Implementation Sample Selection

As previously noted in Chapter 3, the definition used for sample selection was based on Barnett and Barnett (1988, p. xxi).

A copreneurial enterprise is a first-generation, full-time business owned and managed by two people who consider themselves life partners and co-founders of a business where relationships are outwardly equal.

Further, as defined by Barnett and Barnett (1988), the copreneurial enterprise is a venture “based upon the firm foundation of the family unit as an economic enterprise, in which the couple’s individual energy, experience, vision, and sense of purpose are combined into a partnership based on trust, equality, sharing and intimacy.” (p. 3).

Criteria were developed to screen potential couples so that the qualitative sample would be both purposeful and homogenous. Based on previous discussion of the need for homogenous samples (Dyer 2003; Melin & Nordqvist 2007; Sharma 2002) ten couples (20 individuals) were selected based on the following criteria:

1. First generation business (franchises, other purchased businesses and inherited businesses were excluded).

2. Full-time business (couples who worked in outside employment were excluded).

3. Equal ownership (companies legally owned or principally owned by only one partner were excluded).

4. Equal management (couples who self-identified one spouse as the primary business manager or decision-maker were excluded; couples who self-identified one spouse as a primary household manager who provides strategic but not operational management input were excluded).

5. Married and in business together for more than 20 years.

A sample size of 8-12 was hoped for, taking into consideration the time and expense of face-to-face interviews over a large geographic area, but more importantly applying the “sensitizing concepts from the literature review and the research questions” using logical judgments and rationale (Marshall & Rossman 2006, p. 64).

The purposeful sample was anchored with couples who had been interviewed for the Barnett and Barnett (1988) study as this was a known list of companies and could be researched to ascertain whether they were still in business and still married (based on website review). Eighteen (18) couples still in business (out of the original 25) were contacted by email. Seven responded to initially express willingness to participate and were successfully screened based on the criteria.

A Plain Language Statement (Appendix F) from the RMIT Ethics Committee approval process (Approval No. 1000001) was emailed to each couple and a follow-up phone call was conducted to answer any questions and confirm willingness to participate. All seven couples agreed to be interviewed for the thesis.

Three additional couples were identified through obtaining U.S. Chamber of Commerce listings in three cities in the Midwest and Southwest. Lists were obtained after the researcher contacted the organizations by phone, provided written proof of the legitimacy of the study, and asked for assistance in identifying couples in business together. As noted in Chapter 3, business census data is not collected in a manner that identifies whether businesses registered by a male and a female are couple-owned businesses (Pratt 2009). More than 50 businesses registered with the Chamber of Commerce as family businesses were contacted by phone and screened based on the five criteria. Six additional copreneurial businesses (out of 50 total businesses) were identified for the sample, bringing the sample size initially to 13. This proportion of copreneurs-to-family business was consistent with Pratt’s (2009) estimate that 10.1% of family businesses are copreneurial.

Prior to the interviews, three of the six new couples declined to participate. One couple could not participate due to family illness; a second contacted the researcher to say they had discussed the criteria again and decided it was primarily “his” business; and the third couple were out of the country for the face-to-face interview and decided they did not wish to be interviewed by phone. The three additional couples who qualified and were available were added to the sample for a total of ten. There were no substantial differences in size of business, type of business, industry, longevity, or other factors between the seven businesses from the Barnett and Barnett (1988) study and the three businesses from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce search. All couples met the criteria and all expressed a willingness to participate in the sample.

Pre-Interview Data Collection

Four information-gathering tools were used prior and during the interview process:

1. Historical archive analysis (secondary research). Following Stake (2005, p. 447) online searches and website reviews were conducted for all companies to gather and examine information on each company’s (1) activity and functioning; (2) historical background; (3) physical setting; (4) economic, political, legal and aesthetic context; (5) reference in other cases; and (6) other related references.

2. Demographic data collection (primary research). An eight-question survey was emailed the participants prior to the face-to-face interview.

Participants were asked to fill out the information and provide it to the researcher on the day of the interview (or prior to the interview in the case of phone interviews). The participants were asked to provide demographic data on their age, the age of their business, the number of employees including any family members involved in the business, and historical financial data prior to the interview.

3. Timeline construction (primary research). Participants were given instructions to create a timeline for events in their personal and business history one month prior to the interview and bring it with them to the interview. The couple was asked to record important individual, family and business events and changes and the year in which they occurred. These included the year they met, date of marriage, date business started, birth dates of children, business and family milestones, and any important changes that may have occurred in the history of the family or the

business. This instrument was deemed necessary in order to establish the

“what” of milestones in business and family history ahead of the interview so that the interview process could more effectively focus on the “hows”

and “whys” behind the historical events (Holstein & Gubrium 2011).

4. Interview Guide. “Traditionally, qualitative inquiry has been about what and how questions” with an appreciation for “interpretive elasticity” toward explanations of why things happen (Holstein & Gubrium 2005, p. 498).

The Interview Guide (with all 46 questions asked during the interviews) was provided to the respondents one month prior to the interview. The reasons for this were two-fold. First, the answers to questions would be less discursive (with participants trying to understand and answer questions they are hearing for the first time) and more reflective. Given the opportunity for prior review (individually or with their spouse) it was hoped that responses and narratives would more accurately reflect “how”

and “why” things occurred the way they did, including the hows and whats of everyday life in the enterprise (Holstein & Gubrium 2011, p. 347). This would reduce the burden on the researcher to interpret answers with too much “elasticity” in trying to analyze responses toward understanding the phenomena under study (i.e. the practices of the business and the family).

The couple, with prior reflection, would be more apt to include important clues to “how” and “why”, providing “a structure and essence to shared experiences that can be narrated… and to [describing] the meaning of a concept or phenomenon that several individuals share” (Marshall &

Rossman 2006, p. 104). Second, the providing of questions prior to the interview initiated a relationship of trust between researcher and

participant and created rapport prior to the interview toward “a warm and positive atmosphere or climate that reduces anxiety and defensiveness”

(McMurray, Pace & Scott 2004).

The Interview Guide was used to gather information on elements in the Conceptual Model along six stages (Pre-Start-Up, Start-Up, Growth, Maturity, Regeneration and Decline). Three system domains of interest (Business, Family, Individual) were explored within each stage. Furthermore, three processes from seminal literature (boundaries & integration; allocation & trade-offs; and evaluation & decision-making) were explored at various stages along the model.

The guide contained open-ended questions in each of the six areas, designed to support an in-depth interview strategy to “capture the deep meaning of experience in the participants’ own words” (Marshall & Rossman 2006, p. 54).

This style was used to ensure not only that information was gathered along the stages-of-business-development matrix, but that the questions elicited depth and richness in the copreneurial enterprise experience.

Pilot Testing

“Pilot interviews help in understanding oneself as a researcher” by demonstrating abilities and uncovering the strengths of the genre selected (Marshall & Rossman 2006, p. 56). After gaining university ethics approval (Approval No. 1000001) pilot testing was conducted with two couples in Australia to ensure the instrument comprehensively covered all areas of business and family issues, that questions were readily understood by respondents, and that the interview could be conducted within two hours and still gather the necessary depth of information

through questions and follow-up interaction. A modification for Country of Origin was subsequently added to the demographic questionnaire.

Interview Data Collection

All interviews were originally planned to be face-to-face and the researcher personally met nine out of ten couples in the sample at their place of business.

However, due to a required rescheduling of the U.S. interview trip, only six of 10 copreneurs were available to answer all of the interview questions in person.

Three couples were interviewed by phone after the researcher returned to Australia. One couple was split-interviewed (the female in person and the male by email). Of the three couples who were interviewed by phone, the researcher met two out of the three personally during the U.S. trip and had the opportunity to tour their businesses for approximately one hour. Phone interviews were conducted after the researcher’s return to Australia. The remaining couple (who the researcher did not meet) owned a consulting business and worked from a home office.

As previously discussed, the decision was made to interview both owners (male and female) together in a two-hour interview to allow data and opinions to be validated directly by both owners in the context of the natural setting of their relationship (Denzin & Lincoln 2011). This allowed the researcher to initially observe their interactions and/or analyze their communication patterns relative to answering the interview questions. Each owner was presented with an opportunity to respond to all questions and also to respond to their spouse’s answers. Based on reaction and body language among the face-to-face

participants, or communication style (silence, tone of voice) among the phone interviewees, partners were sometimes encouraged by the researcher to respond to their partners’ comments or to clarify meaning. This methodology is in keeping with the constructivist methodology and Habermas’ (1984) theory of communicative action, allowing participants to relate stories, interact, disagree and/or negotiate about issues ranging from family values to business performance, with the researcher as a facilitator in the communication process.

Interviews were audio-taped using a digital recorder. Participant observation was conducted during the interview with post-interview observations noted, and written and verbal observations made during the interview itself. Although the interview process did not involve clinical participant observation of the owners in the work setting, subjective observations were made and noted during the interviews, which were conducted at the owners’ place of business. These natural observations included verbal and expressive behaviors such as tone of voice or facial expressions and spatial relations between the couples (Zikmund 1991 in McMurray, Pace & Scott, 2004) and complemented the audio-taped interview responses by providing detail on nuances and meaning (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2003).

[continues on following page]

Sample Demographics

Table 9 and Table 10 summarize the business and personal demographics of the 10 couples interviewed.

Table 9: Demographics of Sample Businesses (at time of interview)

Case Business Industry

The purposive sample included two manufacturers; two restaurateurs, one retail food; one retail clothing and gifts; one health care provider; one design firm; one communications firm; and one consulting group. Two businesses were located in the East; two in the Midwest; three in the Southwest; and three in the West. The average age of the businesses was 27 years. Number of employees (owners not included) ranged from 1 to 150. Disclosed revenues (8 out of 10 disclosed) ranged from $250,000 to $9 million.

Table 10: Demographics of Sample Families (at time of interview)

Not all owners disclosed their ages. The range of ages of owners who disclosed was from 49 to 66 for females and from 50 to 73 for males. Years married ranged from 24 to 42 (all were legally married) with the average length of marriage 32 years. The partners had known each other between one to eight years prior to their marriage. All 20 owners finished high school. Four had high school diplomas; three had some college; seven held bachelors degrees; four had

earned masters degrees; one had a medical degree; and one held a medical certificate from a four-year program. Eight out of ten couples had children. Four children worked in the business (two daughters in each of two businesses).

Post-Interview Data Management

Audio files were personally transcribed (approximately 190,000 words) by the researcher after the interviews. This allowed the researcher to become more familiar with the data collected and also ensured that the tapes were transcribed accurately as the respondents spoke with American accents, often used slang language, talked quickly, interrupted each other, and sometimes answered questions simultaneously.

7.4 EXPERIENCE, ESTABLISHED KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCHER