No abstract

This research illustrates a pragmatic approach to evaluating the small and medium sized enterprise policy support in small or intermediate N research situations. A public interest perspective is taken. The suggested approach is most appropriate in settings where, for a variety of reasons, a study is unable to meet the requirements of a true experimental design (e.g. random assignment, establishment of counterfactuals, control groups, random samples, etc.). This approach will deliver findings on the contribution of the multiple factors influencing a result and will show whether the implicit theory of change for the policy under evaluation makes the expected contribution to the observed result and in what way. The Contribution Analysis finds that the theory of change for the policy under analysis was not verified in the study period. The outputs and outcomes of the analysis broadly support this conclusion. Moreover, the study finds that the primary limiting factor on profitable small and medium sized enterprise growth was the 'limited endowments of managerial resources' (Penrose, 1959) to manage the value-adding growth process and the lack of 'well thought out, well managed projects' (Walsh, 1985) and not lack of access to equity finance as surmised by policymakers. Whilst Ireland is used as the case example in the study, there are significant lessons for policy evaluators in other late-developing states and in regions with policy autonomy in the enterprise domain.

Start-up incubators are one of a number of micropolicy interventions used by states to support their technology entrepreneurs. Since 2000, the number of incubators in the United States has almost trebled while that in Europe has more than doubled. This article outlines the challenges involved in attempting to evaluate the contribution of the higher education technology start-up incubator process. It advocates theory-based evaluation (TBE) methodology as a possible solution for effective evaluation (and policy learning) in complex research settings such as this, where a study is unable, for myriad reasons, to meet the stringent requirements of experimental research design. TBE delivers findings on the contribution of the multiple factors influencing a result, thus showing whether the incubation process made a contribution to an observed result and in what way. An exploratory case study is used in this article to illustrate how the proposed TBE approach could work.

This paper examines the opportunities and challenges of adopting insider action research (IAR) in entrepreneurial process studies. It employs a critical reflexive and narrative approach in examining our own lived experience in a real-time digital entrepreneurial journey spanning three years while triangulating it with experiential knowledge in another role as dissertation supervisors. Our live case illustrates that IAR, when it combines reflective practice, cooperative inquiry and design science, represents a suitable but under-exploited methodology for entrepreneurship scholarship. We build on this knowledge to offer a model for incorporating this methodology in entrepreneurship research and education. Consequently, we contribute towards responding to the need for phenomenon-methodology fit in the discipline. Ultimately, the paper's value lies in its effort towards resolving the seemingly perennial question regarding the legitimacy of entrepreneurship as a distinctive domain of scholarship.

In this paper we explore how, in the digital age, the micro-level activities of digital entrepreneurs in new venture creation continue to digitally transform and disrupt economic systems at the macro-level. As digital entrepreneurship and other typologies of entrepreneurship in the digital age become increasingly fuzzy, this paper sets out to define the digital entrepreneurship domain – what it is, what is it not and why it is disruptive and distinct. By unbundling the roles of the differing digital technologies at play, we bring much needed clarity to a domain currently noted for its conceptual fuzziness. Our framework, developed from our research, gives academics and practitioners alike a clearer and more accessible way to understand the digital entrepreneurship domain.