RQ1 was as follows: What is the percentage of crowdfunding in the overall funding of SMEs? RQ1 has been analysed with respect to the following groups:
All SMEs in the sample for all years in the sample (2008-2017)
All SMEs in the sample for each separate year in the sample (2008-2017) All technology SMEs in the sample for all years in the sample (2008-2017) All technology SMEs in the sample for each separate year in the sample (2008-
2017)
All non-technology SMEs in the sample for all years in the sample (2008-2017) All non-technology SMEs in the sample for each separate year in the sample
(2008-2017)
Each of these groups has been analysed separately in the remainder of the RQ1 results.
4.2.1 All SMEs, All Years
The first group for which RQ1 results were collected for the group of all SMEs for all years. It was found that the mean dependence of crowdfunding among the entire sample for all years (2008-2017) in the sample was 3.94% (SD = 2.77). The range of crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding was from a low of 0.65% to a high of 56.69%. The skewness of the distribution of crowdfunding as a percentage of all
Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 126
funding was 10.32, indicating that most of the companies had a reliance on crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding that was below the observed mean of 3.94%. The kurtosis of the distribution of crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding was 167.25, reflecting the influence of outliers as presented in Figure 4 below:
Figure 5: Box plot, distribution of crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding for all SMEs and all years in the sample (Source: Author)
4.2.2 All SMEs, Each Year
The scientific adequate manner in which to present RQ1 statistics for each year (2008- 2017) in the sample is through a table. Accordingly, Table 16 below contains the following statistics related to crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding:
Mean
Standard deviation Skewness
Kurtosis
Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 127 Table 16: Reliance on Crowdfunding as a % of All Funding, Year by Year, Entire Sample (Source: Author)
Year Mean 95% CI of the Mean Standard Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 2008 3.89 3.57, 4.21 1.61 2.61 3.16 2009 4.26 3.73, 4.78 2.67 3.74 20.49 2010 3.56 3.28, 3.84 1.41 1.47 4.82 2011 4.28 3.19, 5.36 5.50 8.84 84.91 2012 3.92 3.55, 4.29 1.85 1.02 3.81 2013 3.64 3.38, 3.91 1.32 0.96 3.48 2014 4.03 3.26, 4.79 3.85 7.92 73.09 2015 4.03 3.60, 4.48 2.13 3.11 15.98 2016 4.05 3.48, 4.61 2.83 6.87 60.09 2017 3.76 3.43, 4.08 1.65 1.36 4.18
4.2.3 All Technology SMEs, All Years
It was found that the mean dependence of crowdfunding for all technology companies for all years (2008-2017) in the sample was 6.41% (SD = 4.30). The range of crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding for technology companies was from a low of 2.55% to a high of 56.69%. The skewness of the distribution of crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding for technology companies was 9.05, indicating that most of the companies had a reliance on crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding that was below the observed mean of 6.41%. The kurtosis of the distribution of crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding was 97.78, reflecting the influence of outliers as presented in Figure 6 below.
Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 128 Figure 6: Box plot, distribution of crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding for technology SMEs and all years in the sample (Source: Author)
4.2.4 All Technology SMEs, Each Year
The scientific adequate manner in which to present RQ1 statistics for each year (2008- 2017) in the sample is through a table. Accordingly, Table 17 below contains the following statistics related to crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding for technology companies only:
Mean
Standard deviation Skewness
Kurtosis
95% confidence interval of the mean
Table 17: Reliance on Crowdfunding as a % of All Funding, Year by Year, Technology Companies (Source: Author)
Year Mean 95% CI of the Mean Standard Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 2008 6.12 5.62, 6.62 1.23 1.23 1.73 2009 5.91 5.22, 6.59 1.59 0.40 2.54
Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 129 2010 5.91 5.27, 6.56 1.33 0.07 2.21 2011 8.58 3.54, 13.61 11.06 4.20 18.80 2012 6.29 5.78, 7.00 1.53 0.18 3.40 2013 5.39 4.85, 5.92 1.24 -0.07 1.80 2014 7.32 4.09, 10.56 7.29 4.11 18.70 2015 6.46 5.32, 7.61 2.83 2.24 7.46 2016 5.64 5.07, 6.21 1.32 0.05 3.05 2017 6,52 5.88, 7.16 1.36 -0.15 2.49
4.2.5 All Non-Technology SMEs, All Years
It was found that the mean dependence of crowdfunding for all non-technology companies for all years (2008-2017) in the sample was 3.20% (SD = 1.46). The range of crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding for non-technology companies was from a low of 0.65% to a high of 28.81%. The skewness of the distribution of crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding for non-technology companies was 10.47, indicating that most of the companies had a reliance on crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding that was below the observed mean of 3.20%. The kurtosis of the distribution of crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding for non-technology companies was 161.00, reflecting the influence of outliers as presented in Figure 6 as followed.
Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 130 Figure 7: Box plot, distribution of crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding for non-technology SMEs and all years in the sample (Source: Author)
4.2.6 All Non-Technology SMEs, Each Year
The scientific adequate manner in which to present RQ1 statistics for each year (2008- 2017) for non-technology companies in the sample is through a table. Accordingly, Table 18 below contains the following statistics related to crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding:
Mean
Standard deviation Skewness
Kurtosis
Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 131 Table 18: Reliance on Crowdfunding as a % of All Funding, Year by Year, Non-Technology Companies (Source: Author) Year Mean 95% CI of the Mean Standard Deviation Skewness Kurtosis 2008 3.11 2.92, 3.29 0.79 0.03 2.60 2009 3.76 3.14, 4.38 2.73 4.83 27.27 2010 3.01 2.86, 3.16 0.67 0.27 2.77 2011 3.13 2.97, 3.30 0.74 0.07 3.36 2012 3.01 2.81, 3.21 0.87 -0.67 3.06 2013 3.12 2.94, 3.30 0.80 0.26 2.67 2014 3.10 2.93, 3.27 0.73 -0.32 3.06 2015 3.17 3.00, 3.34 0.73 0.10 4.28 2016 3.57 2.89, 4.25 3.00 8.00 67.90 2017 3.06 2.90, 3.23 0.74 0.36 2.92
4.2.7 RQ1: Comparisons between Technology and Non-Technology Companies There was a statistically significant difference between technology SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding (6.41%. SD = 4.30) and nontechnology SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding (3.20%. SD = 1.46), t(998) = 17.575, p < .001. Technology companies had a higher reliance on crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding than did non-technology companies. However, because the variable of reliance on crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding was distributed abnormally (Shapiro-Wilk W = 0.460, p < .001), it was necessary to triangulate the parametric independent samples t-test with the non- parametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U test. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U test confirmed that mean reliance on crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding was higher for technology companies than for non-technology companies, z = 21.488, p < .001. A visual comparison of this difference between technology companies and non- technology companies has been provided in Figure 7 below.
Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 132 Figure 8: Box plot, comparison of crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding for non-technology SMEs and technology SMEs for all years in the sample (Source: Author)