Abstract
How can we develop more solid knowledge about entrepreneurship? Like in other fields of research, the truth is that we never know the truth, but that we can arrive at increasingly accurate approximation of it. In this collective quest of knowledge development, statistical significance testing is a sadly overused tool, while replication of prior research is a better but sadly underused tool. After reiterating the limitations and frequent misuse of significance testing, this chapter illustrates how we can make progress by replicating others (traditional replication studies), each other (harmonized research collaboration), and ourselves (using multiple samples or sub-samples; robustness testing). The chapter ends on a high note with observation of several signs that our research culture may finally be about to start embracing the importance of replication and reproducibility.
“All studies have limits. It is only in their combination that evidence reveals itself”
(Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 , p. 50)
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It’s ‘Strailian, mate! And for you Aussies: yes, with both an “e” and an “h.” Stop whingeing about my spelling…
- 2.
I assume here that you apply a one-tailed test, i.e., that you halve the “associated probability” (p-value) typically reported by your statistics package. Reporting one-tailed tests for directional hypotheses is not a “dubious practice” as some geniuses out there would have it—it is a logical and linguistic necessity if you want “5 % level of risk” to mean “5 % risk of reporting a false positive result.”
- 3.
It almost brings me to tears that otherwise smart and knowledgeable PhD students never find the right answer to this problem when I pose it to them. As the problem is formulated, the only insight you really need is that if you repeatedly draw random samples from a population with effect size x, half of the samples are going to show an effect larger than x, whereas the other half will yield estimates smaller than x. Sampling variation in the variance of variables may mean that this example’s assumed 1:1 relationship between effect size and significance does not hold to the full, but these deviations would cancel out for a fifty-fifty end result.
- 4.
In the next paragraph (also p. 198), the authors offer the following, peculiar analysis “As indirect indicators of substantive and external validity, we coded the number of independent-to-dependent variables in each study that were statistically related (…) the ratios of statistically related to unrelated variables for the periods were 0.87 and 1.05, a significant increase over time (p < 0.01).” Again, the increase over time is a fact about the studied population of articles or the result of some measurement error about which the statistical test is silent. More importantly, I am mystified as to how this trend is supposed to reflect improvements in “substantive and external validity.” Assuming that by “statistically related” they mean that the relationships “achieve statistical significance,” the effect probably reflects an increase in average sample size, which likely indicates an improvement in research quality. However, the effect probably also reflects that authors and/or editors are becoming less prone to submit and accept for publication, respectively, papers with (many) nonsupported hypotheses. If so, this indicates increased confirmation bias. While such bias is a pervasive human trait, it is certainly not an indicator of research quality (Davidsson & Wahlund, 1992; Fanelli, 2010).
- 5.
Some colleagues would refer to “a hypothetical population” and/or “safeguarding against the influence of some unknown stochastic process” (as the culprit behind the observed difference/effect) to justify statistical testing. I have occasionally done so myself, but I think we are just kidding ourselves when we try such defenses. For lack of better alternatives, we continue to fantasize that significance testing is that strong, truth-telling tool that we need, but which simply does not exist.
- 6.
Note that absence of a meaningfully strong effect can also be theoretically and practically important, but then of course it is the small magnitude of the effect that should be highlighted in the reporting of results. You might argue that for some type of variables (operationalizations) it is very hard to say what size an effect needs to be in order to be meaningful. This is true, because we cannot measure everything in easily interpretable units like numbers of dollars or people. But shouldn’t you then apply the same logic to the cutoff for what is to be regarded “significant”? In a regression context, the magnitude of unique contribution to R 2 can always be used. Further, you can find ways to give more meaning to results referring to an arbitrary scale. For example, in Davidsson (1995c) I explain: “For example, for ‘Need for Autonomy’ the difference is 0.38 [p = 0.02] on a scale with possible values from 4 to 16. All that is needed to obtain such a difference is for 20 of the respondents in Region A [i.e., about 10 % of them] to choose a response alternative one step further towards the ‘entrepreneurial’ end of the scale on each of the four items in the index than do a set of 20 respondents from Region B, while the average for ‘all others’ in the two regions is identical.” This portrayal of a “significant” difference is quite far removed from conveying the image that “in Region A people in general hold more entrepreneurial attitudes than do people in Region B.”
- 7.
Of course, there is a previous round of considering how “our study” relates to “the world…” at the design stage, in setting up our experiment, selecting our cases or interviewees, defining a sampling frame and drawing a sample from it, and in operationalizing theoretical constructs.
- 8.
If the research is experimental, statistical significance has a role here: is there considerable risk that the results within our sample are due to an unfortunate distribution of participants to experimental conditions so that the supportive results may be spurious? I find the use of statistical testing in an experimental context relatively unproblematic. It is fairly clear what you are going to test before you analyze the data; there is typically no large pool of correlations to potentially over exploit, and there is (I sincerely hope) no fantasizing that “significant” means “true” for an outside population—it merely means the results are unlikely to be wholly attributable to preexisting differences among your experiment participants. But as pointed out by Simmons et al. (2011), there is quite a bit of fishing potential in the experimental pond as well.
- 9.
Don’t even try! When I vented my views on statistical significance on Facebook, a colleague–friend replied “This is one of the best justifications I have known to undertake qualitative research. Thanks Per.” To which I replied, “Sorry NN (…) The problem with statistical significance (as applied) is a within-paradigm problem. You certainly do not gain any credibility for external validity claims by reducing, per se, the number of cases studied (…) Qualitative (small n) research has its roles, but securing external validity is not one of its strong points.”
- 10.
Sic! It should be “taxonomy.”
- 11.
Like I said in a dissertation footnote: “Typologies [sic; see the above note!] arriving at 2–11 groups, on the basis of different approaches and with more or less of systematic empirical backing, may be found in: [nine references]. Conclusion: adding another one would be superfluous” (Davidsson, 1989a, p. 158). However, see Woo, Cooper, and Dunkelberg (1991)—a paper which made the popularity of entrepreneurial taxonomies and typologies plummet—for evidence of instability of Smith’s types.
- 12.
We also stubbornly (valiantly?) refused to report significance tests for analyses of our population data: “It should be noted that the study covers the whole population of establishments and regions. Statistical significance thus is a non-issue and such tests are therefore not reported” (Davidsson et al., 1994, p. 397). This collaborative effort provides a good example of how stupid it would be to use statistical significance to assess the observed effects. The US study (Reynolds, 1994) included 15 times as many regions (380-ish) as did the Irish study (23-ish), meaning that if exactly the same coefficients were obtained for the two countries, they would likely be judged “significant” for the US but not for Ireland. Time to turn the brain back on; the comparison is between empirical facts for two different countries, not statistically uncertain estimates.
- 13.
Honig and Samuelsson (2014) is an extended reanalysis rather than a replication on new data.
- 14.
For ease of communication, the numbering of experiments and hypotheses as well as the exact wording of the hypotheses have been adapted for this example but stay true to the essence of the underlying research.
- 15.
One examiner suggested the analyses should be broken down by the sex of the participants. Seems a reasonable suggestion….
- 16.
Actually, adding a separate second sample is even better, because then neither the data source nor the process of developing the model are subject to stochastic idiosyncrasies that are capitalized on in model fitting. In addition, a trusted colleague questions the logic of tryout/holdout altogether on the grounds that if split randomly, the only source of difference in results is stochastic variation. I would counterargue that the strategy mitigates the tendency to step-by-step make adaptation that capitalize on stochastic relationships in the data, but agree that a separate, second sample that did not affect model development is even better.
- 17.
In addition, they do all they can to reduce experimental research’s eternal problem of questionable external validity by using samples of real entrepreneurs as well as real technologies and real market needs in the experimental design. It’s an awesome piece of entrepreneurship research.
- 18.
Special thanks to A. A. Aarts; some name-changing ancestor; Brian Nosek, and the Science editors for giving me the chance to put this important work as the very first entry in this book’s rather long list of references!
References
Aarts, A. A. et al. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251) (28 August 2015). Doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716. (270 co-authors under B. Nosek’s leadership).
Ács, Z. J., & Armington, C. (2006). Entrepreneurship, geography, and American economic growth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Álvarez, C., Urbano, D., & Amorós, J. E. (2014). GEM research: Achievements and challenges. Small Business Economics, 42(3), 445–465.
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.
Armstrong, J. S. (1970). How to avoid exploratory research. Journal of Advertising Research, 10(4), 27–30.
Audretsch, D. B., Dohse, D., & Niebuhr, A. (2010). Cultural diversity and entrepreneurship: A regional analysis for Germany. The Annals of Regional Science, 45(1), 55–85.
Audretsch, D. B., & Fritsch, M. (1994). The geography of firm births in Germany. Regional Studies, 28(4), 359–365.
Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. (2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta‐analytic review. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217–254.
Boschma, R. A., & Fritsch, M. (2009). Creative class and regional growth: Empirical evidence from seven European countries. Economic Geography, 85(4), 391–423.
Bosma, N., & Schutjens, V. (2011). Understanding regional variation in entrepreneurial activity and entrepreneurial attitude in Europe. The Annals of Regional Science, 47(3), 711–742.
Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 222–230.
Brinckmann, J., Grichnik, D., & Kapsa, D. (2010). Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business planning-performance relationship in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 24–40.
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.
Carver, R. P. (1978). The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Educational Review, 48(3), 378–399.
Chan, Y. E., Bhargava, N., & Street, C. T. (2006). Having arrived: The homogeneity of high growth small firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(3), 426–440.
Coad, A., Frankish, J. S., Roberts, R. G., & Storey, D. J. (2015). Are firm growth paths random? A reply to “Firm growth and the illusion of randomness”. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 1(3), 5–8.
Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 47(12), 997–1003.
Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, F. J., & Woo, C. Y. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 371–395.
Crawford, G. C., McKelvey, B., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2014). The empirical reality of entrepreneurship: How power law distributed outcomes call for new theory and method. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 1, 3–7.
Crook, T. R., Shook, C. L., Morris, M. L., & Madden, T. M. (2010). Are we there yet? An assessment of research design and construct measurement practices in entrepreneurship research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 192.
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.
Davidsson, P. (1988). Type of man and type of company revisited: A confirmatory cluster analysis approach. In B. Kirchhoff, W. Long, W. McMullan, K. Vesper, & W. Wetzel (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 1988 (pp. 88–105). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Davidsson, P. (1989a). Continued entrepreneurship and small firm growth. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.
Davidsson, P. (1989b). Entrepreneurship—and after? A study of growth willingness in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(3), 211–226.
Davidsson, P. (1995b). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions working paper 1995:1. Jönköping: Jönköping International Business School. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2076/1/RENT_IX.pdf.
Davidsson, P. (1995c). Kultur och Entreprenörskap - en uppföljning (Culture and Entrepreneurship - A Follow-up). Örebro: Stiftelsen Forum för Småföretagsforskning.
Davidsson, P. (2015). Data replication and extension: A commentary. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 3, 12–15.
Davidsson, P., Delmar, F., & Wiklund, J. (2002). Entrepreneurship as growth; growth as entrepreneurship. In M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 328–342). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell & Mott, Ltd.
Davidsson, P., Lindmark, L., & Olofsson, C. (1994). New firm formation and regional development in Sweden. Regional Studies, 28, 395–410.
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.
Davidsson, P., & Wahlund, R. (1992). A note on the failure to use negative information. Journal of Economic Psychology, 13, 343–353.
Delmar, F. (1996). Entrepreneurial behavior and business performance. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.
Delmar, F. (2015). A response to Honig and Samuelsson (2014). Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 3, 1–4.
Derbyshire, J., & Garnsey, E. (2014). Firm growth and the illusion of randomness. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 1, 8–11.
Edwards, J. R., & Berry, J. W. (2010). The presence of something or the absence of nothing: Increasing theoretical precision in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 668.
Evanschitzky, H., Baumgarth, C., Hubbard, R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2007). Replication research’s disturbing trend. Journal of Business Research, 60(4), 411–415.
Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PloS One, 5(4), doi: 10210.11371/journal.pone.0010271.
Fauchart, E., & Gruber, M. (2011). Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 935–957.
Frank, H., Kessler, A., & Fink, M. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: A replication study. Schmalenbach Business Review, 62, 175–198.
Frese, M., Rousseau, D. M., & Wiklund, J. (2014). The emergence of evidence‐based entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(2), 209–216.
Fritsch, M., & Storey, D. J. (2014). Entrepreneurship in a regional context: Historical roots, recent developments and future challenges. Regional Studies, 48(6), 939–954.
Garofoli, F. (1994). New firm formation and regional development: The Italian case. Regional Studies, 28(4), 381–393.
George, G. (2014). Rethinking management scholarship. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 1–6.
Grégoire, D. A., & Shepherd, D. A. (2012). Technology-market combinations and the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities: An investigation of the opportunity-individual nexus. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 753–785.
Guesnier, B. (1994). Regional variations in new firm formation in France. Regional Studies, 28(4), 347–358.
Hart, M., & Gudgin, G. (1994). Spatial variations in new firm formation in the republic of Ireland, 1980–90. Regional Studies, 28(4), 367–380.
Holcomb, T. R., Combs, J. G., Sirmon, D. G., & Sexton, J. (2010). Modeling levels and time in entrepreneurship research an illustration with growth strategies and post-IPO performance. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 348–389.
Honig, B., & Samuelsson, M. (2014). Data replication and extension: A study of business planning and venture-level performance. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 1, 18–25.
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.
Hubbard, R., & Lindsay, R. M. (2013b). The significant difference paradigm promotes bad science. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1393–1397.
Hubbard, R., Vetter, D. E., & Little, E. L. (1998). Replication in strategic management: Scientific testing for validity, generalizability, and usefulness. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 243–254.
Hunter, E. J. (2009). Celebrity entrepreneurship and celebrity endorsement. Doctoral dissertation, Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping, Sweden.
Hunter, E. J., Burgers, J. H., & Davidsson, P. (2009). In G. T. Lumpkin & J. Katz (Eds.), Celebrity capital as a strategic asset: Implications for new venture strategies (Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth, Vol. 1, pp. 137–160). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Hunter, E. J., & Davidsson, P. (2007). Celebrity entrepreneurship: Communication effectiveness through perceived involvement. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 5(4), 505–527.
Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408.
Johnson, A. R., van de Schoot, R., Delmar, F., & Crano, W. D. (2014). Social influence interpretation of interpersonal processes and team performance over time using Bayesian model selection. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206314539351.
Keeble, D., & Walker, S. (1994). New firms, small firms and dead firms: Spatial patterns and determinants in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 28(4), 411–442.
Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 746–759.
Landis, R. S., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2013). Our scholarly practices are derailing our progress: The importance of “nothing” in the organizational sciences. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(3), 299–302.
Leahey, E. (2005). Alphas and asterisks: The development of statistical significance testing standards in sociology. Social Forces, 84(1), 1–24.
Liero, H., & Zwanzig, S. (2013). Introduction to the theory of statistical inference. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 211–224.
Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2010). How new market categories emerge: Temporal dynamics of legitimacy, identity, and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(3), 439–471.
Oakes, M. (1986). Statistical inference: A commentary for the social and behavioural sciences. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
O’Boyle, E. H., Banks, G. C., & Gonzalez-Mulé, E. (2014). The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206314527133.
O’Boyle, E. H., Rutherford, M. W., & Banks, G. C. (2014). Publication bias in entrepreneurship research: An examination of dominant relations to performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(6), 773–784.
Obschonka, M., Andersson, H., Silbereisen, R. K., & Sverke, M. (2013). Rule-breaking, crime, and entrepreneurship: A replication and extension study with 37-year longitudinal data. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 386–396.
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.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52.
Plummer, L. A. (2010). Spatial dependence in entrepreneurship research challenges and methods. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 146–175.
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.
Reynolds, P. D. (1994). Autonomous firm dynamics and economic growth in the United States 1986–1990. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 429–442.
Reynolds, P. D., Storey, D. J., & Westhead, P. (1994). Cross-national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates. Regional Studies, 28(4), 443–456.
Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 441–457.
Rosenbusch, N., Rauch, A., & Bausch, A. (2013). The mediating role of Entrepreneurial Orientation in the task environment–performance relationship: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 39(3), 633–659.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638.
Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 475–515.
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.
Shaver, J. P. (1993). What statistical significance testing is, and what it is not. Journal of Experimental Educational Research, 61(4), 293–316.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.
Smith, N. R. (1967). The entrepreneur and his firm: The relationship between type of man and type of company. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Stevenson, H. H. (1984). A perspective of entrepreneurship. In H. H. Stevenson, M. J. Roberts, & H. Grousebeck (Eds.), New business venture and the entrepreneur. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Stevenson, H. H., & Gumpert, D. E. (1991). The heart of entrepreneurship. In W. A. Sahlman & H. H. Stevenson (Eds.), The entrepreneurial venture (pp. 71–80). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17–27.
Trafimow, D., & Marks, M. (2015). Editorial. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(1), 1–2.
Unger, J. M., Rauch, A., Frese, M., & Rosenbusch, N. (2009). Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 341–358.
van Burg, E., & Romme, A. G. L. (2014). Creating the future together: Toward a framework for research synthesis in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38, 369–397.
Weismeier-Sammer, D. (2011). Entrepreneurial behavior in family firms: A replication study. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2(3), 128–138.
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184.
Wiklund, J. (1998). Small firm growth and performance: Entrepreneurship and beyond. Doctoral dissertation, Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping.
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.
Zahra, S. A. (2007). Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(3), 443–452.
Zahra, S. A., & Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship’s next act. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(4), 67–83.
Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259.
Zolin, R., Stuetzer, M., & Watson, J. (2013). Challenging the female underperformance hypothesis. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 116–129.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Davidsson, P. (2016). The Power of Replication. In: Researching Entrepreneurship. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, vol 33. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26692-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26692-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26691-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26692-3
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)