Research quality

The research conducted for this thesis has taken different approaches to understand early development of NTBFs. The empirical studies 1 and 2 are based on qualitative research; hence, the quality can be evaluated based on criteria other than that of validity and reliability (Tracy, 2010; Bryman and Bell, 2011). For instance, this evaluation can be conducted using the concept

36

of trustworthiness, which parallel the criteria for quantitative research. For the empirical study 3, which is a survey study, the quality criteria of validity and reliability can be discussed.

3.6.1 Trustworthiness

The concept of trustworthiness has the following four criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Bryman and Bell, 2011).

The credibility criterion parallels internal validity and refers to how believable the findings are. To ensure that the research employed good practices and was controlled by respondents to reduce misinterpretations (e.g., Bryman and Bell, 2011), results from transcribed interviews were confirmed with respondents in the empirical study 1. The use of timelines and activity cards further provided an opportunity to ensure an accurate understanding of founders’ perceptions, since it provided several ways for the founders to express themselves. In the empirical study 2, discussions over time ensured that misinterpretations from previous interviews were not apparent. In addition, respondents were given opportunity to read case descriptions about their development.

The transferability criterion parallels external validity—it verified whether the findings can be applied to contexts similar to those studied (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Bryman and Bell, 2011). The applicability may have been constrained due to a limited number of firms studied in the empirical studies 1 and 2’. However, for both studies, transferability can be enhanced by detailed descriptions of the case contexts and interview proceedings (see e.g., Gibbert et al., 2008; Tracy, 2010). Moreover, the use of multiple cases (and different industries in empirical study 1) further enhanced chances of analytical generalization (Gibbert et al., 2008).

Related to reliability, dependability refers to the degree of transparency and the extent to which the study can be replicated; thus, it verifies the likely application of the findings at other times (Gibbert et al., 2008; Bryman and Bell, 2011). For the empirical studies 1 and 2, dependability was ensured by interview guide, records and transcriptions that provide detailed and rich descriptions of the studies.

Finally, confirmability criterion refers to the issue of objectivity and ensures that research findings are not influenced by researcher bias (Bryman and Bell, 2011). It is difficult to achieve complete objectivity in the case of a research based on, for example, semi-structured interviews. Nevertheless, for the empirical studies 1 and 2, confirmability was achieved through an ongoing

37

discussion with interviewees. They were allowed to examine the transcriptions to address misunderstandings and to confirm the accuracy of the research’s interpretations.

3.6.2 Validity and reliability

Validity and reliability are fundamental cornerstones of scientific method and are important to ensure the research quality. Validity concerns accuracy of measurements and sample representativeness; thus, if you actually are measuring what you want to measure (Bryman and Bell, 2011). For the empirical study 3, validity was ensured by using the expertise of a marketing research company (TNS-Sifo) to validate the questionnaire and reassessed it to ensure clarity in communication and understanding. The comprehensibility of questions was further ensured through a pre-test involving founders of NTBFs. For the data collection, validity was increased using TNS-Sifo as external service for collecting data by telephone.

Moreover, reliability is concerned with the consistency of measurements: if the findings are replicable (Bryman and Bell, 2011). For the empirical study 3, reliability was increased by using TNS-Sifo, which has experienced professional callers. They randomly select callers for calling the firms and monitor and record the interview process. The monitoring further ensures resolution of problems areas in a manuscript. Firms that did not answer were called again and the reasons behind non-participation were noted.

Since firms in the sample were founded between 2013 and 2015, independent sample T-tests were conducted to compare means between two unrelated groups on the same variable. This ensured that no significant differences existed between the firms founded in different years.

Concerning validity and reliability of questionnaires, such as the one in empirical study 3, there is a likelihood of common method variance (or bias) that may emerge when the same person answers the questionnaire (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This is the case with small firms (i.e., NTBFs), wherein one person generally serves in managerial position. In the empirical study 3, the risk of common method bias was minimized by using different sections to separate independent and dependent variables (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Moreover, by using well- established self-reported measures and pre-testing, the questionnaire helped to minimize the ambiguity of items, and thus common method bias.

3.6.3 Reflections of the research quality

Regarding the research quality of the methodological approaches adopted for the thesis, the strengths have been that the two approaches have enabled studying the early development of

38

NTBFs, and thus facilitated answers to questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ (qualitative approach) and questions on ‘how much’ or ‘to what extent’ (quantitative approach). This facilitated an in- depth examination of how the development proceeds and what and why certain resource dimensions interact or provide opportunity for the firm to develop. It also allowed generalisability of the findings about the impacts of these resource dimensions and how they affect the NTBFs and their performance.

At the same time, the use of two different methodological approaches led to complexities pertaining to, for example, results that are more generalisable than others. However, when comparing results from the quantitative survey study, the qualitative case studies provide situated knowledge, which aimed to generalise within the cases and not between cases (see e.g., Tracy, 2010). Furthermore, although the representativeness of a sample can be ensured when using a quantitative approach, it cannot be ensured in the case selection in the qualitative approach. Hence, some results from the latter studies may not be applicable to all the NTBFs in the other study. However, these results still provided explanations for how NTBFs develop in early stage.