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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Armstrong, J.S., & Overton, T.S. ( 1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396-402.
2.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120. Boyd, B. K., Gove, S., & Hitt, M. A. (2005a). Construct measurement in strategic management research: Illusion or reality? Strategic Management Journal, 36, 239-257.
3.
Boyd, B.K., Gove, S., & Hitt, M.A. ( 2005b). Consequences of measurement problems in strategic management research: The case of Ahimud and Lev. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 367-375.
4.
Busenitz, L.W., West, G.P. III, Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G.N., & Zacharakis, A. (2003). Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions. Journal of Management, 29, 285-308.
5.
Chandler, G.N., & Lyon, D.W. ( 2001). Issues of research design and construct measurement in entrepreneurship research: The past decade. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 101-113.
Dean, M.A., Shook, C.L., & Payne, G.T. ( 2007). The past, present, and future of entrepreneurship research: Data analytic trends and training. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 601-618.
8.
Holden, R.R., & Jackson, D.N. ( 1979). Item subtlety and face validity in personality assessment . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 459-468.
9.
Ireland, R.D., Reutzel, C.R., & Webb, J.W. ( 2005). Entrepreneurship research in AMJ: What has been published, and what might the future hold? Academy of Management Journal , 48, 556-564.
10.
Ireland, R.D., Webb, J.W., & Coombs, J.E. ( 2005). Theory and methodology in entrepreneurship research. In D. J. Ketchen, & D. D. Bergh (Eds.). Research methodology in strategy and management (Vol. II, pp. 111-141). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
11.
Jick, T. ( 1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.
12.
Kerlinger, F.N., & Lee, H.B. ( 2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
13.
Kuhn, T. ( 1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Loevinger, J. ( 1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory . Psychological Reports, 3, 635-694.
15.
Low, M.B. ( 2001). The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: Specification of purpose. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 17-25.
16.
Messick, S. ( 1988). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.). Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
17.
Nunnally, J. ( 1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
18.
Rouse, M., & Daellenbach, U. (1999). Rethinking research methods for the resource-based perspective: Isolating the sources of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 487-494.
19.
Schriesheim, C.A., Cogliser, C.C., Scandura, T.A., Lankau, M.J., & Powers, K.J. ( 1999). An empirical comparison of approaches for quantitatively assessing the content adequacy of paper-and-pencil measurement instruments . Organizational Research Methods, 2, 140-156.
20.
Schwab, D. ( 1999). Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 26, 13-17.
22.
Short, J., Ketchen, D.J. Jr., Palmer, T., & Hult, G.T. ( 2007). Firm, strategic group, and industry influences on performance . Strategic Management Journal, 28, 147-167.
23.
Stone-Romero, E., Weaver, A., & Glenar, J. ( 1995). Trends in research design and data analytic strategies in organizational research. Journal of Management, 21, 141-157.
24.
Summer, C.E., Bettis, R.A., Duhaime, I.H., Grant, J.H., Hambrick, D.C., & Snow, C.C., et al. (1990). Doctoral education in the field of business policy and strategy. Journal of Management, 16, 361-398.
