“The key to good research lies not in choosing the right method, but rather in asking the right question and picking the most powerful method for answering that particular question” (Bouchard, 1976, p. 402)
As the introductory quote by Bouchard illustrates, research question and research method are inseparably connected. If the focus of a research is on describing and understanding a phenomenon little is known about, it usually calls for qualitative research, which is interpretative in nature and allows for rich insights to be gathered into a phenomenon, thereby building or elaborating theory (Edmondson & McManus, 2007; Gephart, 2006; Lee et al., 1999). As such, research questions that address nascent phenomenon or theory (or both) are characterized by their open-ended nature, inquiring into “how” and “why” questions. The research questions under study focus on the entrepreneur as a key actor in driving the process, identifying opportunities, and transforming current structures, reflecting the ontological assumption that individuals actively create their social world and offering a more subjective perspective on human nature (Morgan & Smircich, 1980). Such questions are best investigated by a qualitative approach, which allows for an open and explorative inquiry into the phenomenon (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). Thereby the researcher attempts to understand the phenomenon from the perspective of the subject as it engages with the social world (Morgan & Smircich, 1980).
To proceed, a systematic literature review which holds the promise of providing a more transparent and accurate synthesis of extant research, was conducted. Accordingly, the systematic literature served as the basis for the subsequent investigation of the phenomenon by means of four empirical studies. For the empirical exploration of the research questions, two qualitative research methods were employed: multiple case studies (essays II, IV, V) and a verbal protocol study (essay III). In the following sections, an overview of the three different research methods, systematic literature review, multiple case studies, as well as verbal protocols is provided (summarized in table 2). More detailed justifications of the research procedure is provided in each of the essays II, III, IV, V.
Table 2 – Overview of research methods
*For all studies, the doctoral candidate was involved in research design, data collection, and data analysis.
Research
2.2.1 Systematic Literature Review
To proceed, a systematic literature review was conducted in essay I. A systematic literature review was deemed well suited to review the current state of literature on sustainable entrepreneurship, to investigate key assumptions, as well as to derive boundary conditions of the phenomenon. Systematic literature reviews adopt a transparent and replicable process with the aim of providing a thorough knowledge base of research published in a given field, while minimizing the bias of reviewers (Tranfield et al. 2003). Transparent in this context meant that the method employed in the literature review process is made explicit, with every step taken in the process described in detail. The transparency moreover allows other researchers to replicate the literature review, to repeat it with modifications or to update it.
Research Procedure. In line with the procedure suggested by Tranfield et al. (2003) and adopted by other management researchers (e.g. Pittaway et al. 2004; Macpherson &
Holt 2007), the systematic literature review on sustainable entrepreneurship was organized into three main stages: 1) defining protocols; 2) mapping the field; and 3) reporting the findings.
Data analysis. The articles were analyzed in a three stage process consisting of (1) database analysis; (2) title and abstract analysis; and (3) relevance analysis.
Accordingly, in the first stage, the databases are investigated by means of the indicated search terms. In the second stage, the articles were analyzed with regard to their relevance for answering the research question. In the last analysis stage, the remaining articles were content analyzed to map the field (quantitative) and subsequently report the findings (qualitative).
2.2.2 Multiple Case Studies
Following the systematic literature review, three of the four empirical essays employed a multiple case study design. Cases are well suited to explore nascent, subtle phenomena and to empirically investigate questions from a subjective epistemological perspective. Therefore, multiple case studies allow for more robust theory building and elaboration than single cases (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007, Lee et al., 1999; Yin, 2013).
Sampling. For the selection of the multiple case studies, purposeful and theoretical sampling were used (Patton, 1990). Purposeful sampling is an appropriate form of sampling for qualitative inquiries as it represents a recurrent process, which is directed towards identifying information rich cases (Patton, 1990). Theoretical sampling is particularly powerful for identifying cases that illuminate certain aspects of theory (Flyvbjerg, 2011; Yin, 2013).
Data Collection. For the multiple case studies we relied on three different types of data, including verbal, written, and visual data, as well as three methods, namely in-depth interviews, secondary/ archival data, and the structure laying technique/ graphic mind mapping. The use of data and method triangulation is well established in the social sciences, as a greater variety of data and method generally allow for a more robust analysis and deeper understanding than single sources (Scandura & Williams, 2000).
Data analysis. For the data analysis, an abductive reasoning approach was chosen, referring to the creative process of linking surprising observations to theory in a recursive cycle (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). As such the researchers’ familiarity with many different theoretical constructs is crucial in finding the best fit between observations and theory and in revealing common misconceptions and identifying better explanations (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). In general, the analysis of the case study evidence included a two-stage process, consisting of within-case and systematic cross-case study comparisons (Eisenhardt, 1989). In the first step, the focus was on each cross-case by itself and all data was coded in an inductive-abductive process. In the second step, the display technique proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994) was employed to reveal common themes across cases.
2.2.3 Verbal Protocol Study
For essay III, a verbal protocol study was chosen to investigate the cognitive processes of sustainable entrepreneurs. Verbal protocol techniques were deemed well suited for exploring the cognitive reframing processes of entrepreneurs, as they allowed for observing participants’ cognitive strategies in real time (see Ericsson & Simon, 1993;
Gregoire, Barr & Shepherd, 2010; Isenberg, 1986; Melone, 1994).
Sampling. For the sampling strategy purposeful sampling criteria were applied to select 24 individuals with prior experience in founding a sustainable new venture, and who
were familiar with both the task of identifying opportunities for sustainable entrepreneurship and the challenges of pursuing such opportunities. Focusing on such individuals minimized the risk that participants’ verbalizations might be tainted by their lack of experience with the task of identifying opportunities for sustainable development.
Data collection. For the data collection a verbal protocol experiment was conducted.
More specifically entrepreneurs were presented with three short newspaper articles describing a social and/or environmental problem, and were asked to “think out loud”
as they interpreted the issues at play and sought to identify entrepreneurial solutions to possibly address these problems. To further examine individuals’ framing efforts, the texts of the second and third newspaper articles were manipulated to convey either a positive or a negative valence. Prior and after the interview participants were asked to fill in questionnaires in order to obtain background information. In total, 72 verbal protocols were obtained from 24 sustainable entrepreneurs.
Data analysis. Consistent with other verbal protocol studies, content analysis techniques were used (Krippendorff 2013; Saldaña, 2012) to document participants’
cognitive attention as well as their reasoning strategies. The protocols were analyzed in two rounds by two independent coders – including one coder blind to the study’s motivations, design and analyses. The data was then further analyzed by means of multilevel analysis techniques (see Heck, Thomas & Tabata, 2014; Hox, 2010; Snijders
& Bosker, 2012).
In the remainder of this chapter, the theoretical approaches that emerged during the qualitative data analyses are discussed.