Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sampling and Case Selection Issues

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Researching Entrepreneurship

Part of the book series: International Studies in Entrepreneurship ((ISEN,volume 33))

  • 2721 Accesses

Abstract

Who and what should we study in entrepreneurship research? What type of entities, how many, and which particular ones should we study in order to effectively answer our entrepreneurship-related research questions? Starting from the axiom that social science is not like opinion polling, this chapter provides a somewhat unorthodox view on sampling and case selection which focuses on the theoretical relevance of the selected entities. Specific sampling challenges are discussed for entrepreneurship research focusing on the individual, venture, firm, industry, and spatial (region/country) levels of analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, a “control group” subsample was drawn from the non-eligible cases, and “tiebreaker” mechanisms were employed for the situation where a respondent was involved in more than one nascent and/or young firm or ended up in an otherwise never-ending loop.

  2. 2.

    I can tell those who believe they collect mail/email/online survey data from CEOs of large firms that probably they do not. Long before I became a researcher, I learnt from my father who really filled out the questionnaires addressed to the CEO. At the time he had an idiosyncratic position as speechwriter and expert on business cycles as well as communist block barter trade—and questionnaire filler—for the CEO of a multinational (Sandvik AB). Yes, I sometimes trust samples of one!

  3. 3.

    Luckily, during my student days many years ago, I had worked one summer for one of these guys who had been sampled half a dozen times, when he was setting the foundations for his hotel empire to be. He remembered my name when he got the cover letter and therefore generously shared his time when he was later contacted by an interviewer. There are many odd ways to minimize nonresponse! However, we were sensible enough not to have him go through the same questions six times.

  4. 4.

    However, Chap. 8 will establish that I remain firmly unconvinced that “objective opportunity” is an empirical entity we should try to sample and study.

References

  • Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez, C., Urbano, D., & Amorós, J. E. (2014). GEM research: Achievements and challenges. Small Business Economics, 42(3), 445–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2004). Organizing rent generation and appropriation: Toward a theory of the entrepreneurial firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(5), 621–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amaral, A. M., Baptista, R., & Lima, F. (2011). Serial entrepreneurship: Impact of human capital on time to re-entry. Small Business Economics, 37(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amorós, J. E., Bosma, N., & Levie, J. (2013). Ten years of global entrepreneurship monitor: Accomplishments and prospects. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 5(2), 120–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, R. M., & Shepherd, D. A. (2015). Pull the plug or take the plunge: Multiple opportunities and the speed of venturing decisions in the Australian mining industry. Paper accepted for publication in Academy of Management Journal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 587–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, H., & Stephan, U. (2013). Moving on from nascent entrepreneurship: Measuring cross-national differences in the transition to new business ownership. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 945–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 222–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (1999). Industry clusters in Ohio and in Sweden. Small Business Economics, 1(4), 279–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunerhjelm, P., Carlsson, B., Cetindamar, D., & Johansson, D. (2000). The old and the new: The evolution of polymer and biomedical clusters in Ohio and Sweden. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(5), 471–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T., Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). An operationalization of Stevenson’s conceptualization of entrepreneurship as opportunity-based firm behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 22(10), 953–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, C. G., Manolova, T. S., & Edelman, L. F. (2008). Separated by a common language? Entrepreneurship research across the Atlantic. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 32(2), 249–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, B. A. (2005). Using linked employer-employee data to study entrepreneurship issues (Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, pp. 143–166). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, G. N., & Lyon, D. W. (2001). Methodological issues in entrepreneurship research: The past decade. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25(4), 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cliff, J. E., Jennings, D. P., & Greenwood, R. (2006). New to the game and questioning the rules: The experiences and beliefs of founders who start imitative versus innovative firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 633–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4, 386–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 47(12), 997–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, K., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge vs. opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5), 477–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L. (1983). Organization theory and design. New York, NY: West Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretations systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlqvist, J. (2007). Assessing new economic activity: Process and performance in new ventures. Doctoral dissertation, Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlqvist, J., Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2000). Initial conditions as predictors of new venture performance: A replication and extension of the Cooper et al. study. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 1(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlqvist, J., & Wiklund, J. (2012). Measuring the market newness of new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2), 185–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (1989a). Continued entrepreneurship and small firm growth. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (1989b). Entrepreneurship—and after? A study of growth willingness in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(3), 211–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (1991). Continued entrepreneurship: Ability, need, and opportunity as determinants of small firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(6), 405–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (1992). Entrepreneurship and small business research: How do we get further? (BA-publications No. 126). Umeå: Umeå Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (1993). Kultur och entreprenörskap - om orsaker till regional variation i nyföretagande (Culture and Entrepreneurship - On the Determinants of Regional Variation in New Firm Formation). Stockholm: NUTEK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (1995a). Culture, structure and regional levels of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 7, 41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (1995b). Kultur och Entreprenörskap - en uppföljning (Culture and Entrepreneurship - A Follow-up). Örebro: Stiftelsen Forum för Småföretagsforskning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (2006). Method challenges and opportunities in the psychological study of entrepreneurship. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese, & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 287–323). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (2014). Getting published—and cited—in entrepreneurship: Reflections on ten papers. In A. Fayolle & M. Wright (Eds.), How to get published in the best entrepreneurship journals. A guide to steer your academic career. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., & Delmar, F. (2003). Hunting for new employment: The role of high-growth firms. In D. Kirby & A. Watson (Eds.), Small firms and economic development in developed and transition economies: A reader (pp. 7–20). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., & Gordon, S. R. (2012). Panel studies of new venture creation: A methods-focused review and suggestions for future research. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 853–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., & Klofsten, M. (2003). The business platform: Developing an instrument to gauge and assist the development of young firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., Lindmark, L., & Olofsson, C. (1994a). Dynamiken i svenskt näringsliv (Business Dynamics in Sweden). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., Lindmark, L., & Olofsson, C. (1994b). New firm formation and regional development in Sweden. Regional Studies, 28, 395–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., Lindmark, L., & Olofsson, C. (1996). Näringslivsdynamik under 90-talet (Business Dynamics in the 90s). Stockholm: Nutek.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., Lindmark, L., & Olofsson, C. (1998). The extent of overestimation of small firm job creation: An empirical examination of the ‘regression bias’. Small Business Economics, 10, 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., & Reynolds, P. D. (2009). PSED II and the Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence [CAUSEE]. In P. D. Reynolds & R. T. Curtin (Eds.), New firm creation in the United States: Preliminary explorations with the PSED II data set. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., & Steffens, P. (2011). Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE): Project presentation and early results. In P. D. Reynolds & R. T. Curtin (Eds.), Business creation panel studies: An international overview. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., Steffens, P., & Fitzsimmons, J. (2009). Growing profitable or growing from profits: Putting the horse in front of the cart? Journal of Business Venturing, 24(4), 388–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., Steffens, P., & Gordon, S. R. (2011). Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE): Design, data collection and sample description. I. In K. Hindle & K. Klyver (Eds.), Handbook of new venture creation research. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (1997). Values, beliefs and regional variations in new firm formation rates. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 179–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25(4), 81–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F. (2015). A response to Honig and Samuelsson (2014). Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 3, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., & Davidsson, P. (2000). Where do they come from? Prevalence and characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., & Davidsson, P. (2006). High-growth firms and their contribution to employment: The case of Sweden 1987-96. In P. Davidsson, F. Delmar, & J. Wiklund (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and the growth of firms (pp. 158–178). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., Davidsson, P., & Gartner, W. B. (2003). Arriving at the high-growth firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 189–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., & Shane, S. A. (2004). Legitimating first: Organizing activities and the survival of new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 385–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., & Shane, S. A. (2006). Does experience matter? The effect of founding team experience on the survival and sales of newly founded ventures. Strategic Organization, 4(3), 215–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeTienne, D. R., Shepherd, D. A., & De Castro, J. O. (2008). The fallacy of “only the strong survive”: The effects of extrinsic motivation on the persistence decisions for under-performing firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(5), 528–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2010). An update to the individual-opportunity nexus. In Z. Ács & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (2nd ed., pp. 47–76). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2013). Response to the commentaries: The individual-opportunity (IO) nexus integrates objective and subjective aspects of entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 160–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J. (1993). Theories of the firm: Contractual and competence perspectives. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 3, 127–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. (2012). Organizing entrepreneurial judgment: A new approach to the firm. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fridh, A. C. (2002). Dynamics and growth: The health care industry. Doctoral dissertation, The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatewood, R. D., Shaver, K. G., & Gartner, W. B. (1995). A longitudinal study of cognitive factors influencing start-up behaviors and success at new venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 371–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, S. R., & Davidsson, P. (2013) Capturing gazelles: Features of high potential firms and new venture growth. Business creation in Australia, 06. Queensland University of Technology Business School, Brisbane, QLD. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/62936/

  • Gratzer, K. (1996). Småföretagandets villkor. Automatrestauranger under 1900-talet (Conditions for Small Firms. Automated Restaurants During the Twentieth Century). Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist & Wicksell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gratzer, K. (1999). The making of a new industry – the introduction of fast food in Sweden. In B. Johannisson & H. Landström (Eds.), Images of Entrepreneurship Research -- Emergent Swedish Contributions to Academic Research (pp. 82–114). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, V. (2004). Entrepreneurial decision-making. Doctoral dissertation, Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrekson, M., & Johansson, D. (2008). Gazelles as job creators: A survey and interpretation of the evidence. Small Business Economics, 1, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, R., & Lindsay, R. M. (2013a). From significant difference to significant sameness: Proposing a paradigm shift in business research. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1377–1388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, R., & Lindsay, R. M. (2013b). The significant difference paradigm promotes bad science. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1393–1397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 429–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, A., & Frank, H. (2009). Nascent entrepreneurship in a longitudinal perspective: The impact of person, environment, resources and the founding process on the decision to start business activities. International Small Business Journal, 27(6), 720–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, J., Welsch, H., & Tan, W. L. (2005). Venture gestation paths of nascent entrepreneurs: Exploring the temporal patterns. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 16(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, R. (1991). The secret of the miracle economy. Different national attitudes to competitiveness and money. London: The Social Affairs Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481–1512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, D. C. (1972). A life cycle theory of the firm. Journal of Industrial Economics, 20(3), 199–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naldi, L., & Davidsson, P. (2014). Entrepreneurial growth: The role of international knowledge acquisition as moderated by firm age. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 697–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NUTEK. (2002). Företagens villkor och verklighet 2002. Dokumentation och svarsöversikt (Conditions and reality of small firms 2002. Documentation and overview of responses). Stockholm: NUTEK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, M. (1986). Statistical inference: A commentary for the social and behavioural sciences. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obschonka, M., Stuetzer, M., Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., Lamb, M. E., Potter, J., et al. (2015). Entrepreneurial regions: do macro-psychological cultural characteristics of regions help solve the “knowledge paradox” of economics? PloS One, 10(6), e0129332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P. C., & Thatcher, S. M. (2014). Sticking it out: Individual attributes and persistence in self-employment. Journal of Management, 40(7), 1932–1979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. London, UK: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P. D. (2007). New firm creation in the United States: A PSED I overview. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 1–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P. D. (2009). Screening item effects in estimating the prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P. D., Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., & Greene, P. G. (2004). The prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs in the United States: Evidence from the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics. Small Business Economics, 23(4), 263–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P. D., & Curtin, R. T. (2008). Business creation in the United States: Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics II initial assessment. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 4(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P. D., & Maki, W. R. (1990). Business volatility and economic growth. Final report. Washington, DC: Small Business Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P. D., & Miller, B. (1992). New firm gestation: Conception, birth and implications for research. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(5), 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P. D., Miller, B., & Maki, W. R. (1993). Regional characteristics affecting business volatility in the United States, 1980–94. In C. Karlsson, B. Johannisson, & D. Storey (Eds.), Small business dynamics. International, national and regional perspectives (pp. 78–114). London, UK: Routledge Peterson & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of organizational founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 195–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakhdari, K., Burgers, H., & Davidsson, P. (2014). Capable but not able: The effect of institutional context and search breadth on the absorptive capacity-corporate entrepreneurship relationship. In P. Davidsson (Ed.), Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship research exchange conference 2014 proceedings (pp. 954–974). Sydney, NSW: Queensland University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelsson, M., & Davidsson, P. (2009). Does venture opportunity variation matter? Investigating systematic process differences between innovative and imitative new ventures. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 229–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008). Effectuation: Elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scheinberg, S., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). An 11 country study of motivations to start a business. In B. A. Kirchhoff, W. A. Long, W. E. McMullan, K. H. Vesper, & W. E. Wetzel (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 1988 (pp. 669–687). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoonhoven, C. B., Burton, M. D., & Reynolds, P. D. (2009). Reconceiving the gestation window: The consequences of competing definitions of firm conception and birth. In P. D. Reynolds & R. T. Curtin (Eds.), New firm creation in the United States (pp. 219–237). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, UK: MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, A., Abrahamson, E., Starbuck, W. H., & Fidler, F. (2011). Researchers should make thoughtful assessments instead of null-hypothesis significance tests. Organization Science, 22(4), 1105–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senyard, J., Baker, T., Steffens, P., & Davidsson, P. (2014). Bricolage as a path to innovativeness for resource‐constrained new firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 211–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seth, A., & Thomas, H. (1994). Theories of the firm: Implications for strategy research. Journal of Management Studies, 3, 165–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. A. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. A. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR Decade Award: Delivering on the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. A., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, K. G. (2010). The social psychology of entrepreneurial behavior. In Z. Ács & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction (pp. 359–386). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, K. G., Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., & Reynolds, P. D. (2001). Who is a nascent entrepreneur? Decision rules for identifying and selecting entrepreneurs in the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics (PSED) [summary]. In W. D. Bygrave, E. Autio, C. G. Brush, P. Davidsson, P. G. Green, P. D. Reynolds, & H. J. Sapienza (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2001 (p. 122). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shugan, S. M. (2007). Errors in the variables, unobserved heterogeneity, and other ways of hiding statistical error. Marketing Science, 25(3), 203–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, J. B. (2007). Bureaucracy and entrepreneurship: Workplace effects on entrepreneurial entry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 387–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffens, P. R. (2013). Culture as a driver of entrepreneurship: Contrasting independent entrepreneurship versus employee entrepreneurship. Paper presented at the ACERE Conference, Brisbane, Feb 5–8. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/59472/.

  • Steffens, P. R., Davidsson, P., & Fitzsimmons, J. (2009). Performance configurations over time: Implications for growth‐and profit‐oriented strategies. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33(1), 125–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffens, P. R., Terjesen, S., & Davidsson, P. (2012). Birds of a feather get lost together: New venture team composition and performance. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 727–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffens, P. R., Tonelli, M., & Davidsson, P. (2011) How do we reach them? Comparing random samples from mobile and landline phones. In Proceedings of AGSE Entrepreneurship Research Exchange 2011, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuetzer, M. Obschonka, M., Audretsch, D.B., Wyrwich, M., Rentfrow, P.J., Coombes, M., Shaw-Taylor, L & Satchell, M. (2015). Industry structure, entrepreneurship, and culture: An empirical analysis using historical coalfields. European Economic Review (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2006). Habitual entrepreneurs. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Uy, M. A., Foo, M. D., & Aguinis, H. (2010). Using experience sampling methodology to advance entrepreneurship theory and research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., DeTienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. S. (2010). Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial exit: Divergent exit routes and their drivers. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(4), 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1995). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 171–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigren, C. (2003). The spirit of Gnosjö. The grand narrative and beyond. Doctoral dissertation, Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., & Delmar, F. (2003). What do they think and feel about growth? An expectancy-value approach to small business managers’ attitudes towards growth. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 27(3), 247–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2008). Portfolio entrepreneurship: Habitual and novice founders, new entry, and mode of organizing. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 32(4), 701–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1999). Strategy research: Governance and competence perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1087–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, T., & Aldrich, H. E. (2012). Out of sight but not out of mind: Why failure to account for left truncation biases research on failure rates. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(4), 477–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander, I. (2007). Do you see what I mean? An entrepreneurship perspective on the nature and boundaries of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1141–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Per Davidsson

  2. Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping, Sweden

    Per Davidsson

Authors
  1. Per Davidsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Davidsson, P. (2016). Sampling and Case Selection Issues. In: Researching Entrepreneurship. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, vol 33. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26692-3_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation