This article was downloaded by: [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES]On: 17 November 2014, At: 11:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Entrepreneurship & RegionalDevelopment: An InternationalJournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tepn20

Can academe achieve quality insmall firms policy researchAllan A Gibb aa Small Business Centre , University Bunsiness School , MillHill Lane, UKDurham DH 13LBPublished online: 29 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Allan A Gibb (1992) Can academe achieve quality in small firmspolicy research, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, 4:2,127-144, DOI: 10.1080/08985629200000007

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08985629200000007

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ENTREPRENEURSHIP & REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 4 (1992), 127-144

Can academe achieve quality in small firms policy research?

ALLAN A. GIBB Small Business Centre, Durham University Business School, Mill Hill Lane, Durham DH1 3LB, UK

The overall objective of this paper is to review, in the light of substantial growth of research in the small firms area over the past decade, some of the key issues involved in ensuring that research is relevant to policy makers. The paper is both academic and pragmatic. It has the following specific objectives: (1)to provide an overview of some of the 'myths' as to what constitutes quality in research; (2) to define research and policy research in particular; (3)to consider critically issues of research methodology and explore how different methods used by academics can lead to very different results; (4) to review the role of academics and academic institutions in policy research and to consider some of the difficulties that may result from endeavouring to introduce research on small business into traditional academic departments; and (5) finally, to make recornmendations as to how to improve the overall framework in such a way that small business research can be more effective in the 1990s than it was in the 1980s.

Overall the paper is written with a view to provoking discussion on key issues of making small business policy research more eff'ective.

Keywords: quality in research; policy research; small firms.

1 Introduction

This paper seeks to address the issue of quality in research, and in particular policy

research, in the context of the small and medium firm and to examine critically the approaches that are used in the social sciences in pursuit of such research. It has been written because, after a decade of substantial growth in small firms research in the UK, there still seem to be differences of views as to the kinds of research regarded as 'proper' or of 'high quality' (Storey 1990, p. 3). The paper is written for a policy-making and 'funding of research' audience as well as for academics. It addresses itself to many

academic issues, but it is important to recognize that quality in social science research is not the exclusive reserve or dictat of academe; no more so than it could be argued that standards of excellence in research in the physical sciences cannot be set and achieved in private companies, public laboratories or research institutes.

Nevertheless, one would expect academe to lead in demonstrating standards. The

need for constant review and maintenance of standards in general is always present. A traditional view might be that the need is more acute the more that research and research

resources are led by policy and practice, public or private, rather than by the tradition of academic disciplines. Such a view might be that while it does not a pn'on' follow that excellent research cannot start from a policy problem or opportunity, any pressure for 'answers' has considerable dangers. This is not a view shared by the author. The field of research into small business is arguably an area where policy pressures have been felt

markedly over the past decade. A great deal of UK funding for research has been on a 'need to know' basis and even within the traditional academic grant-giving bodies the

importance of 'relevance' has grown. The 'total quality' issue therefore arguably grows

in importance the wider the diversity of research fund sources and starting points for

research.

OR98-5626192 $3.00 @ 1992 Taylor & Francis I.td

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

128 A . A. GIBB

The issue of what constitutes quality, particularly in the context of research influenced in its focus by policy considerations, is one which embraces the whole of the social . . .

sciences. The small business, for a variety of reasons explored below, provides arguably an excellent context within which to explore the key issue.

A report by Tom Cannon based on research funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) in 1988 addressed itself to the quality of small business research (Cannon 1987). It leads the reader to a conclusion that excessive reliance on traditional research paradigms may be an important issue in the quality debate. Cannon also points out that much small business research has come from academics in business and management departments who have a career profile that is 'unlike that of traditional academics with a not insignificant amount of business experience involved'. Cannon concludes that this experience has produced one of the major strengths of the research work in the area: its highly applied nature and strong policy orientation. This article will support this view.

- -

There has, however, been a growing interest in small business from the traditional social science academic disciplines. This interest has also been marked by a growth in the number of academic journals devoted to small business, including one with a single disciplinary base (Small Business Economics 1989). In introducing a book based on papers selected from the first UK Small Firms Research Conference in 1978 the present author noted that 'the present academic research system in the UK is still largely constituted to favour advanced research within single disciplines. The criteria for assessment, professional advancement and reward, and informal and formal recognition have worked to reinforce this system over the years' (Gibb and Webb 1980, p. 4). Arguably little has changed over the past 12 years. This article will support a proposition that, if traditional academic pressures were to lead towards a narrowing of the view of what constitutes research, a stronger emphasis on single disciplinary approaches and a bias towards certain research approaches rather than others, then progress towards quality policy research in the small firms field might be impeded.

Small business is an object, not an academic discipline. In addressing the issue of understanding of this 'object' in the micro and macro context the researcher is perhaps well reminded of the following quote from Gunnar Myrdal who, after a distinguished career as an economist, commented, in a critical review of 'boxes' into which we place academic research (Myrdal 1969, p. 10):

. . . in reality there are not economic, sociological or psychological problems, but simply problems, and that, as a rule, they are complex.

It is these complex problems (and opportunities) that arguably policy research should address.

One object of this article is to provoke discussion between, and among, the policy makers and academics.* To this end it begins with a listing of a number of (in the author's view) challengeable assumptions influencing the view of what constitutes quality in research. It then raises the issue of what constitutes research and, in particular, it will challenge the view that somehow quality research can only take place within the groves of traditional academe and within the context of traditional disciplines. It will consider some conceptual issues commonly of major concern to those who pursue research in universities and polytechnics and in particular the role of theory and concept in contrast

'A version of this paper was originally written as an 'actr de provocation' for the 1990 UK Small Firms Research Conference.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SMALI, FIRMS POLICY RESEARCH 129

to empiricism. It will explore a number of methodological issues and will note the 'bias' that there seems to be towards certain design approaches rather than others in small business research. Finally, it will consider the role of academe in small business research and the challenge that the phenomenon of small business and entrepreneurship presents.

To achieve these aims within a short paper involves cutting some corners and returning to some basic concepts. The latter is desirable if both policy maker and academic are to have a common basis of understanding for discussion.

2. Some challengeable assumptions as to what constitutes quality research

A broad review of the academic literature and, within it, of the way that research is handled, together with a similar review of the approaches taken by academic grant- giving bodies (which have an irnportant influence in shaping the supply side), arguably reveals a number of apparent assumptions:

(a) that an accurate description of a phenomenon is not research; ( b ) that research is best carried out by someone with deep traditional disciplinary

strength; (6) that research must test theory to be really useful and that research must be

explanatory and, better still, predictive;

(4 that there must always be a hypothesis to test; (e ) that positivist approaches to research are highly desirable; (f) that deductive approaches are preferable to inductive; (g) that research with statistically significant results is to be preferred to more

detailed qualitative research; (h) that 'explanation' through statistical significance is on par with causality; ( 1 that 'objectivity' means maintaining a distance from the observed phenomena

and is a necessary condition for 'proper' academic research; 6) that all other things can be equal; (k) that inter-disciplinary means the same as multi-disciplinary; (I) that a multi-disciplinary approach implies a 'team' of disciplines and cannot be

embodied in a single person; (m) that values, beliefs and ideologies of the researcher are not an important

determinant of the results of academic research; (n) that the precise meaning of words applied to different individuals does not

matter if there are enough 'individuals' in the sample;

( 0 ) that scholasticism and historicism are central foundations of a truly rigorous approach and that, in particular, philosophic generalizations about the role of the entrepreneur (if they are part of the tradition of the discipline) are a sound base for academic work and a substitute for empiricism, or must guide it;

@) that to undertake policy research is to prostitute true academic values (because there is a contract related to a predetermined output);

(q) that research undertaken as consultancy has less value than that undertaken as part of a research grant from 'independent foundations'.

The above dogma, which will be discussed below, is, of course, not solely related to research in small business and entrepreneurship. But, as research in this field becomes more 'respectable' academically, and as the major traditional disciplines take a greater

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

130 A. A. G I B H

interest, there will be more focused Chairs and Research Institutes and a further growth in disciplinary-based academic journals. All of this holds considerable opportunity but some dangers. If research in small business is to be developed fully and if, in particular, policy issues are to be vigorously addressed then those who pursue and fund research in this field need to be aware of these opportunities and threats.

3. Towards an acceptable definition of research - back to basics

In the first place there is a need to settle on a definition of what constitutes research. In this there seems to be no general agreement (McGrath 1964). There are those who would argue that research can cover the full spectrum from non-systematic description of events or opinions given individually to a more formal and complex systematic collection of data within a methodological and conceptual framework. A broad definition such as the latter would, for example, embrace the description by a bank manager of the way that he deals with the small business, provided that this is presented within some sort of framework. In this it approaches the 'case study' format comn~only produced in academe by an 'objective' third party. Such approaches could be described as 'phenomenological' leading on to the development of 'grounded' theory (Thorpe 1988, p. 2). In plain language this means in practice closely observing (and even perhaps interacting with) a person or persons and subsequently putting forward hypotheses about why they behave or do things in certain ways.

Fundamental to any discussions of what constitutes research arc a number of basic issues which underpin research approaches and about which there has been, and remains, much philosophical debate. Much has been written on this issue but for those who are not academics the basic arguments are outlined below. At the very first level of debate is the issue of indutive versus deductive approaches Uevons 1957, p. 212). Induction involves proceeding from individual facts and observations to more general propositions. For example, in observing a number of entrepreneurs working irregular hours one may conclude that most entrepreneurs work irregular hours (if we examined all of the cases and found this to be true then we rnight call the inductive reasoning 'perfect'). The deductive approach consists of two or more propositions put together to arrive at a conclusion. For example, if it is easier to borrow money I'or a business the more assets one already has, and if men have, by and large, more assets than women, then women will have more difficulty in borrowing money for a business than men.

In practice arguments about the alternative value of different approaches are fruitless. Many deductions are built from inductions. Acceptance of this point importantly leads to valuing the role of intuition in research Uevons 1957, p. 57). Intuition is knowledge that is held directly through the senses. It is knowledge that has been built up over time. The intuition of the entrepreneur is often the result of many years of experience and observation leading on to, and from, inductive and deductive reasoning. Thus, for example, the 'feel' of the entrepreneur in risk taking is not to be confused with aimless speculation. Once this is recognized then it will, for example, be acknowledged that methods of reducing risks by formal analysis committed to paper may be a very poor substitute for years of experience and therefore developed intuition. It is obviously of major importance for the researcher to understand what lies behind the entrepreneur's intuition.

Another important issue which impacts on the definition of research is that of objectivity vs. subjectivity (Sjoberg and Nett 1968, pp. 8-10). The simplest distinction commonly used is that objective involves being detached and impartial, as opposed to subjective, meaning that the phenomenon exists in the mind of the individual and therefore is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SMALL FIRMS POLICY RESEARCH 131

'subject to opinion'. In practice this common distinction is difficult to uphold unless the former is restricted to mean only that which is a 'fact' and not a judgement. Even here, however, the two are rapidly merged together. What initially may be seen as a subjective judgement about the entrepreneur being a risk taker becomes objective the more observations that are made and opinions are subsequently seen to coincide with this view. Discussion of the subjective/objective issue spills over into the positivist and anti-positivist (Sjoberg and Nett 1968, p. 288)* debate and indeed into the controversy as to whether social science can be a science at all, or one where objective views can be taken. There is no time and space here to review this argument to the length it merits. Suffice it to argue that it should not be taken for granted that certain, almost traditionally favoured, social science methods are necessarily more objective than others. There is, for example, a casually observed (by the author) tendency towards acceptance of certain standard structured questionnaire approaches as being more objective than ethnographic methods of close observation of a phenomenon (Marsh 1982). It is very questionable as to whether objectivity can simply be related to the 'hands off approach embodied in surveys, and subjectivity linked with closer involvement. In fact the opposite could be argued in that surveys involving structured questionnaires can reflect the way in which the designer somewhat narrowly and selectively perceives the situation, favouring some parameters or variables at the expense of others so that response and results give a distorted impression of what actually occurs. The fact that people reply to questions, allow their thoughts to be 'pre-coded' and collected in boxes in a pilot does not mean that the data collected are any more objective than those involving in-depth unstructured interviews or that the pilot has demonstrated the validity of the approach. Indeed in-depth approaches are often a means of ascertaining more carefully what is the 'real' situation. These issues have been particularly well debated within the sociology discipline but, in fact, beg questions which spill over into all the social sciences.

The final issue in the definition of research relates to whether it should necessarily embody explanation and/or indeed prediction (Hakim 1987). Part of this question relates to whether theory is, or is not, an essential part of research. There are those who insist that if there is no theory then research loses its meaning (Popper 1966, p. 205). O n the other hand, others would argue that research can be exploratory and through an inductive process provide the basis for identifying hypotheses without necessarily testing them. The follow-up stage to this might be explanatory where the research attempts more formally, to explain why something happens (Paulin et al. 1986, pp. 353-379). How well grounded such explanatory research is, of course, a function of how good the initial exploratory research was. Going one step further moves the argument towards the distinction to be made between explanation and prediction (Hakim 1987). The former is concerned to explain why certain behaviour takes place: the latter is concerned with the proposition that if certain conditions are present then a certain pattern of behaviour or result from behaviour will follow in the future. This distinction is important because the jump is conveniently made from empirical research results, which show why certain things have happened, into statements concerning how they will come about in the future. To undertake the latter, however, we need to have a model of specified relationships and clearly show how the several variables impact on each other, in a dynamic context, to obtain certain results. The model would also have to cope with all the unknowns in the future. There is as yet no 'holistic' model of the firm as a basis for theory. And there are many who would argue that in the social sciences it is most unlikely that we shall ever

'Positivists assume that social scientists can achieve objective knowledge in the study of both the social ancl natural worlds. They argue that the natural and social sciences share a basic methodology. Put simply, anti- positivists would argue that this is not possible given the nature of society and the researchers' involvement with it.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

132 A. A. CIRB

have one (Smeiser 1980, pp. 23-30). The most that can be done is to explain or just understand. They would argue that prediction is impossible and that social sciences are not sciences.

The final basic issue is that of whether theory itself is research if it is not strongly empirically based. Some 30 years ago Eysenck (Eysenck 1957, p. 267) was driven to state that 'empirical investigations in the Social Sciences have much lower and less important status than philosophical argument, and scholastic reviews of opinions held by well known writers'. Arguably the same criticism can still be made in respect of very many loosely defined or weakly empirically based definitions of the entrepreneur and his role. Whole books are written on them (Hebert and Link 1988). They are accepted, used, and rarely protested: they are indeed often difficult to test in practice without further 'reduction' because they are so philosophically and loosely couched. The task of defining the entrepreneur and exploring hislher role has arguably been slowed considerably by the need of writers to pay lip-service to the broad generalizations made by the economic 'great and the good'. Examples include portrayals of the entrepreneur as: innovator and creator of new combinations of productive means (Schumpeter 1961); coordinator and planner of the production process (Say 1845); manager, uncertainty bearer (Knight 1971); calculator of optimum choice at a given set of prices (Baumol 1983) and so on.

Even in modern-day texts the entrepreneur's role is explored on the basis of rather 'unreal' assumptions, but defended on the grounds that theory can be constructed from this basis (Casson 1982, p. 25):

This book follows convention in confining the analysis (of the entrepreneur) to the operations of the private sector in a market economy. It is assumed that entrepreneurs are motivated by self interest. . . to simplify the theory it is assumed that entrepreneurs operate their business purely with a view to rnaximising the profit they obtain from a given amount of effort. . . . They do not seek to increase their status by methods which would reduce the profitability of the business. Although this assumption is counter factual the resulting theory goes a long way towards explaining entrepreneurial behaviour.

It can be argued that rather than spend time on seeking to build theories upon theories or indeed to test theories that are not well 'grounded' it might be better to spend time and resource on closer observation.

In the light of the preceding discussion it can be argued that, in the field of entre- preneurship and small business research, as wide a definition of research as possible should be admitted. It should be recognized, for example, that the opinion of a single bank manager, in depth, and a review of hidher experience might be of equal value to a simple survey of 300 bank managers using a limited, structured questionnaire. The value of exploratory research as well as explanatory research should be recognized. Statements made by the process of inductive reasoning can give as many, if not more, insights as those that are based on deduction, particularly where the axioms on which the deduction is based (as in many cases, for example, in economics), are very weakly grounded. There can be as much subjective bias in a structured survey questionnaire as there can be in a detailed intensive action research project, if not more.

4. Policy research - a distinctive challenge?

Policy research has been described as research for action as opposed to research for understanding (Scott and Shore 1979). However, it can be more correctly defined in the author's view as research that is focused on utility, either commissioned by someone with a use in mind or with a utility focus by those who undertake it. This means that there is a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SMALL FIRMS P O I ~ I C Y RESEARCH 133

particular 'customer' focus, explicit or implicit. The customers for small business policy research may include local and national government, large companies, small businesses, or organizations, private and public, in the small business field, and the network, regionally, nationally and internationally (Gibb 1987, pp.229-242). The specific customer focus of policy research can effect the targets, process, output and dissemination strategies of research in such a way that gives it a distinctive nature.

Policy research might arise in a number of ways including: where a situation audit is required, when new ideas are needed or comparative practice exposed; when customer feedback is required; where there is a need to provide independent evaluation of specific programmes or activities; where there is a need to develop new information and control systems for publicly or privately supported programmes; and where there is a need to stimulate through research a wider discussion in society.

Each of the above situations may pressure the research process and outcomes. The examples given demonstrate the potential diversity of the origin of the base for policy- orientated research and also implicitly indicate some of the dangers. In most 'commissioned' research there will be various stake-holders who may have their interests at heart. Thus, for example, government departments which have initiated new development programmes and dutifully commission evaluation research will not wish to have their measures described by the evaluation as a disaster. Results which are less kind than they might be to the stake-holders may lead to pressure to obscure the findings. Research related to events with which a great deal of 'political' commitment is associated may lead to results of feasibility studies, for example, being ignored in the haste to speed up the process of dissemination. This has happened with cost-benefit studies where the decision has been made to go ahead before the end analysis has been produced (Popper 1966, p. 205). Therefore the data are made redundant or may need to be suppressed if unfavourable. Involvement of the stake-holders in the final presentation of results may also lead to certain results being emphasized at the expense of others. Policy research may also lead to pressure to be 'representative' or 'national' on the assumption that unless, somehow, findings are deemed to be representative they are not valid for policy. This can lead to a bias in favour of pseudo-scientific methods of sampling or matching control groups whereas the real need may be for a more in-depth understanding of the 'process' which is to be influenced by policy measures.

Finally, as is implicit in many of the preceding examples, policy research may be undertaken as a consultancy. As such it is likely to be fashioned in its objectives by the client, is likely to be tighter and more rigid in terms of time-scale than conventional academic research and the outputs are more likely to be closely specified. There may be restrictions placed on dissemination of results and the research may be focused narrowly on areas where major decisions have to be taken. It may also be more closely monitored by a steering group. Some of these apparent 'constraints' are in fact 'opportunities' in that they can provide a clearer focus for the academic researcher, introduce a discipline of time that is less usually adhered to in academic life and create pressure for a tight methodology. More damaging aspects are that time pressures may limit the amount of 'open-ended' research that is possible to pursue new insights and may also limit opportunity for model building and therefore the potential for theory and explanation. There may also be limits on publication, on the ability to alter design and to react flexibly to situations confronted. Tight financial constraints may also lead to the cutting of corners.

Notwithstanding these problems, policy-orientated research can provide a wide range of different opportunities. It can demand high methodological and intellectual rigour. It

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

134 A. A. GIBB

can provide a particular intellectual challenge in terms of building models and concepts from practical problems; and it can offer the opportunity for the academic to introduce a greater degree of academic rigour into decision making. Its key importance is, however, that it is likely to encourage multi-disciplinary research and a wider range of research approaches.

5 . Some conceptual issues in small business policy research

One of the major demands of policy research is that, implicitly, it is oriented towards 'how to' rather than 'about'! It therefore contrasts with the conventional academic research approach to exploring phenomena, providing explanation but under no great pressure to set out what can be done, and how, as a result. For example, as a result of research over the past decade a great deal is known about small firms failure, business start-ups and business development but much less about how to influence them. There has also been a considerable array of work designed to throw light on the growth potential of small or medium businesses. This has been reviewed elsewhere (Gibb and Davies 1990, pp. 15-32); most of it fails to provide convincing evidence of the determinacy of the small firm growth as a basis for informing policy makers. At the root of these problems is a lack of a comprehensive theory of small or medium enterprise initiation and development which clearly brings together all the relevant variables into a model and indicates how each interacts with one another.

The establishment of such a comprehensive theory in the near future is unlikely. It can be argued indeed that much of the research already undertaken might have provided more useful insights, models and frameworks if it had not been constrained by a number of conceptual and methodological failings, some of which, in the author's view, are rooted in the 'tradition' of much social science research. It is not within the scope of this article to provide numerous listings of research in small business which is open to methodological criticism: it will be sufficient to raise a number of issues which are important in improving the conceptual depth of such work in particular:

( a ) the development of models which clearly justifji the parameters chosen for investigation thus ensuring from the onset that the potential for 'explanation' is limited; the giving of adequate weight to i~~ductive heuristic approaches as well as those that are more formally 'structured'; the issue of what constitutes academic knowledge (and in particular its relation to insight) as guidance to understanding in developing models; the potential problems in research paradigms derived tiom sin& academic disciplines which may result in failure to offer more than very limited insights; dependence in research on scholasticism, the wisdom of history and the opinions of the 'great and the good' (noted above); the problem of reductiorzism to facilitate the obtaining of results in data collection but at the possible expense of cutting across concept, model or theory; the use of research paradigms in small business research that have been developed from work in large bureaucratic concerns; the influence of the ua1ue.r of the researcher embodied in research design; awareness of the potential in the owner-manager response which may be very different from those of the professional manager; recognition of the role of evabcation research as 'proper' research with its potential to enhance the conceptual basc of many policy programmes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SMALL FIRMS POLICY RESEARCH 135

5.1. Model building

In the absence of a total theory of small firm initiation and development it is not always clear why certain parameters are chosen as relevant to an investigation rather than others. For example there is no wholly comprehensive theory which clarifies the relationship between the characteristics and traits of the entrepreneur and histher behaviour in the company which in turn are deemed to be the keys or triggers for the growth of the 'entrepreneurial business'. Yet there are many studies where variables are suggested, deemed likely to influence growth but lack broad underpinning in terms of how the variables selected relate to each other in a dynamic context (Gibb and Davies 1990, p. 26). Such approaches are doomed to being barren almost by definition.

5.2. 'Fonnul' structured approaches

There seems to be a bias in much small firms social science research in favour of a survey/quantitative/deductive approach rather than on application of inductive reason- ing based on grounded theory with greater emphasis on quality of data (Babson 1984-1990). The search for 'representativeness' seems to be a key issue, although in reality such is the diversity of the small firm sector that it is unlikely to render a 'representative' sample.

5.3. Lack of insight

One danger in pursuing 'representativeness' via the testing of variables by structured questionnaires is that the test is not always uniformly meaningful to small firms. For example, firms have been asked to indicate whether or 30; :hey are 'planning' without there being any attempt to define the terms or justify v . h : the researchers feel will be commonly interpreted by the term (Carland et al. 1989, pp. 23-33). Firms are asked if they are moving into 'new markkts' or if they are developing 'new products' (Haahti 1989, p. 329). Those well acquainted with the entrepreneur will know that these terms are likely to be interpreted in a variety of ways. The word 'market' is open to all kinds of ambiguity as any detailed discussion of marketing with entrepreneurs will clearly indicate. It is in such cases that the lack of simple insights of researchers may be exposed. The fact that in the piloting of questionnaires a response can be obtained which can be interpreted does not in itself imply that the response is meaningful.

5.4. The single discipline framework

A major potential problem concerns those seeking to 'explain' within the framework of a traditional discipline and therefore to accommodate reality to the concepts of the discipline. For example, the economist's traditional preoccupation with profit maximiz- ation (noted above) as the major criterion influencing small firms' behaviour and the role of prices in bringing together supply and demand influences the nature of other generalizations as to the role of the entrepreneur as the risk taker and bearer of uncertainty.

This, in turn, underpins the belief that entrepreneurs take more substantial risks than other business persons and even that the entrepreneur can be defined in terms of his propensity to take risks. In reality the evidence would suggest that most entrepreneurs

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

136 A. A. GIBB

are not very high risk takers (McClelland 1961, Brockhaus and Honvitz 1986, pp. 25-48).

Many of the critics of the single disciplinary approach focus on the testing of theories within the discipline which are inadequately grounded. Others would, however, go further in terms of a general attack on 'partial' theories in social science.

To bring theoretical cx~lanation to bear is simultaneously to select, exclude and therefore direct the whole balance of research. . . theoretical research is ethnocentric and therefore biased. . . ! (Smelser 1980)

Many of those who argue like this are arguing in favour not of multi-disciplinary research, but for qualitative research based on a model which keeps the research 'theoretically informed' but is not reductionist enough to facilitate simple predictions. These are the very writers who also place great emphasis on 'open mindedness' in interpretation of data.

The major solution to the single discipline 'problems' is seen to be a multi-disciplinary approach. Distinctions between multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary are not always, however, made clear. Inter-disciplinary has been described as a link between members of research teams from different disciplines, whereas multi-disciplinary is defined as different disciplines working on the same point (Burgess 1982). It can be argued, however, that a truly multi-disciplinary approach would be that embodied in a single researcher borrowing, as appropriate, from different disciplines. This is a concept that seems to be largely rejected by some academic grant-giving bodies. Hakim is very pointed in underlining the strife that the failure to come to terms with multi-disciplinary approaches can cause (Hakim 1987, p. 138). In commenting on the ESRC's programme on Social Impact of Research in Britain in the 1980s she makes the point that 'choice seems to have been dictated by the politics of institutional rivalry within the academic Social Science community as much as with concern for the development of knowledge'. In her excellent book on research design published as part of the Contemporary Social Research series she also raises the question of 'whether the current division of social science into separate disciplines with continuous proliferation of sub-disciplines is beneficial for empirical social research and indeed for the development of social science theory'.

5.5. Scholasticism

Economic researchers in particular are in danger of being driven to chasing visions from the past in seeking to link the broad generalizations of the economics tradition with the empirical world of the present rather than looking more widely for new paradigms. A classical example of this is contained in the first volume of the Small Business Economics journal. The editors conclude that 'we have uncovered many facts about smaller businesses which are inconsistent with our theories' (Acs and Audretsh 1989). They point to the paucity of research into small business - when in fact they mean the paucity of research by economists into small business. The views of Eysenck in this respect have been noted above.

5.6. Reductionism

This in essence means that, in an endeavour to produce generalizations, very complex concepts may be simplified and/or expedient methodological approaches taken which

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SMALL FIRMS POLICY RESEARCH 137

may reduce or distort subsequent meaning. For example, studies of networks by means of self-administered questionnaires to large numbers of entrepreneurs may well produce data on which many social anthropologists (from whom much of the network theory and concept emanates) would place little credence. They would (rightly in the author's view) argue that to understand the extremely complex phenomena of networks it is necessary to have considerable patience with detailed observation over time (Boissevain and Mitchell, p. 271).

One extreme type of reductionist approach is described by Marsh (1982, p. 102) as 'face sheet' analysis where a dependent variable is said to offer explanations, and is related to a number of standard parameters such as age, in an attempt to test relationships without any real explanation of why the relationship exists. This kind of approach can be 'dressed up' with pretentious explanations as to why the dependent variable might be important but the key is the development of a model which helps explain how it is important.

5.7. Large cotnparly concepts

Mainly because of the relatively recent interest in small or medium businesses, there is a danger of applying concepts, models, approaches and theories to the small firms which are drawn from observations in larger, bureaucratic organizations. Classical examples of this are evident in the field of strategic and operational planning (Bamberger 1981). Concepts and parameters which are commonly used to describe this phenomenon in the larger organization are used to test the concept of planning in small firms. The appropriateness of this approach can be questioned for many reasons, not least those related to the limited resources and time of the entrepreneur and the informality of hisfher organization.

Perhaps, however, the most common area of potential misapplication of large company measures in respect of small business research relates to the measures of performance. Formal declarations of profit (for example as indicated in accounts registered with Companies House in the UK) are frequently used - a tradition drawn from the use of published accounts of the large firm. Yet only a brief acquaintance with the reality of small business indicates that reported profits will vary substantially dependent upon a wide variety of factors to do with the owner's tax liability, willingness to switch funds between different organizations and companies, inclination to hide profits from family shareholders or to show substantial profits to companies that may be interested in trading with the business or acquiring it. Yet economists or others continue to undertake analysis of published accounts of small or medium businesses as if they were consistent and fully reflective of performance, yet knowing that such consistency does not exist (Storey et a l . undated, p. 42). The common argument used, that these are the only data available, cannot really be accepted.

5.8. Researcher values and beliefs

Academic researchers are undoubtedly influenced in their approaches by personal ideological beliefs or 'stances' taken within their own discipline. This has a number of undesirable effects. The first is a polarization of an issue designed to prove or disprove a case, often of public controversy, which may get carried over into ideological debates.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

138 A A. G T R B

The debate over job creation and small firms is a case in point (Storey and Johnson 1987). Another is some of the work relating to the enterprise culture (Burrows 1991, pp. 17-34). Fundamental beliefs linked with certain philosophical underpinnings to a discipline may influence research findings particularly where open ended, in-depth, unstructured approaches are used, allowing substantial scope for interpretation.

Special attention needs to be given to the particular nature of the entrepreneur's response to questionnaire and interview surveys, and to understanding hislher attitudes towards providing information. Here lack of insight among researchers may show most visibly. Those who work closely with the small business owner will know that, in response to questionnaires about the kinds of 'problems' that helshe faces, most entrepreneurs will place emphasis on the environment or events which are seen to be directly outside their personal control. The filter of the ego in answering questions about the business (and the business projection of the ego) is of major importance. Those, for example, who seek to evaluate training programmes for entrepreneurs know that, in interpreting events and indicating what has influenced their decision-making processes, entrepreneurs have a general tendency to filter out anything which can be seen to be derived from outside influence or can be externally credited. Considerable over-emphasis may be given to the impact of actions of the entrepreneur when they are seen to reflect hislher capability. For this reason objective statements of the state of the business may be difficult to come by through the owner-manager. Effectively the ego has been projected in a way that may not substantially apply to the professional manager of a large firm who may not see the performance of the business as entirely hislher responsibility (Hakim 1987, p. 106).

5.10. Eualuation research

There are those who argue that evaluation research is by definition not 'proper', presumably because it may add nothing to the ability to create explanation, generalization or prediction, and that it is not embedded in theory. This conclusion is unwarranted. Evaluation research most certainly demands methodological approaches of the highest order (Hesseling 1966, p. 301). But, in addition, it can demand from the evaluator a reconstruction of the conceptual framework within which the programme or activity to be evaluated has been explicitly or (more often than not) implicitly developed. This can lead to the testing of basic assumptions on which the programmelactivity is based. With its obligation to feed forward, the research can seek to identify how the evaluated activity can be better constructed in future with a stronger conceptual base. Evaluation research, therefore, must take its place in the armoury of research: certainly it can be more demanding intellectually than the testing of simplistic theories.

In summary the demands made by policy research in respect of concept seem to point to the importance of: being multi-disciplinary; taking an approach based on developing concepts and models rather than on manipulation and statistical correlation of variables without theoretical underpinning; understanding the process and the 'how'; and the need to understand that in dealing with small businesses there are certain words or approaches which may be inconsistently interpreted or even deliberately misunderstood.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SMALL FIRMS POLICY RESEARCH 139

6. Some basic methodological issues in small business policy research

It has been noted previously that the influence of contract research in the small firms areas could lead to more, rather than less, rigour. It has also been argued that i t will lead to pressure for multi-disciplinary approaches and obviate the simple 'one variable' explanation-type research. At the same time, it may add to the pressure for 'represent- ativeness'. Surveys are at times preferred to in-depth research not only because they are representative but also because they are more transparent, that is, the questions that are asked and the responses given can be clearly seen and checked (Hakim 1987, p. 48). But qualitative research is often needed prior to survey work to ensure that the right 'questions' are asked. In general, survey research places great responsibility on the researcher to reveal clearly the methods and instruments used. 'Research reports based on surveys which provide no information on the questions asked, have coding frames un- specified, have no tables and are generally ambiguous or uninformed leave themselves open to the charge of unprofessionalism, bias and dishonesty' (Hakim 1987, p. 48).

In addition to the above there are a number of more detailed methodological 'slippages' which occur in small firms work including:

(a) use of industry sector analysis as if the sector is synonymous with the market; (b) use of cross-sectional data to infer about longitudinal development; (6) use of recall;

(d) misuse of matching sample technique; (e) confusion of correlation with causality and inference; V) lack of understanding of the measurement problem in tracing the dynamics of

the firm; @) searching for 'hard' data.

6.1. The industv/market synonymig problem

The confusion of 'industry' with 'market' is particularly the domain of the economist (Schwalbach 1988, pp. 129-136). Detailed analysis of firms within most industry sectors, at a minimum list-heading level with twolthree digit breakdowns, indicates that many firms classified together may have very little in common in terms of the customer groups and markets they face. This type of error may be the result of a long heritage, particularly in economics and economic geography, of use of shift-share analysis and of output growth studies by industry sectors designed to be of use for targeting industrial planning strategies. In the absence of a synonymity between industry sector and market it is scarcely surprising that many of these strategies turn out to be fairly meaningless. Firms can only grow through productlmarket expansion.

6.2. Use of cross-sectional datu

The emphasis in policy on stimulating the growth and development of small business and the pressures to provide a recipe for this, taken together with the difficulty in funding research which genuinely studies the development of companies over time, increases the temptation to take short cuts by inference from cross-sectional analysis. The dangers of using cross-section data for the purpose of inference about development over time are well documented. A classical example of mis-inference is to assume that the existence of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

140 A. A. GIBB

more formalized planning processes in larger firms compared with small means that planning is a major determinant of success and growth (Carland 1989).

6.3. Use of recall

The extensive use of recall to gain understanding of the dynamics of growth of small firms is also tempting. The dangers of this approach in general are substantial. But the close link between the ego of the entrepreneur and business performance noted previously makes it particularly difficult with small business. Yet much of the work on small business initiation is based on recall studies.

6.4. Matching samples

Another way of seeking to give greater meaning to results in policy-orientated research is through the concept of the matching sample. There is little scope, in small firms research, for controlled experiment with matched samples, for rarely can one group be maintained without attrition while another group is exposed to a particular inference. The matched- sample process is more commonly used, for example, to compare the characteristics of one set of firms with another; for example, high growth firms and others, technology- based businesses and others, and so on. Such a process demands information as to how exactly the groups have been matched, why certain factors are chosen for matching, what is their significance within a 'model' and more importantly what is the significance of not matching the firms in respect of a variety of other factors that might have been used but are not incorporated into the matching process. These processes can be neglected or not made explicit. Firms may be selected in 'identical trades' without it being made clear as to what is meant by 'trade', or without an indication of whether the matching firms are in exactly the same market or with the same basic processes andlor the same products. Without this clarity the way in which the matching processes assist or hinder in interpreting results remains obscure. Yet in one recent study, where the process of matching was not very explicitly described, it was concluded that 'the advantage of the match procedure is that it has enabled us to determine the extent of which the particular good performance of an individual firm is attributable to the sector in which it operates' (Storey et al. undated, p. 2 ) .

6.5. Correlation and causality

Criticism has already been made of the lack of concept in studies as a basis for focusing on certain parameters in empirical research as opposed to others. When such parameters are embraced in a concept the model should arguably not be overly simplistic, should indicate how the various parameters interact together, which way the relationships are expected to occur and how each of the parameters might be weighted. Data can lend themselves to multiple-correlation type approaches. But without theoretical weight in the first instance, it is impossible as a result to weight inference or explanation, no matter what the level of the association. An example of this is the substantial amount of work that has sought to demonstrate the link between high 'achievement motivation' scores (following on McClelland's work) and entrepreneurship by comparing entrepreneurs

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SMALL FIRMS POLICY RESEARCH 141

with the population as a whole (Carsrud and Johnson 1989). The inference is that such personal attributes are the caust: of company achievement when in fact they might be the result.

6.6. Memuring change

Finally, the conventions in measurement sometimes dictate the metaphors for small firms. High-growth firms are supposed to be associated with high rates of change. It seems to be assumed in much of the literature that major increases in turnover, value added and net worth must necessarily mean that the businesses are coping with high rates of change. Yet it is obviously possible for firms in very uncertain environments to maintain their turnover and even decline and yet to have high internal rates of change which are not reflected in external measures. The dynamic company is not necessarily always the growth firm (Gibb et al . 1983).

6.7. Searching for 'hard' data

Perhaps the strongest challenge that evaluation studies in policy research face is the pressure from sponsors (particularly government sponsors) to reduce the results of the activity being evaluated into a simple input-output or monetary (cost-benefit) equations or, if not monetary, into some other form of 'hard' data. As a result evaluation studies may fall into the trap of focusing on criteria that can be easily counted. This can also easily lead into the use of methods of simplistic matching in order to reproduce experimental 'conditions'. For example, Enterprise Agencies in the UK have frequently been evaluated in terms of the numbers of start-up firms they have counselled and the subsequent survival rates compared with survival rates of firms in general (Business in the Community undated). Such crude 'matching' seeks to demonstrate that firms counselled will have a better chance of survival. This simple approach ignores all the other factors that influence firm survival, ignores the complexity of the concept of survival (and in particular the confusion that surrounds the equivalence of termination with failure) and elevates what might be a very short counselling of a few hours into a major factor in the process of starting and surviving in business. It also may lead to neglect in weighting the other sources of advice taken by the companies involved. More importantly such studies may again confuse association with cause. It is perfectly possible, for example, that it is those firms which seek advice and counselling from all sources, not just Enterprise Agencies, that are more likely to survive. If we ask why this is so we may find possible explanation in terms of the quality of the entrepreneur, the seriousness of the proposition and so on. In the drive to demonstrate the efficiency of money spent on a project such evaluators may be taken further into the economists' realm of 'cost-benefit analysis' where all kinds of imaginative contrivances can be applied in order, in the end, to produce a financial figure Uohnson and Thomas 1984).

7. Where should we place policy-oriented research?

The points raised have been in the context of the policy research concern of this article. They are equally relevant to conventional academic (and other) research approaches. But policy research arguably provides particular pressure for their consideration. Its emphasis on know-how, problem solving, and on developing concepts to underpin

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

142 A. A. GIBB

practice, combined with the pressure to be relevant (and not at several degrees of abstraction from practice) places a more urgent demand on addressing the issues mentioned. The point was made at the beginning of this article that much of the research already undertaken into small business has been by those within business schools. Such schools, although frequently located within universities, are very diff'erent from conventional academic departments in a number of ways. Perhaps the most important is that by their very nature they are concerned with acting as a bridge bctween business and academe and between problem, opportunity and concept. They are also charged with making sense of their work in teaching to practising managers and policy makers. This brings a bias to research in favour of solving problems and understanding the process of business development.

The ways in which academic institutions may bring their own biases to research have been summarized. It has been ar<gued that such biases may result from a number of factors including: a narrowly based single-discipline approach; a reliance on testing traditional scholastic philosophical generalizations rather than testing theories or hypotheses which are well grounded in the first place; the building of partial theories based on unreal assumptions; and the use of distance as a surrogate for objectivity (which can lead to its own myopia through lack of real insight into the phenomena being observed). Academic grant-giving bodies still seem to favour the 'single disciplinary' departments rather than multi-disciplinary schools or business departments (UK Academy of Management Bulletin 1989190). Yet it has been argued herein that, by its very nature, policy research should be multi-disciplinary.

In addition to these methodological concerns there are a number of other issues that need to be addressed. Of major importance are the pressures on academic departments to publish within the boundaries of their own disciplines. Pressure to publish may rank higher than pressure to complete research of'a contract nature; and the pressure is also to use paradigms in the research which are within the discipline of the department. Disciplines themselves break down into sub-disciplines and factions which lead to the contesting of different theories and different stances. These can lead to bias in approaches to contract research depending on the particular 'camp' to which the researcher belongs. Academic disciplines may also find themselves divided between ideological camps which increase the likelihood of research being influenced by a process of self-fulfilling prophecy. Ideological creep can be particularly hard to detect when unstructured questionnaires or ethnographic approaches arc used. Hence there is a clear need, in terms of academic accuracy, to distinguish between direct observation, interviewee statements, interpretations and the inferences of the investigator. The major way in which biases in this respect can be somewhat neutralized is by using thc 'double-line test' of having others conduct the interview who do not 'own' the framework or the hypotheses (Hakim 1987).

For all of the foregoing reasons academe (certainly the traditional academic depart- ment) may not be the best place to locate small firms policy-oriented research. Arguably it might therefore best be located in organizations divorced from the competitive rivalry between disciplines and faculties which characterizes the university environment (Hakim 1987). Those placing such research in academe would, however, do well to probe a number of points with the would-be academic contractor in particular:

(a) How much real insight they have into the phenomena to be investigated. ( b ) The degree to which the research can reasonably be conducted within a single

disciplinary framework.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SMALL FIRMS POLICY RESEARCH 143

( c ) The track record of the proposed researcher in terms of revealed values and vested interests within the discipline.

(6) The commitment towards the concept of a multi-disciplinary disciplinary approach.

Careful management by the contractor can go a long way to prevent this occurring once the project has been placed. Methods of avoiding such drift have been discussed elsewhere (Gibb 1987).

8. Conclusion

This paper has argued that small business research presents a unique context for appraisal of some of the major problems relating to the academic world's pursuit of policy-orientated research. In particular it has argued that there are many challengeable assumptions about what constitutes research and academic rigour which need to be challenged. Overall it might well be concluded that in general, for reasons of disciplinary and sometimes ideological division, pursuit of publication and organizational resources, academe is not ideally suited for work that in essence demands discipline in time and resource, a multi-disciplinary approach and often broad substantive comment rather than narrow theoretical testing. It might nevertheless be the case that if more of such research was offered to the academic sector then it would lead to improved methods and approaches; and it might also serve to break down academic and disciplinary rivalries and perhaps widen conceptual frameworks. There is no a pnon' incompatibility between policy research and an academic approach that demands rigour and a strong conceptual base; but there may be incompatibility in respect of narrowly focused single academic discipline approaches. This constitutes a challenge for those who place research contracts, including the research councils. A similar challenge is to recognize that utility in research does not lead to prostitution and that, equally, the higher education system is not itself able to claim that it is wholly and unambiguously impartial in its pursuit of truth.

Small business as an object not a 'discipline' represents a challenge, arguably not yet met, to bring together the variety of academic disciplines in a 'staged' approach. First, to observe accurately and gain insight into the entrepreneur and small business. Second, to build better models of hidher behaviour which have a soundly grounded base. Third, to use these to develop a better understanding of the process of small business development. Fourth, to offer clearer and more integrated explanations as to why certain things occur under certain conditions. And fifth, to retail this in such a way that i t is clearly under- stood by a wide audience.

The methodological issues that have been discussed are not solely relevant to policy research: they are relevant to all research approaches. They are, nevertheless, extremely pertinent to the debate about what constitutes quality in policy research. If, as the author suspects, such research is deemed by many to be that vested in university and academic institutes, then it should clearly demonstrate its 'superiority' in terms of the conceptual and methodological criteria identified above. Arguably it has yet to do this in the small business field.

References

Acs, Z . and Audretsch, D. B. 1989. Editors' introduction, SmaN Business Economics, l(1). Babson 1984-1990, A review of the papers published over the past eight years as proceedings from the

Babson Conference 'Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research' series by the Centre for Entrepreneurial Studies, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, 02.57 reveals very many 'empirical' papers of this nature.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

144 SMALL FIRtvlS POLICY RESEARCH

Bamberger, I. 1981, Strategic management in small and mcdium firms by portfolio analysis - a theoretical and empirical study, University of Rennes.

Baumol, W. 1983, in Ronen, J . (ed.) Entrepreneurship (Lexington, MA: Coxington Books). Boissevain, J . and Mitchell, J . C . (eds) 1973, Network Analysis: Studies in Human Interaction (Paris: Mouton),

271. Brockhaus, R . H . and Horwitz, P. S. 1986, The psychology of the entrepreneur. In Sccton, D. L. and

Smilor,R. W. (eds) The Art and Science o f Entrepreneurship (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger), 25-48. Burgess, R . G. (ed.) 1982, Multiple strategies in field research. In Field Research Source Book and Field Manual,

Contemporary Social Research 4 (London: Allen & Unwin), ch. 22. Burrows, R. 1991, The discourse of the enterprise culture and the restructurc of Britain. In Curran, J . and

Blackburn, R . A. (eds) Paths ofEnterprise. Future ofSmall Business ([,ondon: Routledge), 17-34. Business in the Community, undated, Small firms: survival and job creation: the contribution of enterprise

agencies (London: Business in the Community). Cannon, T . 1987, Research in small business: thc role, nature and impact of a ncw research field, Final

Report to ESRC. Carland, J . W. , Carland J . A. C. and Abey, C . , J r . 1989, An assessment of the psychological determinants

of planning in the small business, Internalional Small Business Journal, 7 . 23-33. Carsrud, A. L. and Johnson. R . W. 1989, Entrepreneurship: a social psychological perspective, Entrepreneur-

ship and Regional Development, 1 , 21-33. Casson, M. 1982, The Entrepreneur. An Economic Theory (Oxford: Martin Robertson), 25. Eysenck, H . J . 1957, Sense €3Nonsense in Psychology (Harmondsworth: Penguin), 267. Gibb, A. A. 1987. Research for small cnterprisc development. I n Ncck, P. and Nelson, R. (eds) Small

Enterprise Deuelopment: Policies and Programmes (Geneva: I LO). 229-242. Gibb, A. A. and Davies, L. 1990, In pursuit of frameworks for the dcvclopment of growth models of the

small business, International Small Business Journal, 9, 15-32. Gibb, A. A , , Scott, M . G . and Webb, T. 1983, An action research approach to the study of small firrns and

industrial change in a development area, Durham University Business School. Report to the Department of Industry.

Gibb, A. and Webb, T . (eds) 1980, Policy Issues in Small Business Research (Aldershot: Saxon House), 4. Haahti, A. J . 1989, Entrepreneurs Strategic Orientation (Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics), 329. Hakim, C . 1987, Research Designs, Strategies and Choices in the Design of Social Research, Contemporary Social

Research (London: Allen & Unwin). Hebert, R . F. and Link, A. N. 1988, ?'he Entrepreneur: Mainslream Views and Radrcal Critiques (New York:

Praeger). Hesseling, P. 1966, Strategy of Eual~lotion Research (Assen: Vangorcum), 301. Jevons, S. W. 1957, Elementary Lessons in Logic. Deductiue G3 Inductive (New York: Macmillan), 212. Johnson, P. and Thomas, B. 1984, The ccononlic evaluation of small business support systems: a case study.

In Lewis, J . , Stanworth, J . and Gibb A. A. (eds) Success and h i l u r e in Small Business (Aldershot: Gower), 227-249.

Knight, F. H . 1971, Risk Uncertainty €3 Profits (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Marsh, C . 1982, TheSurvy Method, Contemporary Social Rcsearch 6 (London: Allen & Unwin), ch. 3. McClelland, D. C. 1961, The Achieving Society (Toronto: Free Press). McGrath, J . E. 1964, Toward a theory of method for research in organisations. In Cooper, W. W . , Leavitt,

H. J . and Shelly, M. W. (eds) New Pprs~ectiues in Organitalional Research (New York: Wiley). Myrdal, G . 1969, Objectivity in Social Research (London: Gerald Duckworth), 10. Paulin, W. J . , Coffey, R. E. and Spoulding, M . E. 1986, Entrepreneurship research: methods and direction.

In Kent, C . A., Sexton, D. L. and Vesper, K . (eds) Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship (New Jersey: Prentice Hall), 353-379.

Popper, K. 1966, The Open Sociey and its Enemie~, Vol. 2. 5th edition. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul). Say, J . R. 1845, A 7icatise on Political Economy (Philadelphia: Crigg & Elliot). Schumpeter, J . A. 1961, The Theory ofEconomic Deuelopment: An Inquiry into Profit, Capital, Credit, Interest and the

Business (Clyde, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Schwalbach, J . 1988, Small business in German manufacturing, Small Business Economics, 2 , 129-136. Scott, R . A. and Shore, A. R. 1979, m y Sociology does not App,ply A Study on the Use of Sociology in Public Policy

(New York: Elsevier). Sjoberg, G. and Nett, R. 1968, A Methodologyfor Social Research (London: Harper and Row), 8-10. Small Buriness Economics: an International Journal 1989 (Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer). Smelser, N. J . 1980, Biography, the structure of explanation and the evaluation of theory in sociology. In

Blalock, H. M . (ed.) Sociological Thmry and Research: A C~it tcal Appraisal (New York: Free Press), 23-30. Storey, D. 1990, Social Sciences, news from the ESRC, 3 (London: ESRC). Storey, D. and Johnson, S. 1987. Job Generation and Labour Market Change (London: Macmillan), and the

review article by Fitzroy, R . R . , Firm size, efticiency and employment: a review article, Small Business Economics, 1 .

Storey, D. , Watson, R . and Wynarczyk, P. undated, Fast Growth Small Business, Research Paper no. 67, London, Department of Employment, 42.

Thorpe, R . 1988, The performance of small firms: predicting success & failure, unpublished paper, 2. UK Academy of Management (see sundry bulletins 1989-90).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

1:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14