5,1
14
In essence, therefore, the only frameworks for analysis that can be offered are
those frameworks that have emerged inductively from early research stages,
perhaps. The process of data analysis itself is of course eclectic (Creswell, 1994).
Tesch (1990) suggests that there is no right way and that metaphors and
analogies are as appropriate as open-ended questions.
In addition, this research might also usefully adopt the process advocated by
Marshall and Rossman (1989) in respect of the case study dimension. Such
analysis would be based on “reduction” and “interpretation”. Tesch (1990) refers
to this as the process of “decontextualisation” and “recontextualisation”, the
final goal of this research being the emergence of a larger consolidated, rich,
descriptive case (Tesch, 1990; 1994). Finally, the narrative style should
predominate w ith the data analy sis/interpretation/description rich in
metapho rs, and particularly rich in those “cultural metapho rs” of
entrepreneurship.
W hat is being offered here is unashamedly a naturalistic study within the
constructiv ist paradig m. Much “in-dwelling ” is anticipated in such a
methodolog ical approach; therefo re the results mig ht be presented in
descriptive narrative form rather than as a scientific report. T he vehicle for
communicating a holistic picture of the marketing experiences of small firm
entrepreneurs must, therefore, be partly “thick” description (Hill, 1993; Reeves
Sanday, 1979; Schwandt, 1994; Fetterman, 1989). T he final outcome of such a
research approach will, therefore, be to a large deg ree a construction of the
individual entrepreneur’s experiences and the meanings he/she attaches to
them. Not only does this allow for the development of typologies of awareness
contexts but it enables the researcher to vicariously experience the challenges
small-firm entrepreneurs encounter in relation to marketing decision making,
therefore providing a lens through which to view the world of the small-firm
entrepreneur.
Generalisation
Many proponents of the qualitative paradigm suggest radical approaches to
generalisation. Eisner (1985) and others suggest that other disciplines, for
example the arts, do not have hang-ups about generalisation. T his does not
mean that generalisation is not possible. The key issue here though is how does
one generalise from one or two non-randomly selected cases? Generalisation is
possible because of the fairly widely-held belief that the general resides in the
particular and because what one learns from a particular applies to other
situations subsequently encountered (Eisner (1985)). In addition, he considers
literature as the classic ex ample of this by asking the question ... Is
Shakespeare’s portrayal of Lady Macbeth simply a tale about a particular
Scottish noblewoman who lived in the latter part of the eleventh century? W hat
Shakespeare has done here of course is to illustrate significant common human
attributes by the way he has written about particular indiv iduals. Such
approaches to research try to locate the general in the particular. They attempt
to shed light on what is unique in time and space, while at the same time
conveying insights that exceed the limits of the situation in which they emerge.
This of course is precisely what A ristotle meant when he said that “Poetry was
truer than history”. Basically what is being said here is that we shape our
information pick-up system by what we learn from individual cases.
Triangulation
Positivistic criteria for triangulation, for example, internal and external validity,
reliability and objectivity, are inappropriate for evaluating research generated
through the qualitative paradigm. After all, these criteria derive from the specific
metaphy sic underly ing positiv istic science (Hirschmann, 1986). Indeed,
Hirschmann (1986) and Guba and Lincoln (1994) offer the alternative criteria of
credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability as the key ways of
authenticating the outcomes of qualitative research.
In addition, Denzin (1978), Eisner (1985) and Hammersley and A tkinson
(1995) suggest approaches for data triangulation that point to several common
criteria. First, there will be respondent triangulation. T he inferences drawn
from a set of data sources will be checked by collecting data from others. More
specifically, data source triangulation will involve the comparison of data
relating to the same phenomenon but deriving from different phases of the fieldwork, different points in the temporal cycles occurring in the setting or, as in
respondent validation, the accounts of different participants (including the
researcher) differently located in the setting.
The value of understanding
The qualitative paradigm suggested here seeks, as we stated earlier, to gain a
deeper understanding of the numerous and extremely complex research issues
and influences at the marketing and entrepreneurship interface. There is great
value in pursuing this ex tremely testing and rigo rous approach fo r the
researcher. It provides him/her with deep insights into the “exception to the
rule”, addressing the inapplicability of the general data to the individual cases
by focusing on the individual.
T his proposed approach gives the researcher insights into the impact of
contexts and in particular changing or different contexts in which the research
is conducted (what is the entrepreneurial process if not an example of a movie
of dy namic changes po rtray ing numerous and variable contex ts rich in
research data?). This approach also provides significant potential for building
theories. It allows the researcher to uncover emic views so important for
understanding what is going on within a particular social system such as an
ESF. T his particular alternative research approach embraces the discovery
dimensions of inquiry which are so close to the heart of any curious investigator
who wants to understand what is really happening in the entrepreneur’s world.
Conclusion
W hat is offered here of course is a reflection of a research methodology firmly
committed to the qualitative paradigm. In rejecting other positions we do not
Small business
and enterprise
development
15
IJEBR
5,1
16
purpo rt to claim superio rity o r mo ral hig h g round over other research
positions. On the contrary, in the pluralist world of academic research, variety
is the spice of life. We are simply offering an approach to research at the
marketing/entrepreneurship interface which we feel better takes account of the
peculiar and well-documented characteristics of small entrepreneurial firms.
T he approach openly espouses and suppo rts humanistic approaches to
researching such enterprises.
It champions qualitative methodology grounded in the clear recognition of
the existence of multiple realities. It is vital that the academic and management
research community recog nises that in spite of some of the widely -held
reservations about the value of such methods the tide has already started to
turn. Even the established bastions of quantitative/positivist/single reality
methodologies, e.g. JCR, JMS, are embracing and recognising the valuable
contribution that such methodologies are making to academic and management
research projects. Government agencies are cautious in their reception of such
approaches (the positivist paradigm is so much quicker and cheaper, even if the
results are somewhat limited!) but this is changing. Indeed it needs to change or
we are all g uilty of disreg arding our most valuable economic asset, the
individual entrepreneur and the enterprise he/she is seeking to develop in
his/her own unique way.
References
Brown, S. (1995), Postmodern Marketing, Routledge, London.
Bygrave, W.D. (1989), “T he entrepreneurship paradigm (1): a philosophical look at its research
methodologies”, Journal of Entrepreneurship, T heory and Practice, Fall, Vol. 14, pp. 7-26.
Bygrave, W.D. (1994), T he Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Carson, D.J. and Coviello, N. (1995), “Researching the marketing/entrepreneurship interface”,
paper presented at the A MA Marketing/Entrepreneurship Symposium, Melbourne.
Carson, D.J., McGowan, P. and Hill, J. (1996), “Effective marketing education for SME executives”,
Marketing Education Review, Vol. 6 No. 2, Summer, pp. 1-12.
Chell, E. and Haworth, J.M. (1992), “The development of a research paradigm for the investigation
of entrepreneurship: some methodological issues”, UIC/A MA Research Symposium on
Marketing and Entrepreneurship, INSEA D, France.
Churchill, N.C. and Lewis, V. (1986), “Entrepreneurship research: directions and methods”, in
Sexton, D. and Smilor, R. (Eds), A rt and Science of Entrepreneurship, Ballinger, Cambridge,
MA .
Creswell, J.W. (1994), Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative A pproaches, Sage, London.
Denzin, N.K. (1978), T he Research A ct: A T heoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, 2nd
ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Eisner, E.W. (1985), T he Educational Imagination, 2nd ed., Macmillan, New York, NY.
Fetterman, D.M. (1989), Ethnography: Step by Step, Sage, Newbury Park, CA .
Gibb, A . (1990), “Organising small business research to meet the needs of customers in the
twenty-first century”, Proceedings of the 13th National Small Fir ms Policy and Research
Conference, November.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A . (1967), T he Discovery of Grounded T heory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research, A ldine, Chicago, IL.
Grant, L. and Fine, G.A . (1992), “Sociolog y unleashed: creative directions in classical
ethnog raphy”, in LeCompte, M.D., Millroy, W.L. and Preissle, J. (Eds), T he Handbook of
Qualitative Research in Education, A cademic Press, New York, NY, pp. 405-46.
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994), “Competing paradigms in qualitative research”, in Denzin,
N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), A Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA ,
pp. 105-17.
Gummesson, E. (1991), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA .
Hammersley, M. and A tkinson, P. (1995), Ethnography: Principles and Practice , Routledge,
London.
Hill, R.P. (1993), “Ethnography and marketing research: a postmodern perspective”, in Cravens,
D.W. and Dickson, P.R. (Eds), Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, Proceedings
of the A MA Educators Conference, pp. 257-61.
Hills, G.E. (1987), “Marketing and entrepreneurship research issues: scholarly justification?”, in
Hills, G.E. (Ed.), Research at the M arketing/Entrepreneurship Interface , United States
A ssociation for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Marietta, GA .
Hills, G.E. (1995), in Carson, D., Cromie, S., McGowan, P. and Hill, J. (Eds), M arketing and
Entrepreneurship in SMEs: A n Innovative A pproach, Prentice-Hall International, London.
Hirschmann, E.C. (1986), “Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: philosophy, method and
criteria”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXIII, August, pp. 237-49.
Hodgetts, R.M. and Kuratko, D.F. (1995), Effective Small Business Management, 5th ed., Dryden,
Fort Worth, TX.
Hofer, C.W. and Byg rave, W.D. (1992), “Researching entrepreneurship”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship, T heory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 3, Spring, pp. 91-100.
Kirk, J. and Miller, M.L. (1986), Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, Sage, Newbury
Park, CA .
Kuhn, T. (1962), T he Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA .
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (1989), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA .
Martello, W.E. (1997), “Qualitative methodologies for field research: a comparative analysis”,
paper presented at the A cademy of Marketing/UIC/A MA Special Interest Group Symposium
at the Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface, Smurfit School of Management, University
College Dublin, January.
Paulin, W.L., Coffey, R.E. and Spaulding, M.E. (1982), “Entrepreneurship research: methods and
directions”, in Kent, C.A ., Sex ton, D.L. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds), Encyclopedia of
Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 352-73.
Quinn-Patton, M.Q. (1987), How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park,
CA .
Reeves Sanday, P. (1979), “T he ethnog raphic paradigm”, A dministrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 24, pp. 527-38.
Romano, C. and Ratnatunga, J. (1995), “T he role of marketing: its impact on small enterprise
research”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 9-30.
Schwandt, T.A . (1994), “Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry”, in Denzin,
N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, T housand Oaks, CA ,
pp. 118-37.
Sexton, D.L. (1987),”A dvancing small business research: utilising research from other areas”,
Entrepreneurship: T heory and Practice, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 25-9.
Smith, J.K. (1989), T he Nature of Social and Educational Inquir y: Empiricism versus
Interpretation, A blex, Norwood, NJ.
Small business
and enterprise
development
17
IJEBR
5,1
Spradley, J.P. (1979), T he Ethnographic Interview, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers,
Fort Worth, TX.
Stake, R.E. (1994), “Case studies”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative
Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA , pp. 236-47.
Stew art, A . (1991), “A prospectus on the anthropolog y of entrepreneurship”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Practice, Winter.
18
Storey, D.J. (1994), Understanding the Small Business Sector, Routledge, London.
Strauss, A . and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded T heory Procedures and
Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA .
Tesch, R. (1990), Qualitative Research: A nalysis T ypes and Software Tools, Falmer Press, New
York, NY.
Tesch, R. (1994), Qualitative Research: A nalysis T ypes and Software Tools, Falmer Press, New
York, NY.
Timmons, J. (1994), New Venture Creation, 4th ed., Irwin, New York, NY.
Wallen, N.E. and Fraenkel, J.R. (1991), Educational Research: A Guide to the Process, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA .
Further reading
Carson, D.J. and Cromie, S. (1989), “Marketing planning in small enterprises: a model and some
empirical evidence”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, Summer, pp. 33-51.
Carson, D., Cromie, S., McGowan, P. and Hill, J. (1995), Marketing and Entrepreneurship in SMEs:
A n Innovative A pproach, Prentice-Hall International, London.
Eisner, E.W. (1991), T he Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and Enhancement of Educational
Practice, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Fraenkel, J.R. and Wallen, N.E. (1990), How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Gartner, W.B. (1989), “‘W ho is the entrepreneur?’ is the w rong question”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship T heory and Practice, Vol. 13 No. 4, Summer, pp 47-68.
Kuratko, D.F. and Hodgetts, R.M. (1995), Entrepreneurship: A Contemporary A pproach, 3rd ed.,
Dryden, Fort Worth, TX.