Search results

This contribution investigates methodological questions concerning Change Laboratory interventions. It contemplates the research questions: To what extent the Change Laboratory can be situated within the panorama of qualitative inquiry? If so, to what extent can the methods and strategies of inquiry help improve a Change Laboratory intervention?

To answer the first question, this paper makes an overview on key terms of qualitative research; subsequently, it presents the characterising features of the Change Laboratory. Then, it takes a historical perspective and compares the Change Laboratory firstly against action research, and secondly with design experiments. To answer the second section, it examines a case study of Change Laboratory with teachers that the first author facilitated. Next, it displays how trustworthiness was ensured through a thick description and member checks.

The paper argues that the Change Laboratory is a strategy of inquiry; it aligns with the characteristics of qualitative research, and it follows the agenda of a participative paradigm. Furthermore, the methods and strategies of inquiry such as thick descriptions and member checks, not only can improve rigour and validity of the intervention but also strengthen the outcomes of the Change Laboratory itself.

The Change Laboratory is well defined as a formative method, but not fully understood as an investigative method. Although scholars discussed methodological issues of Cultural Historical Activity Theory in diverse articles, the relationship between the Change Laboratory and qualitative inquiry has remained unclear.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the insights of founding entrepreneurs to understand what they consider as motivating factors in their decision to act upon entrepreneurial intentions. Using this information, the entrepreneurial trigger event influence was conceptualized, and a scale developed for use in subsequent testable models.

Qualitative and quantitative techniques were used to construct an instrument that measures the presence and influence of entrepreneurial behavior triggers. The concept of triggering events was explored with 14 founding entrepreneurs. Themes emerged from this enquiry process which informed the development of four primary entrepreneurial triggering events. Over 600 entrepreneurs participated in the study. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify dimensions of entrepreneurial triggers and was tested using confirmatory factor analysis.

Entrepreneurs perceive that personal fulfillment and job dissatisfaction serve as two significant trigger events which will lead individuals to engage in entrepreneurial behaviors. This research supports theorizing that suggests entrepreneurial trigger events have influence in motivating individuals to act upon entrepreneurial intentions and some trigger events may have more influence toward behavior than others.

This research is subject to multiple limitations. Trigger events were limited to those identified in literature and the interviews. Most entrepreneurs participating in this study were from a limited geographic region. The entrepreneurs in this study reported their triggering event based on their memory which could have been affected by inaccurate recall or memory bias. No attempt has been made to model the comparative effects of the different variables on entrepreneurial outcomes. Finally, the entrepreneurial trigger event instrument did not measure the participant's demographics or psychographics which could have played a role in the influence of reported trigger event.

This study extends previous research that trigger events serve as catalysts for entrepreneurial behavior. Findings support the premise that different types of triggers have different levels of influence as antecedents of entrepreneurial behavior. Specifically, positive, negative, internal and external entrepreneurial triggering events were explicated. The Entrepreneurial Trigger Event Scale created to facilitate this study enables researchers to explore the effects of types and perceived influences of precipitating trigger events on the intentions of the individual that result in entrepreneurial behavior. The optimized instrument further expanded Shapero's (1975) proposed theory of the origins of entrepreneurial behavior.

The development of a scale provides researchers with the opportunity to include the influence of entrepreneurial trigger events, as perceived by entrepreneurs, in future testable models. Entrepreneurial development organizations can use the knowledge to assist in understanding when potential entrepreneurs may act upon entrepreneurial intentions. Information gained can have significant implications for understanding the initiation of entrepreneurial behavior, entity establishment and business growth.

This research responds to a call for investigation into the influence of entrepreneurial trigger events on a person's decision to act upon entrepreneurial intentions. It is an early attempt to conceptualize a relevant construct of entrepreneurial trigger event influence and to develop a scale for use in empirical testing. It is distinguished by using planned behaviors, push and pull, motivation and drive reduction theories. These theories are applied to the perceptions of successful entrepreneurs to develop a construct and validate it.

This paper illustrates how Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria for establishing trustworthiness, can be adapted and applied to qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. It provides insights for social protection researchers, exploring plausible qualitative research rigor evaluation criteria, on plausible alternatives.

The paper draws on qualitative evidence from a larger ethnographic study on the dynamics of indigenous social protection systems in Nigeria. It illustrates the systematic application of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria.

Available evidence from the study shows that Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria is viable for establishing trustworthiness of qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. The criteria can facilitate credible and reliable research outcomes in research on improving social protection policy and practice.

Qualitative inquiries that draw on Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria as evaluation criteria for trustworthiness can complement quantitative research on social protection. This makes it imperative to incorporate both, in social protection research for a holistic system. How this can be done is beyond the scope of this paper but needs to be explored by future research.

Contrary to the use of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria in qualitative research in other contexts, the use of the criteria has not been carefully examined in qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap.

The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the reciprocal relations between the caregiving imparted by immigration centre managers and the role of the researcher in responding to the care that is given by managerial caregivers. To enable this, we draw on a feminist theory of care ethics that considers individuals as relationally interdependent.

The analysis draws on a semi-structured interview study involving 20 Finnish immigration reception centre managers.

Insight is generated by reflecting on moments of care that arise between research participants and the researcher in a study of immigration centre management. We emphasise the importance of mature care, receptivity and engrossment in building caring relationships with research participants by acknowledging the care they give to others. Our findings draw attention to the moral and epistemological responsibility to practice care in organizational research.

The paper highlights the relationality between practicing care in immigration centre management and doing qualitative organizational research, both of which rely on mature care, receptivity and engrossment in order to meet the other morally. We draw attention to the moral responsibility to care which characterises researcher–researched relationships and emphasise the importance of challenging methodological discourses that problematise or dismiss care in qualitative organizational research.

Qualitative researchers have been criticised for not justifying sample size decisions in their research. This short paper addresses the issue of which sample sizes are appropriate and valid within different approaches to qualitative research.

The sparse literature on sample sizes in qualitative research is reviewed and discussed. This examination is informed by the personal experience of the author in terms of assessing, as an editor, reviewer comments as they relate to sample size in qualitative research. Also, the discussion is informed by the author’s own experience of undertaking commercial and academic qualitative research over the last 31 years.

In qualitative research, the determination of sample size is contextual and partially dependent upon the scientific paradigm under which investigation is taking place. For example, qualitative research which is oriented towards positivism, will require larger samples than in-depth qualitative research does, so that a representative picture of the whole population under review can be gained. Nonetheless, the paper also concludes that sample sizes involving one single case can be highly informative and meaningful as demonstrated in examples from management and medical research. Unique examples of research using a single sample or case but involving new areas or findings that are potentially highly relevant, can be worthy of publication. Theoretical saturation can also be useful as a guide in designing qualitative research, with practical research illustrating that samples of 12 may be cases where data saturation occurs among a relatively homogeneous population.

Sample sizes as low as one can be justified. Researchers and reviewers may find the discussion in this paper to be a useful guide to determining and critiquing sample size in qualitative research.

Sample size in qualitative research is always mentioned by reviewers of qualitative papers but discussion tends to be simplistic and relatively uninformed. The current paper draws attention to how sample sizes, at both ends of the size continuum, can be justified by researchers. This will also aid reviewers in their making of comments about the appropriateness of sample sizes in qualitative research.