Entrepreneurship researchers operate from various paradigms that embrace a wide range of methods from quantitative to qualitative. The studies in this special issue offer an interesting mixture of field methods. We examine the authors’ epistemological (“How do we know?”) and teleological (“Why do we know?”) choices, which affect the types of data gathered, the ways In which the data are analyzed, and the kinds of Interpretations formed about the data. By placing these studies in their methodological context, we believe the truthfulness and credibility of the conclusions drawn by the authors will be better appreciated and more fully understood.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GiddensA. (1979). Central problems in social theory.New York: The MacMillan Press, Ltd.
2.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.Berkeley: University of California Press.
3.
JacobE. (1987). Qualitative research traditions: A review.Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 1–50.
4.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
5.
SandbergW. R. (1992). Strategic management's potential contributions to a theory of entrepreneurship.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(3), 73–90.
6.
StephensonH. H., & JarilloJ. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management.Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17–27.
WolcottH. F. (1992). Posturing in qualitative inquiry. In LeCompteM. D., MillroyW. L., & PreissleJ. (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education, pp. 3–52. New York: Academic Press.
