Abstract
The objectives of the Canadian National Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics Financial support for the project came from two sources: Industry Canada, Entrepreneurship & Small Business Division, which supported the initial screening; and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada which provided funding for all phases of the ERA II, The study of Nascent and Growing Enterprises project.were three-fold:1.To determine how the economic and social context, individual and personal factors, and household features affect the emergence of individuals trying to start new firms.2.To understand the procedures and strategies involved in assembling resources to implement new firms and the subsequent effect on firm birth, survival, and growth.3.To improve the effectiveness of educational and assistance programs, enhance the impact of government policies, and contribute to the creation of a more efficient entrepreneurial engine.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Financial support for the project came from two sources: Industry Canada, Entrepreneurship & Small Business Division, which supported the initial screening; and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada which provided funding for all phases of the ERA II, The study of Nascent and Growing Enterprises project.
- 2.
This first phase of data collection has been conducted by a major Canadian polling firm, SOM (Gallup), from February 9 to March 20, 2000.
- 3.
Start-ups with a positive monthly cash flow that covered expenses and the owner-manager salaries for more than 3 months were considered infant firms and dropped from the sample at that stage.
References
Aldrich HE (2001) Who wants to be an evolutionary theorist: remarks on the occasion of the year 2000 OMT distinguished scholarly career award presentation. J Manag Inq 10(2):115–127
Aldrich H, Kallengerg A, Marsden P, Cassell J (1989) In pursuit of evidence: Sampling procedures for locating new businesses. J Bus Ventur 4(6):367–386
Birley S (1984) Finding the new firm. Acad Manag Proc 47:64–68
Birley S (1986) The role of new firms: births, deaths, and job generation. Strategic Manag J 4:361–376
Brush C, Carter N, Gatewood E, Greene P, Hart M. (2001). The Diana Project Women business owners and equity capital: The myths dispelled. Kansas City, Missouri: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, 20 pp
Bryman A (1993) Quantity and quality in social research. Routledge, London
Busenitz LW, Murphy GB (1996) New evidence in the pursuit of locating new businesses. J Bus Ventur 11(3):221–231
Bygrave WD (1993) Theory building in the entrepreneurship paradigm. J Bus Ventur 8(3):255–280
Carter NM, Gartner WB, Reynolds PD (1996) Exploring Start-up Event Sequences. J Bus Ventur 11:151–166
Carter NM, Gartner WB, Reynolds PD (2004) Firm founding. In: Gartner WB, Shaver KG, Carter NM, Reynolds PD (eds) Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: the process of business Âcreation. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 311–323
Cooper AC, Bruno AV (1977) Success among high-technology firms. Bus Horiz 20(2):16–22
Davidsson P, Wiklund J (2001) Levels of Analysis in Entrepreneurship Research: Current Research Practice and Suggestions for the Future. Entrep Theory Pract 25(4):81–99
De Clercq D, Menzies TV, Diochon M, Gasse Y (2009) Explaining nascent entrepreneurs’ goal commitment: An exploratory study. J Small Bus Entrep 22(2):123–140
Delmar F, Shane S (2004) Legitimating First: Organizing Activities and the Survival of New Ventures. J Bus Ventur 19(3):385–410
Diochon M, Menzies T, Gasse Y (2005) Exploring the relationship between start-up activities and new venture emergence: A longitudinal study of Canadian nascent entrepreneurs. Int J Manag Enterp Dev 2(3/4):408–426
Diochon M, Menzies T, Gasse Y (2007) From becoming to being: Measuring firm creation. J Enterp Cult 15(1):21–42
Dyke LS, Fischer EM, Reuber AR (1992) An inter-industry examination of the impact of owner experience on firm performance. J Small Bus Manag 30(4):72–87
Gartner WB, Shane SA (1995) Measuring entrepreneurship over time. J Bus Ventur 10(4):283–301
Gimeno J, Folta TB, Cooper AC, Woo CY (1997) Survival of the Fittest? Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 75–783
Hakim C (1994) Research design. Routledge, London
Hannan MT, Freeman JH (1989) Organizational Ecology. Harvard University Press. Cambridge MA
Herron L, Sapienza HJ (1992) The entrepreneur and the initiation of new venture launch activities. Entrep Theory Pract 17(1):49–55
Industry Canada (2003) Key small business statistics. Communications and Marketing Branch, Industry Canada, Ottawa, Canada
Kalleberg AL, Marsden PV, Aldrich HE, Cassell JW (1990) Comparing organizational sampling frames. Adm Sci Q 35(4):658–688
Kamm JB, Shuman JC (1990) Entrepreneurial teams in new venture creation: A research agenda. Entrep Theory Pract 14(4):7–17
Kuratko DF, Hornsby JS, Naffziger DW (1997) An examination of owner’s goals in sustaining entrepreneurship. J Small Bus Manag 35(1):24–33
Lee DY, Tsang EWK (2001) The effects of entrepreneurial personality, background and network activities on venture growth. J Manag Stud 38(4):583–602
Low MB, MacMillan IC (1988) Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. J Manag 14:139–162
Menzies TV, Diochon M, Gasse Y (2004) Examining venturing-related myths about women entrepreneurs with an investigation of nascent entrepreneurs. J Dev Entrep 9(2):89–107
Menzies TV, Diochon M, Gasse Y, Elgie S (2006) A longitudinal study of the characteristics, business creation process and outcome differences of Canadian female vs. male nascent entrepreneurs. Int Entrep Manag J 2:441–453
Menzies TV, Diochon M, Gasse, Y (2007) Mixed and same sex entrepreneurial founding teams: composition, characteristics, process and outcome differences. Paper presented and published in Proceedings at the ICSB World Conference, Turku, Finland, June 13–15
Minniti M, Bygrave D, Autio E (2005) Global entrepreneurship monitor. Babson College, Babson Park, MA, 67 pp
Murphy GB (2002) The effects of organizational sampling frame selection. J Bus Ventur 17(3):237–252
Pinfold JF (2001) The expectations of new business founders: The New Zealand case. J Small Bus Manag 39(3):279–285
Reynolds PD (2000) National panel study of U.S. business startups: Background and methodology. In: Katz JA (ed) Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth, vol 4. JAI Press, Stamford, pp 153–227
Ruef M, Aldrich HE, Carter NM (2003) The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. Am Sociol Rev 68:195–222
Statistics Canada (2010)
Sztompka P (1991) Society in action: the theory of social becoming. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Ucbasaran D, Lockett A, Wright M, Westhead P (2003) Entrepreneurial founder teams: Factors associated with member entry and exit. Entrep Theory Pract 28(2):107–127
Ucbasaran D, Westhead P, Wright M (2008) Opportunity identification and pursuit: Does an entrepreneur s human capital matter? Small Business Economics 30:153–173
Van de Ven AH (1992) Suggestions for studying strategy process: a research note. Strat Manag J 13:169–192
Van de Ven AH, Engleman RM (2004) Event-and outcome-driven explanations of entrepreneurship. J Bus Ventur 19:343–58
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
The relevant questions from the self-administered mail questionnaire used in measuring the use of heuristics are:
H9. Consider two types of new businesses. Assuming you are the sole owner, which situation would you prefer? (CHECK ONE BOX ONLY)
-
* 1.
ALPHA – A business that would provide a good living, but with little risk of failure, and little likelihood of making you a millionaire
-
* 2.
BETA – A business that was much more likely to make you a millionaire but had a much higher chance of going bankrupt
H10. If you could obtain more information to make a choice between businesses ALPHA and BETA, how important would each of the following be? (CIRCLE ONE FOR EACH ROW)
 | 1 = Unimportant | 2 = Somewhat important | 3 = Very important | |
(a) | The chances of going bankrupt for both ALPHA and BETA | 1 | 2 | 3 |
(b) | The exact amount of earnings if ALPHA and BETA were successful | 1 | 2 | 3 |
(c) | The time and effort required to manage ALPHA and BETA | 1 | 2 | 3 |
(d) | The experience of those managing businesses like ALPHA and BETA | 1 | 2 | 3 |
(e) | Your feelings about the type of business activity represented by ALPHA and BETA | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Diochon, M., Gasse, Y., Menzies, T. (2011). The Canadian Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics. In: Reynolds, P., Curtin, R. (eds) New Business Creation. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, vol 27. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7536-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7536-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-7535-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-7536-2
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)