Population and Sampling Frame

“The concept of a population is crucial, because the population defines the set of entities from which the research sample is to be drawn” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 537). Sampling of case studies is not similar to traditional statistical sampling such as random selection in quantitative research sampling methods. The purpose of sampling in case study research is to replicate or extend the theory, so random sampling is not necessary (Eisenhardt, 1989).

The selection of suitable cases was done in two phases, where the first phase was the identification of fast-growth entrepreneurial firms and related trends in a 3-year period from 2010 to 2012, based on the Deloitte Fast 50 companies database, and the second phase was an in-depth exploration of suitable cases to start the data collection phase.

Data for this research was collected via semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurs of fast-growth firms and all data was triangulated using other written reports, documents, websites, and other types of information related to the research (Jick, 1979). As Bryman (1988) argues, unstructured interviews where the researcher has minimal interference provide considerable latitude for a participant, making this a favourable technique in data collection. Moreover, for case study research, researchers usually use semi-structured interview protocols (Riege, 2003), which give flexibility to the researcher to draw rich data from the interview. An interview protocol is a directive manuscript for data gathering and analysis (M. Hunter, 2012). It provides convergence in a series of interviews, which is helpful in keeping all interviews along similar lines.

Following Chetty et al.(2013), we developed a cross-country research design and the data collection process took place in two different countries. Firstly, we intended to examine our

87

framework in an international environment to explore whether these concepts differ between a western and an eastern setting. New Zealand and Iran were selected to represent these

perspectives. Second, we opted for two countries in different economic environments (see Appendix 3). According to the World Bank survey on entrepreneurship (The World Bank Group Entrepreneurship Snapshots, 2010), the index of “Entry Density” (i.e. the number of newly registered firms among 1000 working-age populations) for New Zealand is 17.08, while Iran’s index is less than 1. New Zealand’s total score in economic freedom is 82/100 and Iran’s is 42.3/100 (Miller, Holmes, & Feulner, 2012). This suggests two different business cultures and economic environments: one being developed, the other being a developing country.

Additionally, there has been no previous fast-growth research comparing New Zealand and Iran and this offers a rare opportunity to gain insights about fast-growth firms in these two countries.

The main issues in cross-country studies are cost, time, methodological changes, and different cultures and languages (Easterby-Smith & Malina, 1999; Teagarden et al., 1995). Thus, the main challenges of this study were culture and language. Chetty et al. (2013) have provided some useful guidelines to overcome challenges in cross-country studies. They suggest that the researcher is allowed to make minor adoptions to ensure that they can overcome these barriers. They also consider “cross-country differences as creating opportunities to explore the unknown, instead of using rigour to stifle creativity and new insights” (p. 8). Therefore, being aware of these differences, we avoided challenges that might lead to questioning the reliability and validity of this research, which will be explained in the data collection section.

Finding confirmatory evidence of fast-growth firms in New Zealand and Iran was the first phase of the study. Before selecting multiple cases from both countries, it was necessary to

88

identify firms that had specific characteristics that made them appropriate for this study. Given that growth can be viewed in a multitude of ways, our focus on revenue growth and doubling turnover during a 4-year period was considered as our index for fast-growth firms (Littunen & Niittykangas, 2010). Therefore, for the New Zealand participants, fast-growth firms were selected from the Deloitte Fast 50 reports, which are published annually in 150 countries, including New Zealand, during a three-year period (2010 - 2012). The index of fast 50 in New Zealand is based on the operating revenue of the firms, which is related to the core business. All businesses with an operating revenue of NZ$ 300,000 or more are eligible to be on the list ("Deloitte Fast 50 Entry Criteria," 2014; Deloitte Fast 50: The art of growth, 2010). Over the three-year period, the population comprised high-growth firms from throughout New Zealand (N=150). Potential cases were selected from Christchurch and Auckland, being the biggest business centres in the south and north islands, as well as from the capital, Wellington. From these three cities, 109 businesses were then identified. It is essential to mention that about 15% of the population were duplicated in two or several years in the lists of fast-growth firms, and another 15% were big companies such as banks, insurance companies, telecommunications companies, multinational corporations, and others, where ownership and decision-making processes were not entirely easily known. We excluded these companies to meet the definition of “entrepreneurial firm” (Das & He, 2006; Glancey, 1998; Larson, 1992). We were not able to find adequate information about companies that were sold, merged with other companies, relocated, or no longer operating (especially in Christchurch after some devastating earthquakes). Thus, potential cases were decreased to73 remaining firms. Table 4.1 shows the potential cases in New Zealand in the three major cities.

89

Table 4.1. Suitable cases in NZ

City Suitable population

Auckland 42

Christchurch 14

Wellington 17

Total 73

There is no equivalent database to the Deloitte Fast 50 in Iran. Following the effectuative research method (Chetty et al., 2013), which includes using all resources available to the

researcher, we then sought the assistance of a consulting institute through our networks

(Easterby-Smith& Malina, 1999) to obtain a list of fast-growth Iranian (IR) firms. In two major business cities, Tehran and Tabriz, 15 fast-growth firms were identified. Both New Zealand and Iranian fast-growth firms were from various sectors, all were private companies, established and owned by the founding entrepreneur. Distribution of the sample size in Iran is shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. Suitable cases in IR

City Suitable population

Tehran 12

Tabriz 3

Total 15