Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Complexity in Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Technology Research

Part of the book series: FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship ((FGFS))

  • 1694 Accesses

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.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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.

    I thank an anonymous reviewer for this point.

  2. 2.

    Interest in studying systems is not new. The holism-reductionism view emerged after WWII which was then completed by Cybernetics and the general system theory (GST). Cybernetics is the study of closed linear feedback loops between a system and the environment [see for example Ashby, R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London, United Kingdom: Chapman and Hall] and general system theory is a more complete theory of general systems such as open, close, simple and relatively complex systems in which the linearity assumption between feedback loops and the environments is relaxed [see for example von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system Theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York, NY: George Braziller]. Ecology theory also addresses the conflict between holism and reductionism by looking at hierarchies in systems but is limited only to middle-number systems those in which component are too many to represent individually and too few to capture statistically in causal models [see Malansona, G. P. (1999). Considering complexity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89(4), 746–753]. So complexity theory represents the most appropriate lens to look at complex systems. Another interesting point is the main difference between normal science (Descartesean scientific method), complexity theory and chaos theory. Normal science explains how complex effects can be understood from simple laws by breaking systems into components and examines them independently using competing theories and add them together in linear fashions to get to the system behavior. Chaos theory, however, stresses the importance of nonlinear relationships and explains how simple laws can have complicated, unpredictable and radically big consequences for the system and the environment. Finally, Complexity theory also subscribes to the nonlinearity of cause and affects and describes how complex causes can produce simple effects.

  3. 3.

    I thank an anonymous reviewer for this point.

  4. 4.

    Design paradigm is also used in the design of mixed methods research but it is not a philosophical paradigm. Other philosophical paradigms that enable mixed methods research include emancipatory paradigm and critical realism [see Venkatesh, Brown, and Bala (2013), for a review]. We focus on pragmatism because it has been argued to be the dominant and main paradigm for mixed methods research (Creswell, 2007).

  5. 5.

    I thank an anonymous reviewer for this point.

  6. 6.

    I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting to add this section.

References

  • Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: An economic theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2008). Editorial: Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Dimov, D. (2011). Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneruship: Theory and Practice, 35(1), 57–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, W., & Ballati, S. (1999). Complexity. Complexity, 4(3), 14–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and time. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israel, G. (2005). The science of complexity: Epistemological problems and perspectives. Science in Context, 18(3), 479–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ketokivi, M., & Mantere, S. (2010). Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 315–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York, NY: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (1st ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landström, H. (2007). Pioneers in entrepreneurship and small business research (International studies in entrepreneurship). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, E. (1988). Public entrepreneurship and the teleology of technology. Administration & Society, 20(1), 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, A. C. (1998). Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative methods. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 162–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malansona, G. P. (1999). Considering complexity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89(4), 746–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • McClelland, D. C. (1965). Need for achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(4), 389–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, B. (2004). Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 313–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organisations: The application of complexity theory to organisations. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. G. (2000). Social psycholgoy. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neergaard, H., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2007). Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship. Cheltham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Recognizing opportunities for sustainable development. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(4), 631–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32(2), 194–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soltow, J. H. (1968). The entrepreneur in economic history. American Economic Review, 58(2), 84–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. D. (1995). The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 477–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Walby, S. (2003). Complexity theory, globalisation and diversity. Paper presented at the British Sociological Association Conference, University of York, York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins-Mathys, L., & Lowe, S. (2005). Small business and entrepreneurship research the way through paradigm incommensurability. International Small Business Journal, 23(6), 657–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship—Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Arash Najmaei

Authors
  1. Arash Najmaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arash Najmaei .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany

    Elisabeth S.C. Berger

  2. Inst Marketing & Management, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Andreas Kuckertz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Najmaei, A. (2016). Using Mixed-Methods Designs to Capture the Essence of Complexity in the Entrepreneurship Research: An Introductory Essay and a Research Agenda. In: Berger, E., Kuckertz, A. (eds) Complexity in Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Technology Research. FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27108-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation