Developing perspectives and challenging the "status quo

Citation

Higgins, D., Trehan, K. and McGowan, P. (2015), "Developing perspectives and challenging the "status quo", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 21 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-03-2015-0061

Developing perspectives and challenging the "status quo"

Article Type: Guest editorial From: International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Volume 21, Issue 3.

Entrepreneurship and Small Firm research (hereafter referred to as Entre/SME) has emerged over the past number of decades as a prevalent field of academic and scholarly inquiry, which hosts a rapidly developing research community, covering a wide spectrum of subjects (McDonald et al., 2004; Blackburn and Smallbone, 2008), resulting in a prolific wealth of research publications and outputs. However, despite the developing richness of the field, it still suffers from a lack of methodological diversity (Acs and Audretsch, 2003; Zahra, 2007; Aldrich, 2000; Cooper, 2003; Wiklund et al., 2011). The field for some time has continuously adopted and suffered from the unquestioned use of positivist methods (Ogbar, 2000). As a result of this the related methods used in the research field have not moved beyond the quantitative approaches and functionalists paradigms (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008). The research field, however, has at times agonised from an often unchallenged, functionalist ideological research position adopting a positivist paradigmatic approach based upon a deductive logic to test “a propositions” or hypotheses, to do one of two things confirm or disprove either one. Such research has proven valuable and is purposeful when the topic relates to material objects, which are measurable in nature. Even though the majority of mainstream disciplines benefit from the use and the development of a collection of paradigmatic viewpoints, the outputs from Entre/SME research suffers from a very limited range of methods. This is not to say that positivist and post-positivists views do not have a position in social science studies. What is of importance is that researchers, are encouraged to develop research agendas with an awareness and attentiviness of the differing epistemological and ontological assumptions which best support and are relevant to the topic of inquiry. The desire to create a unified research framework constructed within clearly defined boundaries, is some times inappropriate, due to the intrinsic nature of the phenomena and the various possible related interpretations of the topic under investigation, which in turn relate to many differing theoretical frameworks (Welter and Lasch, 2008; Blackburn and Kovalainen, 2009). Where human behaviour is the focus of a research agenda, the ability of the researcher to make predictable claims remains weak, for natural reasons (Fleetwood and Hesketh, 2004). A key assumption here is that Entre/SME practice is simply too dynamic and complex to be solely accommodated and accounted for through one single methodological approach.

Entre/SME are not conventional academic subject disciplines, but rather can be viewed as multi-disciplinary subject area requiring researchers to tackle areas of investigation by drawing upon different disciplines and research designs. According to Neergard and Ulhoi (2007) the use of differing epistemologies offers to the researcher the opportunity to accommodate a larger degree of complexity in the research they undertake and the findings they report. In this context social scientists are often interested in abstract concepts, not necessarily measurably definable concepts, relating to the context of human interaction, such questions are more focused towards why certain processes occur and how these happen (Mason, 1996). In order to develop an understanding of knowledge about the social world one must seek to better understand the dynamic process through which actors, their settings and social structures are related to one another. Some of these relations maybe be visible and observable empirically (such as activates (material), locations (settings) and practices) while others may only be accessible through the experience and perceptions of those who participate in their creation or who are affected by them. This suggests that knowledge in relation to some aspects of the social world can be produced by empirical means, that is what is observable, while other aspects can only be produced through interpretative means (by understanding why actors carried out or think about the activities they engage in), in the settings where social action occur.

What this concept takes account of is that the social world is constructed by actors who possess free will and who can and will behave in spontaneous ways which cannot be anticipated by the “adoption of a scientific perspective”. In the natural sciences one can freely collect and correlate facts and regularities, but when faced with the problems of understanding social existence, we need to take account of understandings, meanings, the shared relationships and expectations of human actions. Such a course of research inquiry requires a mindset, which appreciates variety, complexity and social influences detail, variety and interpenetrating influences, which require and very different approach to methodological development and action, as opposed to a functional method, which seeks to draw abstract and generalised conclusions using measurable and defined variables and propositions which are acknowledged as being exact and absolute. For example Thorpe (2008, p. 116) suggests “Getting close to the research phenomenon, understanding context, engaging with subjects and respondents in such a way that important insights can be revealed requires very different personal skills as well as different philosophical dispositions”, is a critical element of qualitative research.

This special issue seeks to exemplify the socially entrenched nature of qualitative research and the qualitative researcher’s skills and knowledge, in comparison to functionalist perspectives which seeks to generalise and abstract through defining and testing key variables which are viewed as precise and accurate accounts of what is rationale human practice. Prasad (2005) argues that qualitative research is a craft and the researcher’s knowledge of methods and paradigmatic debate alone is not enough for engaging in the craft of research. Learning to practice and engage in good qualitative research is a critical element in the Entre/SME research field; the development of knowledgeable researchers/scholars who can acquire and apply effective research skills is one of the main obstacles facing the adoption of qualitative methods. It is important that researchers consider and account for how they learn their skills and develop their knowledge and report it so that the reader can have confidence in what is reported. Our focus here is upon the knowledge and skills required to develop impactful high quality qualitative research in the Entre/SME field. Of particular importance is looking at how the value of qualitative research can be established in ways analogous to the demands for internal and external validity and reliability in positive research. While there exists numerous forms of scholarly material which offer theoretical guidance on how to use various qualitative methods, beyond this reference point our understanding in regards to what skills and knowledge can be employed to develop robust qualitative research, and the means which facilitate and support the development of these skills, be that theoretical underpinning or practical issues in the field. The manner through which one learns to become a qualitative researcher and engage in qualitative research involves learning through the enacted practise of that craft, by experiencing the appropriate knowledge and skills associated with the craft of qualitative methods and conceptualisation of those skills through practice, critique and reflexivity/reflection. This special issue serves as a timely point to reflexively critique the knowledge and skills required by researchers to develop meaningful, informative and trust-worthy qualitative research.

This issue seeks to address a key question – what can qualitative methods offer entrepreneurship and small firm research? In exploring this question the papers presented illuminate the how social science research can be imaginative, and connect research to practice.

The first three set of papers explore the theoretical challenges in developing the field, the first paper “A review of research methods in entrepreneurship 1985-2013” addresses questions relating to the types of methodologies and data gathering methods that are employed by researchers publishing in top entrepreneurship journals, and how has this evolved over time. The paper highlights that whilst some methodological reflexivity is evident, there is little at the micro level of individual research designs. The second contribution, “A holistic Social Constructionist perspective to enterprise education”, offers a holistic conceptual framework of Social Constructionism that draws on the “Gestalt Approach”. The paper highlights the harmony between the ontological, epistemological and methodological underpinnings of Social Constructionism and applies the framework to an empirical study which focuses on provider perspectives. The final paper in this section, “Entrepreneurial social capital research: resolving the structure and agency dualism” provides a critical review of entrepreneurial social capital research. The paper presents a critical realist approach to social capital gestation and provides a system level analysis of network structure influencing conduct, and agency.

The next set of papers focus on methodological issues. The first paper “Developing qualitative research streams relating to illegal rural enterprise: reflections on researching qualitatively at the margins of entrepreneurship research” reflects on the development of qualitative research on illegal rural enterprise. The paper discusses how a common interest in rural entrepreneurship and rural criminology leads to productive and continuing research collaborations. The second paper, “Case sensitive? A review of the literature on the use of case method in entrepreneurship research” provides a critical review of case study method in order to develop the foundation for future research agendas. The paper provides interesting insights which will enable scholars to see the value in the case study approach as well as its potential application. The third paper “Reflexive case study method: a practice approach to SME globalization”, critically examines the literature on SME globalisation and the case study method to explore how worldwide eco-business formations are studied and understood. The paper illuminates the limitations and potential contributions of research in understanding this phenomenon, and highlights the absence of concepts that capture the qualitative shift towards connectivity in managing and organising. The final paper in this section “Biographical researches as a methodology for understanding entrepreneurial marketing” develops the case for enhancing understanding of entrepreneurial marketing by utilising biographical research.

The theme of the final section focuses on data collection methods and explores a range of approaches and methodologies to elucidate qualitative research in action. The opening paper “Stick or twist? The Practice of undertaking life story interviews in-the-moment” by Kevill, A., Trehan, K., Easterby-Smith and Higgins, explicate a specific life story interview approach which is new to the field of small business and entrepreneurship. The paper provides innovative insights into the complexities in utilising this approach within micro-organisations and argues that existing work within the field has tended to give little consideration to challenges of undertaking life story interviews. The second paper, “Between cognition and discourse: phenomenology and the study of entrepreneurship” examine phenomenological approaches to studying entrepreneurs and their behaviours. This paper presents a novel contribution to the limitations of cognitive and discursive approaches by relating them to the phenomenological tradition. The paper highlights the potential conflict between coherent theoretical explanations against the backdrop of the entrepreneurial life-world, as a central methodological concern in the entrepreneurship field. The final paper, “How not to do it!! A salutary lesson on longitudinal and qualitative research approaches for entrepreneurship researchers”, recounts the lived experience of undertaking longitudinal mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) research. The paper highlights that despite the acknowledged difficulties associated with longitudinal studies, it is important to capture the research experience in order to edify our understanding of the pitfalls, and contingencies utilised to mitigate them, in order to avoid project failure.

The Editors of this special issue hold the perspective that functionalist or positive research has sought to drive out or disregard the more social aspects of the research field. The study of Entre/SME involves the process of understanding and seeking meaning in behaviour, functionalist studies in this sense to not provide the research community with what we believe to be the social nature of the research field. This is not to suggest that either one of these research perspectives is good or bad, we are suggesting that there is something missing that current functionalist approaches are not illustrating to the scholarly community, some questions simply cannot be posed when undertaking quantitative research, it is this very issue which we seek to address by asking the question “what can qualitative methods offer to us?”. Qualitative research in the context of the Entre/SME field suggest towards the position that knowledge and how we come to understand does not run as separate to the social world, but in actual fact is a critical element of the manner in which the social world is created through the manner in which we engage with the research setting. Such skills and knowledge are developed from the pragmatic context of everyday practice.

Dr David Higgins - Management School, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

Professor Kiran Trehan - Department of Management, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK, and

Professor Pauric McGowan - Marketing, Entrepreneurship and Strategy Department, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, UK

References

Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B. (2003), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Kluwer Academic Publishers

Aldrich, H. (2000), “Learning together: national differences in entrepreneurship research”, in Sexton, D.L. and Landström, H. (Eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Blackwell Business, Oxford

Blackburn, R. and Kovalainen, A. (2009), “Researching small firms and entrepreneurship: past, present and future”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 11, pp. 127-148, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00254.x.

Cooper, A. (2003), “Entrepreneurship: the past, present and future”, in Acs, Z.J. and Audrestch, D.B. (Eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 21-34

Eriksson, P. and Kovalainen, A. (2008), Qualitative Methods for Business Research, Sage, London

Fleetwood, S. and Hesketh, A. (2004), The HRM – Performance Link: An Open or Shut Meta-Theoretical Case? Performance-Led HR Group, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster

Mason, J. (1996), Qualitative Researching, Sage, London

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, 25-6 November

Neergard, H. and Ulhoi, J.P. (2007), “Introduction: methodological variety in entrepreneurship research”, in Neergard, H. and Ulhoi, J.P. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 1-16

Prasad, P. (2005), Crafting Qualitative Research, M.E. Sharpe, London

Thorpe, R. (2008), “Introduction: constructionist approaches to management research”, Management Learning, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 115-121

Welter, F. and Lasch, F. (2008), “Entrepreneurship research in Europe: taking stock and looking forward”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 32, pp. 241-248

Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., Audretsch, D.B. and Karlsson, C. (2011) “The future of entrepreneurship research”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-9

Zahra, S. (2007) “Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research”, Journal of BusinessVenturing, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 443-452

Further reading

Blackburn, R. and Brush, C.G. (Eds) (2008), Small Business and Entrepreneurship (Vols 1-5), Sage Library in Business and Management, Sage, London

Blackburn, R.A. (Ed.) (2003), Intellectual Property and Innovation Management in Small Firms, Routledge, London