Are We There Yet?

Abstract

Research design is a central element of empirical research, and thus, an important consideration for entrepreneurship researchers and anyone interested in entrepreneurship-related research findings. Yet, many years have past since the last thorough review of research design and construct measurement practices. Thus, it is unknown whether there is a gap between what is currently being done versus what needs to be done. In this article, authors use a two-study approach involving a content analysis of published empirical research and a survey of experts within the field to assess the current state of practices. Their findings indicate that, in general, research design and construct measurement practices continue to improve; however, there are some issues that still need to be resolved. Authors lay out key implications and provide several suggestions to help resolve these issues.

Utilisation and prevalence of mixed methods research in library and information research in South Africa 2002-2008

“…Content analysis was used to identify the distribution of research strategies and techniques reported in the selected journals. Content analysis has been utilised to determine the extent to which scholars used mixed methods research (Bryman 2005;Crook et al, 2009;Greene, Caracelli & Graham 1989;Leech & Onwuegbuzie 2009). Content analysis was also used by Hider and Pymm (2008) and Järvelin and Vakkari (1990) to investigate the research methods reported in LIS journal literature.…”

“…The current research could have benefited from a mixed methods research approach as the one used by (Crook et al, 2009). Interviews of purposively selected participants might have helped the study to determine the reasons why LIS researchers in South Africa did not widely utilise MMR.…”

Public Innovation Capacity: Developing and Testing a Self-Assessment Survey Instrument

“…To develop a reliable and valid instrument, well-known quality controls for the development of a measurement instrument, as described by DeVellis (2003), were applied (for similar approaches, see Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003;Crook, Shook, Morris, & Madden, 2010; for other applications of DeVellis' method, see Govindarajan & Kopalle, 2006;Tummers, 2012). We determined what we wanted to measure on the basis of the literature on (public) innovation, generated an item pool and determined the format for measurement.…”

The Pitfalls in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research: A Holistic View

“…Unreliable measures often result conflicting findings across comparable studies because of measurement errors (Boyd et al, 2005), which may hinder the smooth advancement of knowledge. Crook et al (2010) find that though the results are satisfactory regarding internal reliability, very few of the entrepreneurship studies reported regarding inter-respondent reliability. Their results also show that number of studies depending solely on secondary data is increasing compared to those depending on primary data and on triangulation of both.…”