METHODOLOGY CHALLENGES IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH

1
METHODOLOGY CHALLENGES IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP
RESEARCH

• Björn Bjerke
• Professor of Entrepreneurship
• Stockholm University
• bvb_at_fek.su.se

2

• From
• The Act of Creating Knowledge, Chapter 2 in
  Arbnor, Ingeman Bjerke, Björn (2008) (Third
  edition), Methodology for Creating Business
  Knowledge, Sage
• Bjerke, Björn (2007), Face-to-Face Research
  Interviews, Conversations and Dialogues in
  Gustavsson, Bengt (ed.), The Principles of
  Knowledge Creation, Edward Elgar

3
EXAMPLES OF QUESTIONS IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP
RESEARCH

• When we start our research process in the area of
  entrepreneurship should we then first
• orient ourselves about the ultimate presumptions
  which different views of creating knowledge are
  based on, or just believe that we could go on
  unconditionally in the study area?
• decide which methods and techniques we will use,
  or first make clear to ourselves how they are
  related to ultimate presumptions?
• When we then attack the study area, which
  questions should we put? Which perspective should
  we use? Should we
• look for similarities in what is different? The
  regular in the irregular? Or vice versa?
• look for what the entrepreneurs have in common as
  explanations and understanding? Or vice versa?
• try to understand the individual entrepreneurs
  and their context? Or look for more general
  aspects independent of the different contexts?
• look for different contexts which the
  entrepreneurs are part of and describe those
  relationships which exist and what they mean for
  the entrepreneurship in question?
• put up hypotheses and test them? Generally en
  masse or through a few cases where the different
  opinions of the entrepreneurs are related to
  their own contexts?
• look for answers by studying overall social
  structures of rewards, laws and taxes?
• look for answers by acting together with the
  entrepreneurs concerned to implement a project?
• look in the literature and research reports and
  then through empirical studies to confirm and/or
  reject previous theories in the area? Or vice
  versa, first empirics and then theory?
• 
  
  
  
  (cont.)

4

• (cont.)
• After these questions should we then
• try to clarify the different scientific and
  pre-scientific concepts in the study area to be
  able to see the mental clichés, or are they
  embedded beforehand in the questions above? So in
  this way before we ask our questions we try to
  clarify them?
• create a set of concepts and definitions by which
  we can accomplish our knowledge-creating work? Or
  should we let them develop as we go on with
  investigating the study area?
• Are we now clear to design our operative paradigm
  and
• set about which methods and techniques we should
  choose beforehand and/or develop? Or is this to
  be done as we go on in a wandering and searching
  process similar to entrepreneurship, that is, the
  study area?
• concretely design a methodics for our process of
  creating knowledge? Or is the methodics also
  developed by what we meet, so that one thing
  gives way to another, in a process close to
  wandering and searching?
• How are we then to present the results? What type
  of answers should be provide? Are we to
• look for general explanations which are seen as
  valid in most cases? Or are we looking for
  understanding-oriented descriptions, which are
  connected to the specific cases?
• develop descriptive languages which mean that
  action is placed in focus, that is, the very act
  of achieving change and understanding in specific
  cases? Or are the descriptions to be connected
  with reports, which are spreading our knowledge
  further? Or both?
• write and/or act mainly for the scientific
  community or for the society at large, or only
  for those involved? Or both?

5
MY CONVICTION

• THERE ARE NO GENERALLY BEST METHODS, NOR ARE THEY
  IN ANY SIMPLE FASHION DEPENDENT ON WHICH RESEARCH
  PROBLEM THERE IS AT HAND.
• RATHER

6
STUDY AREA
ULTIMATE PRESUMPTIONS
SET OF TECHNIQUES Techniques Techniques Techni
ques
METHODS AND APPLICATION OF METHODS
7
CONSEQUENCES

• THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ULTIMATE
  PRESUMPTIONS.
• ULTIMATE PRESUMPTIONS CANNOT BE TESTED
  EMPIRICALLY OR LOGICALLY.
• ULTIMATE PRESUMPTIONS CAN BE PLACED IN GROUPS, SO
  CALLED PARADIGMS.
• ULTIMATE PRESUMPTIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO HOW
  METHODS ARE CONSTRUCTED. ANOTHER NAME FOR
  PARADIGMS COULD THEREFORE BE METHODOLOGICAL
  VIEWS.
• THE WAY A CREATOR OF KNOWLEDGE INCORPORATES,
  DEVELOPS AND/OR MODIFIES SOME GIVEN TECHNIQUE IN
  A METHODOLOGICAL VIEW, I REFER TO AS A METHODICAL
  PROCEDURE.
• THE WAY IN WHICH A CREATOR OF KNOWLEDGE IS
  PLANNING AND CONDUCING A STUDY, I REFER TO AS
  METHODICS.

8
I SEE THREE METHODOLOGICAL VIEWS IN BUSINESS
RESEARCH, INCLUDING IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH,
TODAY
lt MODELLING A
gtlt INTERPRETING A
gtlt INTERPRETING A
gt FACTIVE REALITY

FACTIVE REALITY SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED
REALITY lt EXPLAIN BY CAUSALITY
gtlt EXPLAIN gtlt UNDERSTAND BY gt lt
UNDERSTAND BY INTENTIONALITY gt

BY FINALITY SIGNIFICANCE
(SOCIAL PHENOMENOLOGY)


(HERMENEUTICS)
ANALYTICAL VIEW
SYSTEMS VIEW
ACTORS VIEW
(POSITIVISM ATOMISM)
(HOLISM STRUCTURALISM
(SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM)

FUNCTIONALISM) CONCEPTS HYPOTHESES
TOTALITY

DIALECTICS INDUCTION, DEDUCTION,
COMPLEXITY
INTENTIONALITY ABDUCTION

RELATIVITY
TYPIFICATIONS OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS
STRUCTURE
CETERIS PARIBUS METHODS
STATISTICAL SAMPLING
CASE STUDIES
DIALOGUES VALIDITY TESTING
HISTORICAL STUDIES
LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
9

• SCHOOLS AIMING FOR EXPLANATIONS
• POSITIVISM
• ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY
• HOLISM
• STRUCTURALISM
• MARXISM AND CRITICAL THEORY
• SYSTEMS THINKING
• SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
• GROUNDED THEORY
• SENSEMAKING
• SCHOOLS AIMING FOR UNDERSTANDING
• HERMENEUTICS
• PHENOMENOLOGY
• ETHNOMETHODOLOGY
• SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM
• METAPHORICAL THINKING
• SCHOOLS THAT COULD EITHER AIM FOR EXPLANATIONS OR
  FOR UNDERSTANDING
• ETHNOGRAPHY
• CULTURAL STUDIES

10
CANT WE COMBINE EXPLAINING AND UNDERSTANDING?

• NO! REALITY CANNOT, AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, BE
  SEEN AS
• OBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIFIED
• FACTIVE AND SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED
• IT IS COMMON TO SAY THAT WE UNDERSTAND IF
• WE GET HOLD OF CLOSER FACTS
• WE CONSIDER SUBJECTIVE FACTS
• WE GET HOLD OF EARLIER OR BACKGROUND
  CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO
  DIG DEEPER INTO TRUTH
• HOWEVER, THESE ARE TO ME MORE DETAILED AND
  PRECISE EXPLANATIONS, NOT UNDERSTANDING!
• EXPLANATIONS ARE USING A REPRESENTATIVE LANGUAGE,
  UNDERSTANDING IS USING A CONSTITUTIVE LANGUAGE
• YOU MAY CERTAINLY CLAIM THAT YOU CAN COMBINE
  EXPLAINING AND UNDERSTANDING IN THE SAME
  STUDY BUT IF THIS IS SO, YOU DO NOT GIVE THE SAME
  MEANING TO EXPLAINING AND UNDERSTANDING AS I
  DO!

11
SOME ASPECTS OF METHODICS ANALYTICAL VIEW
MAP THE PROBLEM ANALYTICALLY
EXPLAIN ANALYTICALLY AS HYPOTHESES
theory reality
PROBLEM
TESTING
12
SOME ASPECTS OF METHODICS TRADITIONALLY SYSTEMS
VIEW
COME UP WITH SYSTEMS EXPLANATIONS, FOR
INSTANCE, AS INAPPROPRIATE SYSTEMS STRUCTURE OR
LACK OF FITNESS
MAP THE SYSTEM
theory reality
PROBLEM
TESTING
13
SOME ASPECTS OF METHODICS HERMENEUTICS

• 
  THE RESEARCHERS
• THE GENERAL
  
  INTERPRETATION
• 
  
• 
  THE GENERAL
• 
  
  
• (THE
  HERMENEUTIC CIRCLE) FUSION
  OF HORIZONS
• 
  
• 
  THE PARTICULAR
• THE PARTICULAR
• THE
  INTERPRETATION IN THE STUDY AREA
  

14
SOME ASPECTS OF METHODICS SOCIAL PHENOMENOLOGY
ACTOR B

• FOUR INEVITABLE
• SIMULTANEOUS
• DIALOGICAL
• PROCESSES
• INTERNALIZATION
• SUBJECTIFICATION
• EXTERNALIZATION
• OBJECTIFICATION
• TYPIFICATIONS

ACTOR A
ACTOR D
ACTOR C
15
FACT-TO-FACE RESEARCH
16
CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL FACE-TO-FACE RESEARCH
17
INTERVIEWS, CONVERSATIONS AND DIALOGUES AS A
BASIS FOR EXPLAINING OR UNDERSTANDING