‘Very often, the lack of transparency that is sometimes a feature of qualitative research is particularly apparent in relation to sampling’ (Bryman, 2004, p333).
The sample selection concerns who will participate in the research process. It is accepted that the sample selection can introduce significant bias into the research outcome and as such the sample selection method will be justified. Indeed, there are three different types of entrepreneurs, these are nascent, current and failed entrepreneurs. However, the majority of nascent entrepreneurs do not proceed to become entrepreneurs and failed entrepreneurs may be highly sensitive about the subject and unwilling to participate in research, subsequently this research focused solely on current entrepreneurs. It is accepted that the exclusion of nascent and failed entrepreneurs introduces a selection bias (Davidsson and Honig, 2003) and a survivorship bias into the research.
The issue of survivorship bias is an interesting point and Cassar (2004) offers an outline of what this entails. ‘Survivorship bias is the bias caused by sample firms not being
representative of the population of firms at the time of start-up. The surviving firms may have different characteristics including financing to the firms that have since “died,” that may have influenced firm survival and failure between the period of start up and the point of survey’ (Cassar, 2004, p265). As such, not all the possible entrepreneurial experiences
are considered in the research.
However, due to practical constraints such as the difficulty in identifying nascent and failed entrepreneurs and the aim to hold some variables constant the decision was taken to focus exclusively on current entrepreneurs. Furthermore, it can be argued that because these firms have survived the high small firm start-up mortality rate, this indicates that they selected a successful operational strategy and this should be researched in order to
119
learn more about how businesses survive so that other entrepreneurs can consider adopting these best practices.
Identifying current entrepreneurs willing to participate in the research was also a difficult task. Unfortunately there was no single public register of businesses in the UK (Curran and Blackburn, 2001) or a single comprehensive source of data on women’s enterprise in Scotland (Scottish Enterprise, 2005) which could be utilised as a sampling frame. Therefore the selection of the appropriate sampling frame was deliberated. A number of different choices were considered. For example, the Scottish Yellow Pages directory offered a very comprehensive listing of numerous businesses in different industry sectors and it was also geographically representative. Nonetheless not all businesses were listed and there is a particular deficit of businesses operating in the technology sector and therefore more relevant sampling frames had to be identified.
An alternative sampling frame was Scottish Enterprise’s Business Gateway service. At the time of the research Business Gateway had 41 offices across Scotland and was therefore representative geographically. It also organised networking events such as ‘Women into the Network’ that may assist in the identification of female entrepreneurs. However, Business Gateway did not have contact with all the businesses in their area and it did not engage with all entrepreneurs. For example, Fielden et al. (2006) found that due to their strict eligibility criteria retail businesses were excluded from applying for government grants. As a result, Business Gateway’s lack of contact and possible alienation of some entrepreneurs was problematic and consequently Business Gateway alone could not provide an adequate sampling frame.
The Scottish Chambers of Commerce were also considered as a possible sampling frame. Again it was geographically representative with thirty-four Chambers across Scotland. Despite this there were 270,245 private sector enterprises in Scotland (Scottish Enterprise, 2006) and only 9,000 of those are members of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. Again this organisation did not represent all of Scotland’s entrepreneurs and could not act as a stand alone sampling frame.
Evidently it would appear that no one organisation represented all the entrepreneurs in Scotland. Furthermore, the research aimed to consider female entrepreneurs in the technology sector and as discussed earlier, the lack of female entrepreneurs in this sector renders finding an adequate sample more difficult. Additionally, the focus on the
120
entrepreneurial process and the inclusion of inherently sensitive topics such as the financing of the business may render entrepreneurs reluctant to discuss their experiences. Indeed, Cassar (2004) emphasised the difficulty in accessing entrepreneurs who are willing to disclose their financial information. These problems emphasise the school of thought raised by Shane and Venkataraman (2000) that ‘Many scholars ask, either implicitly or
explicitly, why anyone should study entrepreneurship. Data are difficult to obtain, theory is underdeveloped’ (p219).
Furthermore, the research methodology required that the entrepreneurs agree to a face to face interview which is a time consuming request. This was problematic as entrepreneurs are notoriously time poor (Loscocco et al., 1991; Walker and Webster, 2007). In fact, Curran and Blackburn’s (2001) quote was particularly pertinent for the researcher who found support for their assertion that ‘Undoubtedly, one of the most difficult problems in
small business research is accessing small businesses’ (p59).
Therefore in order to learn about the entrepreneurs’ experiences, the selection of the participants was done by purposeful sampling. Patton (1990) describes the rationale underpinning purposeful sampling, arguing that by selecting information rich cases for study, a great deal can be learnt about the important issues. Hence purposeful sampling was utilised to select entrepreneurs who could contribute to the research and offer insight into the entrepreneurial process in Scotland.
Quota sampling was also invoked, to ensure that there were sufficient numbers of male and female entrepreneurs included in the sample to allow the comparison of the two groups and to also allow the comparison of the two industry sectors. Ensuring that the quota for female entrepreneurs in the technology sector was reached was particularly difficult due to the limited number of female entrepreneurs in this sector.
In the attempt to secure a suitable sample to participate in the research, the researcher utilised a wide range of organisations and methods to identify and contact suitable entrepreneurs. The strategy adopted was one of persistence and continued monitoring of the business press. In practice, some of the organisations and strategies proved more beneficial for identifying participants than others. For example, the researcher made extensive and prolonged use of desk based research which included numerous internet and newspaper searches. The business sections of local and national Scottish newspapers were
121
scoured to identify suitable entrepreneurs who matched the criteria and when identified, letters were sent requesting their participation.
Continued internet searches were undertaken and sources such as all the Scottish Science Parks and the businesses in listed in them were examined to identify female entrepreneurs, as were the websites of universities across Scotland to find details of university spin-outs led by women. Scottish Enterprise Awards, Talent Scotland Companies, Chamber of Commerce members lists, the Entrepreneurial Exchange members list, Connect on the Net members list, SMART Awards and general business awards were examined to identify participants. When a possible participant was identified the researcher wrote to the respondent to request their participation and followed up with telephone calls. However, securing participants remained a major challenge in the research.
Networking was also undertaken by the researcher to help publicise the research. Events attended included Aberdeen Entrepreneurs, Connect on the Net and the Grampian Life Sciences Forum. Networking organisations were also requested to contact their members to ask for participants. Both Business Network Scotland and the Royal Society of Edinburgh Enterprise Fellowship Scheme contacted their members to request their participation. However, there was a low response rate, for example of the eight of Enterprise Fellows contacted on the researcher’s behalf, only one agreed to participate in the research. Credo, the commercialisation department of the Robert Gordon University, also sent out a request for participants in the research on the researcher’s behalf and the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce featured an article about the research in their newsletter.
In a limited number of cases participants were secured by snowball sampling. Snowball sampling occurs when the researcher contacts one group of people who then help the researcher to establish contact with other people (Bryman, 2004). In this instance, snowball sampling was utilised to a limited extent when one participant would refer another. In addition the four entrepreneurs who participated in the pilot study were also identified by a range of means; two volunteered due to the Business Network Scotland email request sent on the researcher’s behalf and the researcher met two of the participants at networking events. The source of the thirty-two participants in the final sample is illustrated in Figure 5.2 overleaf:
122 Figure 5.2 The Source of the Final Sample
Source of Sample Frame Royal Society of Edinburgh: Credo: Business Network Scotland: Scottish Enterprise Grampian: Referrals Networking Events: Internet Search and Contact: Chamber of Commerce: 1 1 1 1 Male Technology Female Technology Male Business Services Female Business Services
2 6 4 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 Key 1
The four pilot interviews were conducted between February and May 2007 and the thirty- two main interviews were subsequently undertaken between May 2007 and May 2008. In the main research, sixteen entrepreneurs from the business services sector and sixteen entrepreneurs from the technology sector were interviewed thus within each sector eight male entrepreneurs and eight female entrepreneurs were interviewed.
Two additional interviews were also undertaken, but unfortunately upon interview it was found that these entrepreneurs did not fit the criteria, one being part of a spouse owned business and one being in a different sector, thus these interviews were not included in the final sample.
The intensive campaign to encourage entrepreneurs to participate in the research continued for over one year until thirty-two interviews had been secured. Given that the research was qualitative in nature and exploratory in purpose and the face to face interview process yielded a significant amount of data for the researcher to analyse, thirty-two interviews produced ample data for the study. Support for the number of interviews conducted is offered by Ghauri and Gronhaug (2002) who state that ‘low numbers are also justified
123
possible in cases of numerous observations’ (p88). In fact, it is the quality and richness of
the material which is more important than the number of respondents (Stevenson, 1990). This is because the key aim of a phenomenological study is ‘to describe the meanings of a
small number of individuals who have experienced the phenomenon’ (Creswell, 1998,
p122).
Furthermore, in a similar study of female entrepreneurs leading academic spin out companies, Rosa and Dawson (2006) stated that it is unlikely that large numbers could ever be reached in this type of study and called for further exploratory studies in this area. Thus the comparative rareness of female entrepreneurs in the technology sector in Scotland also denotes smaller sample sizes.