Researching entrepreneurship

Citation

Jones, O. (2005), "Researching entrepreneurship", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 11 No. 6. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr.2005.16011faa.001

Researching entrepreneurship

In my first editorial I briefly reviewed topics covered in the journal since its launch in 1995. One issue that I would like to see receiving more attention from the research community concerns research methods. There seems to have been very little discussion related to this particular issue since the inception of the IJEBR. Pittaway (2004) does examine links between philosophy and methodology but concentrates on economic theories of entrepreneurship. In my brief tenure as editor I have also noticed that most authors deal with research methodology in a fairly cursory manner. As discussed below, researching activities associated with entrepreneurship and the management of smaller organizations presents a number of unique problems. Therefore, it is important to ensure that methodological issues are given serious attention in all the stages associated with a research project from planning to writing-up.

Curran and Blackburn (2001, p. 1) argue that “much research has not been high quality, due mainly to failure to recognize the special problems studying the small business poses for researchers”. One clear distinction between SMEs and large firms is their heterogeneity compared with the homogeneity of large organizations (Jones and Macpherson, 2004). For example, organizations operating in particular sectors whether universities, banks or pharmaceutical companies are typified by structural isomorphism as a result of competitive and institutional processes (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). To take the example of human resource (HR) practices which in large organizations are similar because of regulatory requirements and the influence of bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). Small firms have, until recently, been excluded from much employment legislation and such firms are typified by “informal” approaches to HR (Taylor et al., 2003). Two contributory factors are the lack of personnel specialists in most small firms and the unwillingness of managers to engage in consultation with employees. Taylor et al. (2003) conclude that although the 1999 Employee Relations Act encouraged more formality in employee relations smaller firms are still typified by high levels of informality. The authors go on to suggest that the reluctance of owner-managers to acknowledge “employee rights” reflects their unwillingness to accept external influences on their independence and autonomy. Another key distinction between large and small firms is the significance of the owner-manager. It is acknowledged that the entrepreneur is the major determinant on the way in which small businesses “behave” (Bridge et al., 2003). Hence, smaller firms are diverse because they are established in ways that reflects the approach of individual entrepreneurs.

Because of these complexities small firm researchers must ensure that their “groundwork” is carried out professionally. As Curran and Blackburn (2001, p. 32) point out: “A great deal of research requires what might be best termed a craft orientation, a willingness to carefully and meticulously complete tasks to a high standard”. These tasks include reviewing the literature to identify appropriate “concepts, hypotheses, propositions and theories”. One recent development that has not so far had much influence on small firm research is the systematic literature review. The systematic review is based on a rigorous marshalling of evidence from literature selected according to clearly specified inclusion and exclusion criteria:

A comprehensive, unbiased search is one of the fundamental differences between a traditional narrative review and a systematic review (Tranfield et al., 2003, p. 2145).

A good example of the systematic review is provided by Pittaway et al. (2004) who examine literature associated with networking and innovation. Within the small firm area systematic reviews of the literature are beginning to emerge (Macpherson and Holt, 2004; Thorpe et al., forthcoming). Greater rigour in presenting previous research will improve the standard of evidence to the benefit of academic, policy and practitioner communities.

Carrying out a clearly specified systematic review of the appropriate literature should help improve the overall quality of research. It would be fair to say that despite some recent emphasis on “multi-methods” most research projects can be classified as either qualitative or quantitative. In his examination of developments in research methods, Donckels (2000, p. 215) suggests that there are three trends which should be continued:

1. 1.

   large sample sizes provide a strong empirical foundation but it is important to increase the diversity of SME populations;

2. 2.

   growing evidence of interest in multidisciplinary research; and

3. 3.

   advanced statistical techniques are being much more widely used but this should be accompanied by further development in qualitative research.

Much small business research is very conservative in terms of theorizing and research methodologies (Curran and Blackburn, 2001). As the authors go on to say, there are many ways in which small business research could be more adventurous in terms of both topic selection and research methodologies. Therefore, I would like to encourage two trends in future research associated with entrepreneurship and smaller organizations. First, I believe that researchers should be much more transparent in explaining how they carry out their literature reviews. Systematically organizing evidence which has been accumulated by earlier researchers is an essential element in improving the craft of organizational research. Second, I would like to encourage the submission of articles which demonstrate greater imagination and creativity in terms of data collection and analysis.

In this edition we have two papers which clearly illustrate the quantitative- qualitative dichotomy in small business research. In a follow-up to her recent paper Kotey examines the impact of size on the performance of family and non-family firms. The study is based on a large sample which comprises 441 family and 473 non-family firms drawn from a longitudinal survey of Australian manufacturing companies. The key finding is that differences between the two groups became must apparent at the “critical growth stage” of 20+ employees reaching a peak between 50-99 employees. Differences for firms less than 20 and greater than 100 were much less apparent. In other words, family firms with between 20 and 99 employees appear to benefit from informal working relationships and management practices such as a focus on long-term value maximisation rather than short-term profits.

A persistent theme in the literature is that we know very little about what managers actually do (Hales, 1986, 1999). This is also the case with entrepreneurs and owner-managers. Detailed case studies have the potential to reveal the reality associated with managerial activities in small enterprises. The second paper in this issue provides some insight into entrepreneurial decisions and their consequences via a study of a small (ten employees) specialist manufacturing company. Douglas draws on the work of Shackle (1966) to suggest that entrepreneurs should be seen as decision-makers rather than risk takers. A grounded theory approach is adopted to illustrate differences between the entrepreneur’s perception of his actions and how those actions were perceived by his employees. The paper helps “flesh-out” the reality of small business life by demonstrating how the exercise of proprietary power by the owner-manager negatively impacted on the emotions and feelings of his employees. This was particularly evident in the case of four “senior engineers” who had worked in the company far longer than the owner-manager. Because of their long tenure and high levels of expertise they also felt a strong sense of ownership and resented the owner-manager’s attempt to expand the business without any consultation.

Hopefully, these two papers illustrate the value of both qualitative and quantitative approaches to the study of smaller organizations. As a community we should be committed to higher standards of scholarship as a mechanism for developing a better understanding of entrepreneurship in a wide range of organizational settings.

Ossie Jones