Reconocimiento de reglas mínimas en el Derecho Internacional de los

Both the methodology and the design can be understood in terms of the objectives of the study. The three objectives of the study identified in Chapter 1 were as follows: (1) To evaluate and determine the importance of crowdfunding and crowdfunding platforms as financing alternatives for SMEs. (2) To evaluate and determine the potential impact on the traditional financing market of a shift in SME financing demand from financial institutions to crowdfunding platforms. (3) To identify and assess potential regulatory gaps that could lead to systematic risk. These objectives provided the basis for the research questions of the study. The research questions and hypotheses of the study are as follows, provided separately for the study’s qualitative and quantitative approaches.

3.2.1 Determination of Quantitative Research Questions

The quantitative research questions of the study have been provided below. Each quantitative research question is accompanied by further discussion. Where appropriate, each quantitative research question is accompanied by hypotheses and a brief discussion of grouping methods. More extensive statistical detail about each quantitative research question has been provided subsequently in this chapter, including the actual statistical syntax utilized to generate the results of the study in the Stata / SE 14.2 software format.

RQ1: What is the percentage of crowdfunding in the overall funding of SMEs? No hypotheses have been associated with RQ1, as it is descriptive in nature and therefore not accompanied by inferentially testable hypotheses (Moore & McCabe, 2009). RQ1 addresses the first objective of the study, as introduced in Chapter 1, which was to evaluate and determine the importance of crowdfunding and crowdfunding platforms as financing alternatives for SMEs. Crowdfunding as a percentage of all funding was calculated for the following groups:

Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 78

 All SMEs in the sample for each separate year in the sample (2008-2017)  All technology-based SMEs in the sample for all years in the sample (2008-

2017)

 All technology-based SMEs in the sample for each separate year in the sample (2008-2017)

 All non-technology-based SMEs in the sample for all years in the sample (2008- 2017)

 All non-technology-based SMEs in the sample for each separate year in the sample (2008-2017)

The reason for treating technology and non-technology companies was the detection of an industry effect on crowdfunding, to be discussed further under the data analysis provided for RQ1. Specifically, using first an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s post hoc test (Tukey, 1949) and subsequently an independent samples t-test for confirmation.

RQ2: Is there a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on other—that is, traditional—forms of financing?

In order to validate the statistical analysis, RQ2 has been subdivided into six distinct sub-research questions. Each of these sub-research questions is based on a comparison of SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding with one of five traditional funding approaches.

RQ 2.1: Is there a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on seed funding (equity crowdfunding)?

H 2.10: There is not a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on seed funding (equity crowdfunding).

H 2.1A: There is a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on seed funding (equity crowdfunding).

RQ 2.2: Is there a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on start-up funding?

Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 79

H 2.20: There is not a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on start-up funding.

H 2.2A: There is a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on start-up funding.

RQ 2.3: Is there a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on Round 1 funding?

H 2.30: There is not a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on Round 1 funding.

H 2.3A: There is a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on Round 1 funding.

RQ 2.4: Is there a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on Round 2 funding?

H 2.40: There is not a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on Round 2 funding.

H 2.4A: There is a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on Round 2 funding.

RQ 2.5: Is there a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on Round 3 funding?

H 2.50: There is not a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on Round 3 funding.

H 2.5A: There is a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on Round 3 funding.

RQ 2.6: Is there a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on all other kinds of funding combined?

H 2.60: There is not a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on all other kinds of funding combined.

H 2.6A: There is a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on all other kinds of funding combined.

Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 80

The second research question partially addresses the second research objective of the study, which was to evaluate and determine the potential impact on the traditional financing market of a shift in SME financing demand from financial institutions to crowdfunding platforms. The second research question consists of a quantification of the trade-off between crowdfunding and five kinds of traditional funding. This quantitative analysis was triangulated through qualitative analyses generated by the qualitative research questions noted below.

3.2.2 Determination of Qualitative Research Questions

The qualitative research questions of the study have been provided below, as is customary in qualitative research according Berger, 2013; Bernard & Bernard, 2012; Cassell & Symon, 2004; Davies & Hughes, 2014; Duffy, 1987; Given, 2008; Thanh & Thanh, 2015; Venkatesh, Brown, & Bala, 2013, no hypotheses have been associated with the qualitative research questions. Particular attention has been directed to explaining how, if at all, the qualitative research questions of the study interact with the quantitative research questions as enumerated in chapter 3.2.1.

RQ3: What is the potential impact on the traditional financing market of a shift in SME financing demand from financial institutions to crowdfunding platforms? RQ3 was quantitatively addressed in the second research question, which allowed a trade-off comparisons between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on each of five kinds of traditional funding. The results of RQ2 and RQ3 will be blended by means of a concurrent transformative design, whose purpose is to allow a general research question to be explored distinctly through quantitative and qualitative means, with the results subsequently interpreted by the researcher (Chadwick, Knapp, Sinclair, & Arshoff, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Hesse-Biber, 2012; Ivankova, Creswell, & Stick, 2006; Kerrick, Cumberland, Church-Nally, & Kemelgor, 2014; Klassen & Durksen, 2014; Koon, Frick, & Igo, 2009; Molina-Azorín, Tarí, Pereira-Moliner, López- Gamero, & Pertusa-Ortega, 2015; Venkatesh et al., 2013). This is important because it allows for triangulation and verification of results. In this respect, RQ2 is an attempt to quantify the impact of crowdfunding on SMEs’ reliance on traditional funding, segmented by funding type, whereas the qualitative answer to RQ3 will be broader and more general. RQ2 provides a narrower, statistical perspective and example of how crowdfunding might influence traditional funding, whereas RQ3 provides a more

Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 81

explanatorily power assessment of the impact of crowdfunding. While this could be assessed in a quantitative way, the use of the qualitative method provides information regarding the impact of crowdfunding.

RQ4: In the context of crowdfunding, what are potential regulatory gaps that could lead to systematic risk?

RQ 4.1: In the context of crowdfunding, what is the relative importance of potential regulatory gaps that could lead to systematic risk?

RQ 4.2: In the context of crowdfunding, what are the costs and benefits of closing potential regulatory gaps that could lead to systematic risk?

The fourth research question has been further subdivided. As stated, RQ4 is designed simply to identify the domain of potential regulatory gaps. The first sub-research question associated with RQ4 is designed to elicit expert opinions about the importance of these gaps. The first sub-research question associated with RQ4 is designed to elicit expert opinions about the costs and benefits of closing these gaps. These questions are related to RQ4 because the qualitative approach will allow for the identification of the gaps, per the experts, prior to their expression of importance and because information will be provided regarding regulatory gaps because regulations for crowdfunding are largely the same as they are for traditional banking. Information from experts would enable the development of crowdfunding regulations.

3.2.3 Blending of Research Question Results

As noted in chapter 3.2.1 and chapter 3.2.2 RQ1 and RQ4 are single-methods questions (Berger, 2013; Bernard & Bernard, 2012). RQ1 is designed to be answered solely by quantitative means, and RQ4 is designed to be answered solely by qualitative means. However, RQ2 (a quantitative research question) and RQ3 (a qualitative research question) are designed to be blended using the concurrent transformational approach (Chadwick et al., 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Hesse-Biber, 2012; Ivankova et al., 2006; Kerrick et al., 2014; Klassen & Durksen, 2014; Koon et al., 2009; Molina-Azorín et al., 2015; Venkatesh et al., 2013). A more detailed discussion of the application of the concurrent transformational approach to RQs 2 and 3 has been provided subsequently in this chapter.

Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 82