Advertisement

Using Mixed-Methods Designs to Capture the Essence of Complexity in the Entrepreneurship Research: An Introductory Essay and a Research Agenda

  • Arash NajmaeiEmail author
Chapter
Part of the FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship book series (FGFS)

Abstract

Although entrepreneurships is recognized as a complex field, existing research does not pay enough attention to capturing the essence of its complexity. I argue that mixed methods designs offer a solid foundation for bridging this gap. To build my argument, I review the key assumptions and dimensions that make entrepreneurship a complex scientific field, discuss the structure of complexity and compare and contrast different research paradigms in terms of their ability to capture complexity. I will then show that mixed methods designs based on the pragmatic paradigm are philosophically better suited than mono-method designs to capture complex phenomena in entrepreneurship. The paper concludes with an integrative framework to guide research and practice along this direction and discusses the implications of this view for studying complexity in entrepreneurship.

Keywords

Complexity theory Mixed-methods design Pragmatism 

References

  1. Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchanan, M. (2004). Power laws and the new science of complexity management. Strategy and Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.strategy-business.com/article/04107?pg=all
  4. Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: An economic theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  5. Choi, T. Y., Dooley, K. J., & Rungtusanatham, M. (2001). Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: Control versus emergence. Journal of Operations Management, 19(3), 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole, A. H. (1946). An approach to the study of entrepreneurship: A tribute to Edwin F. Gay. The Journal of Economic History, 6(Suppl. 1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Editorial: Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2007). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Dimov, D. (2011). Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneruship: Theory and Practice, 35(1), 57–81.Google Scholar
  14. Fontana, W., & Ballati, S. (1999). Complexity. Complexity, 4(3), 14–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G., Kor, Y. Y., & Mahoney, J. T. (2008). Entrepreneurship, subjectivism, and the resource-based view: Toward a new synthesis. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1), 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11–32.Google Scholar
  17. Goldstein, J. A., Haz, J. K., & Silberstang, J. (2008). Complexity and social entrepreneurship: A fortuitous meeting. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 10(8), 9–24.Google Scholar
  18. Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and time. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  19. Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40–50.Google Scholar
  20. Israel, G. (2005). The science of complexity: Epistemological problems and perspectives. Science in Context, 18(3), 479–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacobs, D. C. (2010). Pragmatism. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 724–726). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Ketokivi, M., & Mantere, S. (2010). Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 315–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Klotz, A. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Bradley, B. H., & Busenitz, L. W. (2014). New venture teams a review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management, 40(1), 226–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar
  26. Korsgaard, S., Berglund, H., Thrane, C., & Blenker, P. (2015). A tale of two Kirzners: Time, uncertainty, and the “nature” of opportunities. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. Advance online publication. doi:  10.1111/etap.12151 Google Scholar
  27. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (1st ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Landström, H. (2007). Pioneers in entrepreneurship and small business research (International studies in entrepreneurship). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Lewis, E. (1988). Public entrepreneurship and the teleology of technology. Administration & Society, 20(1), 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lichtenstein, B. B., Carter, N. M., Dooley, K. J., & Gartner, W. B. (2007). Complexity dynamics of nascent entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 236–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin, A. C. (1998). Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative methods. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 162–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mahoney, J. T., & Qian, L. (2013). Market frictions as building blocks of an organizational economics approach to strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 34(9), 1019–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Malansona, G. P. (1999). Considering complexity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89(4), 746–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCaslin, M. L. (2008). Pragmatism. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 672–676). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. McClelland, D. C. (1965). Need for achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(4), 389–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McKelvey, B. (2004). Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 313–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mingers, J. (2006). A critique of statistical modelling in management science from a critical realist perspective: Its role within multimethodology. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(2), 202–219.Google Scholar
  40. Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organisations: The application of complexity theory to organisations. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  41. Molina-Azorín, J. F., López-Gamero, M. D., Pereira-Moliner, J., & Pertusa-Ortega, E. M. (2012). Mixed methods studies in entrepreneurship research: Applications and contributions. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24(5–6), 425–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Myers, D. G. (2000). Social psycholgoy. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  43. Neergaard, H., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2007). Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship. Cheltham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Recognizing opportunities for sustainable development. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(4), 631–652.Google Scholar
  45. Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32(2), 194–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson & Co.Google Scholar
  47. Scherer, A. G. (1998). Pluralism and incommensurability in strategic management and organization theory: A problem in search of a solution. Organization, 5(2), 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schindehutte, M., & Morris, M. H. (2009). Advancing strategic entrepreneurship research: The role of complexity science in shifting the paradigm. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33(1), 241–276.Google Scholar
  49. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of enterpreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
  52. Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., & Ireland, R. D. (2010). Research methods in entrepreneurship opportunities and challenges. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.Google Scholar
  54. Smith, A. C. T., & Humphries, C. E. (2004). Complexity theory as a practical management tool: A critical evaluation. Organization Management Journal, 1(2), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Soltow, J. H. (1968). The entrepreneur in economic history. American Economic Review, 58(2), 84–92.Google Scholar
  56. Stacey, R. D. (1995). The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 477–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2008). Quality of inferences in mixed methods research: calling for an integrative framework. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 101–120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54.Google Scholar
  59. Walby, S. (2003). Complexity theory, globalisation and diversity. Paper presented at the British Sociological Association Conference, University of York, York.Google Scholar
  60. Watkins-Mathys, L., & Lowe, S. (2005). Small business and entrepreneurship research the way through paradigm incommensurability. International Small Business Journal, 23(6), 657–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship—Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184.Google Scholar
  62. Wood, M. S., & McKelvie, A. (2015). Opportunity evaluation as future focused cognition: Identifying conceptual themes and empirical trends. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(2), 256–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Catholic University and the International College of Management Sydney (ICMS)SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations