RIESGOS EVALUADOS EN LÍNEAS DE TRANSMISIÓN

At the outset of the research it is important to delineate the parameters of the research. To do this it is necessary to define the unit of analysis and the level of analysis of the study (Davidsson and Wiklund, 2001). In this case it is the entrepreneur that is the focus of the study and so the unit of analysis is at the individual level rather than the firm level. As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 2, the definition of an entrepreneur is highly contested. However, this research adhered to Low and MacMillian’s (1988) suggestion that entrepreneurship should be defined as the creation of new enterprise. Accordingly the research explored their experiences in their role as the ‘agents of change,’ adhering to Drakopoulou Dodd and Anderson’s (2007) position that entrepreneur’s capture or produce change so they must remain central in the research process. As Shaver and Scott (1991) argue external factors such as economic factors, government support, network support,

105

marketing and finance are important, however, none of these alone will create a new venture and thus the focus must remain on the individual who will work to bring all these factors together and will persist to launch a venture and thus the individual is crucial. Indeed, Sarasvathy (2004) critiques previous research for focusing on the firm as the unit of analysis and overlooking the experiences of the entrepreneur, which are necessary to help develop content in entrepreneurship. Thus this research focuses upon entrepreneurs who have launched and have an ongoing involvement in their businesses.

Initially, the research was specifically focused upon access to finance and its role in the entrepreneurial process. However, as the research proceeded it became clear that the entrepreneurial process in its entirety was of particular interest and thus the remit of the research was widened to enable the consideration of all aspects of the process. This broadening of focus reflects the nature of conducting in-depth qualitative research, where the researcher begins by exploring one area but then as other areas begin to emerge as important, the research focus is expanded to accommodate the important points. Hence, the original focus solely on access to finance emerged as too narrow as the importance and key role of both human and social capital emerged. In order to fully understand the findings a broader stance was adopted and the research remit was re-defined to explore the entrepreneurial process in its entirety.

Another important parameter to consider is the inclusion of both male and female entrepreneurs in the research. One of the criticisms of previous research is the lack of studies that compare the experiences of male and female entrepreneurs (Riding and Swift, 1990; Kalleberg and Leicht, 1991; Brush 1992; Read, 1998; Mukhtar, 2002). For example, Brush’s (1992) review of the literature found that nearly 50% of the studies sampled included only women business owners with only 26% including a male comparative group. The lack of research comparing the experiences of male and female entrepreneurs is problematic for a number of reasons.

Firstly as Fischer et al. (1993) argue, hypotheses that assert that women are disadvantaged cannot be tested if men are not included in the study. This is because these studies suffer from the lack of a control group with which to compare the results (Riding and Swift, 1990). Indeed, Fabowale et al. (1995) criticise the many studies that cite gender related problems for female entrepreneurs in accessing credit without comparing their experiences to the male experience. Therefore by including both men and women, the research can analyse the impact, if any, of the entrepreneurs’ gender on the entrepreneurial process.

106

Secondly, including both male and female entrepreneurs also allows the exploration of gender related stereotypes, with Chell and Baines (1998) finding that when these are tested there may be as much variation within gender categories as between them. Thirdly, the concept of gender includes men as well as women (Bruni et al., 2005) and male entrepreneurs are an interesting group too (Rosa et al., 1993). Therefore taking the decision to include male entrepreneurs in this research, allowed a comparative analysis and facilitated a more comprehensive exploration of the pertinent issues.

Another significant methodological consideration was the decision whether or not to inform participants that the research would result in a comparison of male and female entrepreneurs. Previous literature indicated that academics were divided over how best to handle this issue. For example, Morris et al. (2006) openly asked the respondents about the impact of their gender on their entrepreneurial experience. However, this approach raises a particular issue. As Carter and Cannon (1992) explain, by stating that the research is concerned with gender, and encouraging the participant to consider their experience in terms of gender, it may raise the level of gender discrimination reported amongst the participants. For that reason, prompting the respondents to consider their experience in light of their gender may encourage them to frame their experiences in this context to a greater extent than they would have otherwise done. In fact, sensitising respondents to the issue of gender and discrimination occurs in many studies and is problematic (Read, 1998).

This problem may be further compounded by the issue of social desirability, whereby the participant may feel obliged to tell the interviewer what they assume they want to hear and thus they may be more likely to report their experiences framed in the context of their gender. This is a particular issue in qualitative interviews whereby if gender sensitization occurs it may be argued that the respondents are being led to define their problems as gender issues (Carter and Rosa, 1998). The inclusion of leading questions are also a possible hazard, with Riding and Swift (1990) critiquing research that includes leading questions such as those that ask female entrepreneurs if they believe that they were treated differently due to their gender.

Another interesting issue was raised by Lewis (2006) who highlighted that ‘the notion that

entrepreneurship is gendered, or that gender is a central variable in analyses of women’s entrepreneurial success (or lack of success) is often an analyst’s construct, rather than a principle that individuals themselves draw upon to understand their situation’ (p457).

107

Thus to feature gender at the centre of the study, is to impose a construct on the female entrepreneur which they themselves many not agree with, or define their actions by.

Hence it is imperative that research that focuses on gender must consider this issue when designing the methodology. In practice, different researchers have adopted different approaches. For instance some researchers, such as Rosa and Dawson (2006) and Hill et

al. (2006), decided not to inform the respondents about the interest of the research in

gender until near the end of the interview in order to minimize the possibly of biasing the responses. Whilst others such as, Arenius and Autio (2006) decided not to inform respondents at all that the research would examine gender differences in order to avoid perceptual bias in the responses.

On balance, it was decided that to guard against the possibly of gender sensitisation and to prevent introducing bias and prejudicing the results, it was necessary not to inform respondents that the analysis would be conducted along gender lines. By approaching the research in this way it would ensure that the entrepreneurs could raise the issues that were of importance to them and it would provide them with the forum to discuss these issues without the pressure of social desirability. Moreover, it would ensure that the researcher’s construct of gender was not imposed upon the respondents. For these reasons, the approach adopted aimed to minimise the introduction of bias that could compromise the validity of the data. Therefore not explaining the gender aspect of the research was necessary to ensure the reliability of the data collected.