Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & ResearchDeveloping qualitative research streams relating to illegal rural enterprise:Reflections on researching qualitatively at the margins of entrepreneurshipresearchRobert Smith Gerard McElwee
Article information:To cite this document:Robert Smith Gerard McElwee , (2015),"Developing qualitative research streams relating to illegalrural enterprise", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 21 Iss 3 pp. 364 -388Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-01-2014-0019
Downloaded on: 06 May 2015, At: 10:00 (PT)References: this document contains references to 67 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Seonaidh McDonald, Bee Ching Gan, Simon S Fraser, Adekunle Oke, Alistair R. Anderson, (2015),"Areview of research methods in entrepreneurship 1985-2013", International Journal of EntrepreneurialBehaviour & Research, Vol. 21 Iss 3 pp. 291-315 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2014-0021
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided byToken:JournalAuthor:DD304046-87B6-4174-8D55-1F1E26F215BC:
For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emeraldfor Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submissionguidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, aswell as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources andservices.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative fordigital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time ofdownload.
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
Developing qualitative researchstreams relating to illegal
rural enterpriseReflections on researching qualitatively at the
margins of entrepreneurship researchRobert Smith
Aberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK, andGerard McElwee
Management Department, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK
AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this reflective paper is to discuss and reflect and in the process celebratethe development of a qualitative research stream which continues to interrogate the unusual topic ofillegal rural enterprise. The authors discuss how a common interest in rural entrepreneurship and ruralcriminology led to a very productive and continuing research collaborations.Design/methodology/approach – To discuss, reflect and evaluate several qualitativemethodologies arising out of a research stream into illegal rural enterprise.Findings – The findings are tentative and subjective in nature but the authors strongly believe thatwriting qualitatively over a number of related topics and over several published articles legitimises theuse of niche qualitative research methods and methodologies. Ultimately it will help develop robustmethodologies. The authors agree that just as there is no single, universally applicable theorisation ofentrepreneurial behaviours, actions and antics there is no single qualitative methodology that providesconstant explanations.Research limitations/implications – This reflective paper being a subjective and emotiverhetorical piece has obvious limitations in that the advice proffered may be strongly disputed byresearch managers and heads of department trying to build an orthodox research output. Also theunderstanding of qualitative research may differ from that of other scholars. This is surely cause forcelebration! This will help the authors better understand the heterogeneity of entrepreneurship.Practical implications – By discussing and celebrating a qualitatively driven research streamrather than discussing individual qualitative publications in isolation this reflection makes acontribution. The professional and institutional pressures to conform to productive mainstreamresearch topics capable of publication in top tier journals poses a danger to the practice of conductingqualitative research which exist at the margins of individual disciplines. It is hoped that this discussionwill act as an inspirational beacon to others to pursue research agendas for which they have a passion.Originality/value – This reflective piece identifies and discusses an under researched area ofentrepreneurship research namely how to craft and develop a unified qualitative research stream at themargins of entrepreneurship research.Keywords Qualitative research, Rural entrepreneurship, Illegal entrepreneurshipPaper type Viewpoint
1. IntroductionWriting qualitatively, is a deeply personal act of writing, and indeed authorship, but itis only one small part of Qualitative Inquiry (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003) and qualitativeresearch practice as we know it. However, writing qualitatively is only part of thequalitative research process. Producing a stream of qualitative scholarship necessitatesplanning and designing a qualitatively grounded research strategy (King et al., 1994;
International Journal ofEntrepreneurial Behavior &ResearchVol. 21 No. 3, 2015pp. 364-388©EmeraldGroup Publishing Limited1355-2554DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-01-2014-0019
Received 27 January 2014Revised 17 October 2014Accepted 26 October 2014
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2554.htm
364
IJEBR21,3
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
Silverman, 2006; Flick, 2006, 2007) and related publication strategy (Wager, 2010).Indeed, Flick (2008) talks passionately to us about putting “quality” into “qualitative”research. But how do we assess the quality of our research outputs, both singularly (anindividual article), and collectively (as a research stream) in relation to rigour andtrustworthiness (Krefting, 1991) not to mention impact? As scholars, we tend toconcentrate on technical aspects of the process such as the “qualitative interview”(Kvale, 1996) and of the “doing” of the research (Angrosino, 2007) instead of the overallstructure of the research plan. We often stumble from paper to paper, improvisingstrategy as we proceed. As qualitatively orientated entrepreneurship scholars we wereboth raised on the writings of Wolcott (1990) and his excellent advice on writingqualitatively – particularly his timeless gem that not all qualitative studies should bepublished. Yet the world itself and the qualitative research landscape have moved onconsiderably since then and we have the internet and the options that it opens up fornew forms of publication, dissemination and reaching new audiences via blogs andforums, etc. We take Wolcott’s advice seriously particularly in relation to the settings,logistics and mechanics of writing qualitatively. We have dedicated writing spaces andblock of time to write and write well.
When we as entrepreneurship scholars consider the paucity of qualitative researchin many entrepreneurship publication outlets we often concentrate upon highlightingthe contribution of individual publications and fixate on the impact of the final craftedpiece (Smith et al., 2013: early view). Moreover, when we read a good qualitative articlein an entrepreneurship-related publication outlet we often celebrate and rejoice in itsform, style and substance and ask ourselves why we did not have the foresight andauthorial ability to write an article like that for publication. We acknowledge that evenqualitative articles are socially constructed and result from a constant iterativeauthorial process between authors, reviewers, editors and the disciplines of the authors.Indeed, in reading and citing a good qualitative article we are in fact celebrating itsauthorship. Yet the practice of qualitative research transcends individual publicationsand for active researchers such as we, it becomes an embedded process – part ofour daily lives and academic output as active bricoleur researchers (Denzin andLincoln, 2003).
We, therefore, consider it appropriate that the call for papers for this special editionrevolves around the act of celebrating qualitative research because a common dictionarydefinition of the word “celebrate” is – “to take part in, special, enjoyable activities in orderto show that a particular occasion is important”. In our case we are celebrating a streamof “Real World Research” (Robson, 2002) research that we have been engaged upon forwhat amounts now to almost a decade of hard work[1]. We came to our joint interest inillegal rural enterprise through different pathways[2]. The purpose of this researchstream has been an attempt to explain and thus legitimise a rich vein of qualitativeresearch work that lies at the margins of entrepreneurship and criminological researchnamely at the nexus or chiasma between rural entrepreneurship and crime. For us,qualitative research methods and approaches lend themselves to streams of researchwhere one study builds upon the previous and the next article and the next. Whilstwe concur with Wolcott (1990) that not all qualitative work should be publishedwe argue that qualitative work can be disseminated to a wider audience through aninter-disciplinary research and publishing strategy.
We consider ourselves first and foremost entrepreneurship and small businessresearchers. This is important because disciplinary identity is important in establishingone’s reputation and credentials in any discipline. Entrepreneurship and small-firm
365
Developingqualitativeresearchstreams
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
research has been dominated by functionalist, ideologically driven perspective(Blackburn and Brush, 2008; Leitch et al., 2009) and whilst we agree with the editorsthat over the last decade entrepreneurship and small firm research has become apopular field of inquiry with a growing research community (Welter, 2011; Wiklundet al., 2011) engaged in conducting qualitative entrepreneurial research we argue thatthis has not percolated its way into the niche area of illegal rural enterprise or of ruralenterprise crime whose target audience and scholars are a mix of criminology andpolicing scholars (Smith and McElwee, 2013a, b). Nevertheless, illegal enterprise hasa deeply social nature to it and occurs in the same domain as rural entrepreneurshipand small business. Yet the entrepreneurship and small business literature largelyremains silent about such issues because it is a hidden milieu it is seldom exposed tothe research spotlight. In this essay, we analyse our research stream from a morecritical perspective using a variety of qualitative methodologies including retrospectiveethnography (Watson, 2012), case study methodology (Yin, 2010) and finallydocumentary research methodology (Scott, 1990, 2006)[3]. Moreover, we discuss theontological and epistemological development of these methodological tools as we seekto answer one of the research questions set by the editors:
RQ1. What can qualitative methods offer to us as researchers operating at themargins of entrepreneurship research?
Consequentially, we reflect upon the methodological and problems with interviewingdifficult to access respondents and how we built a publication strategy to target ourinterdisciplinary audience. We reflect upon conceptual and empirical challenges, whichillustrate the messy, heterogeneous and problematic nature of novel qualitative researchinto illegal entrepreneurship. In our multi-disciplinary studies we have had to adopt andadapt various qualitative approaches including interpretivism, constructionist ideologies,retrospective ethnography and documentary research to name but a few. We explore aninteresting subject matter and presents original material.
2. On method, methodology and reflecting on theseIn this section we discuss the development of our collective methodological frameworkand use (or misuse) of method. We reflect on its continuous development. This isnecessary because when embarking on a research stream one can appreciate that onesresearch strategy and the methodologies underpinning it may be partially flawedbecause they do not always incorporate a robust methodological framework. Whilst wehad an overarching research design or notion of how/what we did we had not drawnout the design and tested it. In our research output our methodology sections are oftenour weakest point in respect of issues attendant upon its use, analysis andgeneralisations. Our research always makes sense to us but perhaps not so to others.We have learned to be more precise, more reflexive and more articulate. We now takemore care in documenting the actual dynamics of the research process and equallyimportantly, take greater care in the elaboration of the theoretical insights derived fromour experience. Developing robust research and methodological frameworks areimportant. Indeed one blinded reviewer of this paper remarked – “There is a markedabsence of a theoretical research framework suggesting no robust foundation forresearch referred to. There are limited details of any original research aim or plan, andno hint of a research design”. We were reminded that “a holistic-inductive designallows the researcher to be open to whatever emerges from the data” (Patton, 1982;Dana and Dana, 2005).
366
IJEBR21,3
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
In reviewing our methodological framework we take greater care to provide asynopsis of the advantages or drawbacks of the quantitative or qualitativemethodologies we refer to herein. Whilst taking into account the negative historicalissues associated with qualitative methodologies we can only allude to in the paper(i.e. evidence of rich, “thick descriptions”; Geertz, 1975) in the data gathered we can onlyprovide a holistic framework relating to the particular qualitative approaches weemployed. We hope that this will be enough to validate this type of research. To assistreaders we have employed “step-by-step” diagrams to guide readers through thecontinually developing research process. One reviewer of an early draft of this paperreported on an apparent “[…] absence of any process with ad-hoc meetings and fateapparently providing solutions for a way forward, rather than basing future researchor methodologies on the outcomes of research undertaken”. Whilst we acknowledgethat we do at times appear to adopt a Laissez-faire approach to methodology wenevertheless have method in mind. In this section we discuss necessary tweaks,adaptations or changes in methodology as an outcome of the learning process. Wediscuss specific methodological lessons learned or issues uncovered that made us asresearchers dramatically change methodological direction for future research. Thisadds useful insights.
2.1 An overview of the theoretical literatureThe purpose of this very brief section is to orientate readers to the diverse literatures ofentrepreneurship, criminology, sociology, rurality and sub-disciplines within them,such as rural entrepreneurship, rural sociology and rural criminal sociology we workwith in this particular research stream. In our work we transcend our disciplinarycomfort zones and cross many theoretical literatures. We have to develop a theoreticalframework which moves seamlessly into a methodological framework and justification.We seek to segue these into entrepreneurship theories. As a result much of ourliterature is non-entrepreneurship based which causes problems for reviewers[4].
2.2 Sources of information and developing intelligence product into research outputAs researchers we rely on our sources of information which we refer to as respondents.Police officers also rely on their confidential sources which they classify as informants.From an intelligence, and policing, perspective gathering useable intelligence andturning it into empirical evidence is the very basis of its practice. Reliable sources ofinformation are thus as important to academic researchers as they are to operationalpolice officers and intelligence analysts. As some of the knowledge which initiatedand drove this research stream emanates from the sphere of police intelligence and theformer career of the lead author Robert Smith it is incumbent upon us as researchersto acknowledge this fact and to explain how we acted ethically in integrating thisgrounding into our methodological framework. The eminent criminologist Hazel Croallrefers to developing “Sources of information” in relation to her groundbreakingcriminological research into ordinary “white-collar criminality” (Croall, 2001). Croallwas a pioneer of research into ordinary white-collar crimes committed by smallbusinessmen, rogue tradesmen and shopkeepers and found that it was difficult to gainaccess to respondents. Croall thus developed a pipeline model of writing herpublications by reporting on documented cases from court records or the press.She thus used worked examples as micro-case studies to inform and support herdiscussions and developing theories. The sources of information device was usedin lieu of a conventional methodology section and served her extremely well as
367
Developingqualitativeresearchstreams
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
a writing artifice. Tessa Muncey (2010) also acknowledges that as researchers we areoften unable to properly acknowledge the sources of information we use in ouracademic research endeavours for a variety of reasons. Muncey provides a classicexample of how some of the cases in her early publications were actually self-evidenced, auto-ethnographic writings. However, she candidly acknowledges that shecould not declare this at a time when auto-ethnography was not an acceptedmethodology in many respected journals. Muncey thus wrote them up as anonymisedcases and is certain that editors were complicit in this fabrication. And so it was in thecase of the first publication in this stream (see Smith, 2004 – E1) although at the timethis was not realised.
For a police or intelligence officer being able to grade the veracity and utility of apiece of intelligence or information is vital. Intelligence may be a deliberate falsificationof fact told for an ulterior purpose, it could be criminal propaganda, or it may be wellintentioned but misguided information. Thus information may be true or falsedepending on whether one witnessed the events oneself and how one has interpretedthe events. Information remains potential intelligence until it is assessed, authenticatedand turned into empirical evidence as a formal written statement at which point itbecomes evidence. In policing and intelligence circles, officers have a moral and oftenlegal duty to protect their sources and are normally prepared to lose a case in courtrather than identify their sources. Many academics have similar research codes. As apolice officer, the author Robert Smith was very familiar with the standard police5× 5× 5 intelligence grading system. See the government HMRC web site for fulldetails[5]. It allows intelligence to be correctly evaluated where the original source is notmade known to the recipient. The model grades the source of the intelligence by fiveletters, A-E and evaluates the information as a score of 1-5 and on the same basisindicates who has access to the information. The list below illustrates how the gridworks and how one grades the veracity of intelligence received. For operationalpurposes the source and intelligence valuation predominate because the handlingcode is for administrative dissemination purposes. A1 is thus the best grading as thesource is always reliable and known to be true without reservation. Interestingly,in investigative methodology, a theory has a lesser standing than an empiricallyproven fact. The National Intelligence Model 5× 5× 5 Grid are as follows.
Source evaluation:• A – Always reliable.• B – Mostly reliable.• C – Sometimes reliable.• D – Unreliable.• E – Untested source.
Intelligence evaluation:• 1 – Known to be true without reservation.• 2 – Known personally to source but not to officer.• 3 – Not personally known to source but corroborated.• 4 – Cannot be judged.• 5 – Suspected to be false or malicious.
368
IJEBR21,3
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
Source handling code:• 1 – May be disseminated to other law enforcement and prosecuting agencies,
including law enforcement agencies within the EEA, and EU compatible (nospecial conditions).
• 2 – May be disseminated to UK non-prosecuting parties (authorisation andrecords needed).
• 3 – May be disseminated to non-EEA law enforcement agencies (specialconditions apply).
• 4 – May be disseminated within the originating agency only.• 5 – No further dissemination: refer to the originator. Special handling
requirements imposed by the officer who authorised collection.
For research purposes the model has some veracity too if adapted as follows. The5× 5× 3 Intelligence model adapted for academic research are as follows.
Source/evaluation:• A – Direct observation (personal or eye-witness testimony) thus very reliable.• B – Information noted during interview which is reliable unless suspected
otherwise.• C – Information gleaned from newspaper article and is thus reliable if verifiable.• D – Information from reputable web site and thus reliable if verifiable.• E – Information from non official web site or blog (treat as unreliable).
Intelligence evaluation of text:• 1 – Known to be true without reservation.• 2 – Known personally to source but not known personally to researcher.• 3 – Not personally known to source but corroborated by information already
recorded.• 4 – Not known personally to source and cannot be corroborated and thus cannot
be judged.• 5 – Suspected to be false or malicious.
Handling code (to be completed at time of entry by researcher):• 1 – Can be disseminated to other researchers as it is in public domain.• 2 – Can be disseminated to other researchers but with the safeguard of
anonymity.• 3 – Cannot be disseminated to other researchers as it is sensitive information.
The importance of first list above and of the adaption in the second list above is thatwhen one is talking about events from a former career one automatically gradesinformation according to its level of trustworthiness. Thus when narrating information,or adapting it from first-hand accounts, one can usually safely assume that it is basedupon sound empirical evidence and when interviewing other professional investigatorstheir knowledge base will be built up on a similar basis. Thus when asking questions
369
Developingqualitativeresearchstreams
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
one assumes that one is the recipient of empirically informed information and not somemere flight of fancy. The informant may not be free to reveal everything but what theydo tell you is usually capable of independent verification[6].
2.3 The published output and developing research outputThe purpose of this section is to present the research output discussed in relation to thedeveloping research and publication strategy (strategies). It is also a deliberatestructure or artifice to separate the authorial output from the reference list withoutcreating a separate bibliography. This was necessary because otherwise the resultantoffering when published would read as if it were a self-serving, self-referential writing.Indeed one reviewer remarked – “[…]. the overuse of auto-referencing (a staggeringtwo/thirds of the references relate to publications of the writer/s own work, specificallyin relation to this project […] suggests a niche mindset with limited openness toappropriate references in the wider literature, particularly within the fields ofentrepreneurship and qualitative methodologies”. To overcome this we created Table I(published output, strategies and impact) to position our work as data, not referencedoutput. In the table the full reference is provided but each output has been assignedan artificial exhibit number such as E1, E2, etc., to allow individual items to beeasily identified and discussed in the analysis and separate articles linked together insub-streams.
Having presented the output and began the discussion we now move on to anextended discussion, dialogue and debate proper. What the dialogue in the tabledemonstrates is that individually the papers and outputs make an impact butcollectively when read as a research stream they tell us so much more and are in effecta quantitatively verifiable research narrative as opposed to being “QuantitativeNarrative Research” (Franzosi, 2010). The output collectively quantifies and legitimisesthe research effort expended.
We have come to the conclusion that designing, developing and drafting a soundresearch strategy is necessary in “streamed” research to help us all make morejudicious use of the research material, time and experiential knowledge we possess asindividuals and research teams. Without conducting an in-depth review of the specificmethodologies such as, for example ethnography, and especially “auto-ethnography”and linking these to the research plan and eventually the project outcomes, assessingthe impact of the study let alone celebrating the success of the qualitative aspects of theresearch undertaken will be based on “hunches”.
3. Discussion, dialogue and debate3.1 Evidencing the practice-based roots of the researchThe author Robert Smith (an ex-police officer) whilst serving as a “Country Bobby” incirca 2002 became aware of the criminal activities of a group of rogue farmersoperating in the UK, circa 2000-2003. Over a two-year period Robert tracked their illegaltrade in Halal meat across the UK and worked with animal health experts to developintelligence on the trade. What was fascinating about these rogues was that they werefarmers, entrepreneurs, hauliers and butchers not orthodox criminal actors. Intelligenceactivities are akin to conducting qualitative research because one has to gather storiesand anecdotes which prove or disprove allegations of criminality. One has to verify theauthenticity of the stories and try to develop these into evidence making it a researchdriven process. During this time he developed a sophisticated understanding of the
370
IJEBR21,3
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
Exh
ibitnu
mber
andprojectdetails
Strategicaim
Importance/im
pact
E1–Sm
ith(2004)
Evolved
from
aconference
paperandwas
publishedin
anSI
negotia
tedby
theconference
organiser
Resultedin
theauthors2ndpu
blicationin
agood
journala
ndhasledto
areasonablecitatio
ncoun
tE2–Sm
ith(2009)
Thistheoretical
paperwas
written
specifically
foracrim
inology/
organisedcrim
ejournalin2008.Itwentthroug
han
iteratio
nof
the
review
processbefore
beingrejected
asnottheoreticallyrobu
stenough
foracrim
inologyjournal
In2010
itwon
anEmeraldBestpaperaw
ard.
Ithasaccrueda
reasonablelevelo
fcitatio
nsandismakingan
impact
E3–Sm
ith(2010)
Written
upspecifically
foraPo
licingJourna
lusing
review
material
surplusto
theprevious
twopapers.Itwas
partof
thepolicingoutput
forSIPR
The
importance
ofthiswas
topositio
ntheauthor
inthe
literatureandbe
used
asbackground
literatureforfuture
stud
ies.Has
becomereasonably
cited
E4–Sm
ithetal.
(2010)
Toraiseresearch
capital
Faileddu
eto
poor
review
sas
toits
actual
necessity
.Itwas
apparent
that
ithadbeen
review
edby
business
schoolscholars
andnotcrim
inologists.W
ithhind
sigh
tnotenough
care
was
takenin
positio
ning
itwith
inoneliteratureor
disciplin
eE5–Sm
ith(2011)
Written
upusingun
used
materiala
ndkn
owledg
eof
thetrade.Itwas
partof
itwas
partof
thepolicingoutput
forSIPR
Itisslow
lyaccruing
areasonablelevelo
fcitatio
ns
E6–McE
lwee
etal.
(2011)
Subm
itted
with
thespecificpu
rposeof
having
itpu
blishedin
ajournal
where
itengagedwith
anaudience
interested
inruralcrime.Itused
previous
unpu
blishedmateriald
eveloped
from
anearlierconference
paper
Thisstartedtheprocessof
writin
gup
thematerialfor
anentrepreneurship
audience.E
arly
drafts
weresubm
itted
toentrepreneurship
journalsonly
tobe
rejected
forbeingtoo
crim
inological.A
resubm
ission
toacrim
inologyjournalsaw
itrejected
fornotbeingcrim
inologically
theorised.
Anapparent
stalem
ate
E7–Sm
ithand
McE
lwee
(2012)
Written
buteventually
abandoneddu
eto
pressure
ofotherwork
commitm
ents
such
asteaching
,etc.
Wastedtim
eandeffortandnegativ
eequity
with
respectiv
eresearch
offices.Som
eof
thematerialh
asbeen
recycled
inother
papers
E8–Sm
ith(2012)
Adelib
eratestrategy
ofconcentratingon
writin
gapracticebased
methodology
was
implem
ented
Bid
notsupp
orteddu
eto
allegedmethodologicalflaw.N
otenough
explanationprovided
ofacadem
icmethods.A
gain
creatednegativ
eequity
betw
eenresearcher
andresearch
office.
How
ever,itstim
ulated
somuchof
thelaterstream
that
itwas
aworthwhileproject
(con
tinued)
Table I.Published output,
strategies andimpact
371
Developingqualitativeresearchstreams
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
Table I.
Exh
ibitnu
mber
andprojectdetails
Strategicaim
Importance/im
pact
E9–Sm
ithand
Laing(2012)
Bid
was
successful
andledto
anintensiveperiod
ofresearch
Ledto
aconsiderableresearch
output
andexpand
edthe
empiricalk
nowledg
ebase
E10
–Sm
ithetal.
(2012)
Written
toengage
indebate
with
theagricultu
rala
ndfarm
ing
commun
ities
viatheRUSource
data
channels.W
ewereapproached
bytheedito
rsof
this
Itgeneratedafewe-mailq
ueries
from
readersbu
tthe
impactis
low
E11
–Sm
ithetal.
(2013c)
Toengage
inadebate
with
theliteratureandaudience
offarm
ing
academ
icsviatheViewpointmechanism
Wereceived
encouragingcomments
from
theedito
r
E12
–McE
lwee
andSm
ith(2013)
Toengage
indebate
with
theagricultu
rala
ndfarm
ingcommun
ities
viatheRUSource
data
channels.W
ewereapproached
bytheedito
rsof
this
The
impact
was
considerablewith
thebriefin
gpaperhaving
areadership
of46,000
E13
–Sm
ithand
Laing(2013)
Anintegral
output
inrelatio
nto
thereceiptof
thebidandwas
oneof
thefund
ingcond
itions
Ithigh
lighted
themainoutputsof
theresearch
andispu
blically
availableon
theSIPR
web
site.T
hisdoes
limitfuture
developm
entof
thepaper
E14
–Sm
ithand
McE
lwee
(2013a)
Aninvitedbook
chapterby
anedito
rwho
was
awareof
ourworkin
thisarea
Has
yetto
impact
E15
–Sm
ithand
McE
lwee
(2013b)
Initially
written
asaconference
paperusingnewmaterialand
unused
materialfrom
the2004
stud
y.Itwas
accepted
inan
entrepreneurship
journalb
utthejournalw
entoutof
existence.The
paperwas
shaped
over
athree-year
period
tomakeitof
three-star
standard.Itwas
adelib
eratestrategy
toavoidentrepreneurshipandcrim
inologyjournals
andto
concentrateon
ruralityas
acontext
Isaccruing
citatio
nsandmakingan
impact
–severalscholars
have
contactedus
orcommendedus
forits
difference
andits
worth
E16
–Sm
ithand
McE
lwee
(2013c:
earlyview
)
Initially
aconference
paperbasedon
acase
know
nto
theauthor
GerardMcE
lwee.Itwas
invitedby
thejournaleditorhaving
read
similaroutput
asareview
er.
Has
begu
nto
pick
upcitatio
ns
E17
–Sm
ith(2013)
Itwas
developedfrom
aseminar
paperandsubm
itted
tothejournal.It
was
feltto
beagood
fitforthejournal
Has
yetto
impact.Itwas
presentedto
apoliceaudience
inthe
form
ofthechiefconstableof
Lincolnshire
(con
tinued)
372
IJEBR21,3
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
Table I.
Exh
ibitnu
mber
andprojectdetails
Strategicaim
Importance/im
pact
E18
–Sm
ithand
Whitin
g(2013)
Thisbook
chapterresultedfrom
answ
eringacallforchapters.It
evolvedfrom
internet
basedresearch
andkn
owledg
eof
aparticular
case
stud
y–Eurovet
Being
publishedin
thefirst
hand
book
ofveterinary
enterprise
andhaving
co-authoredthechapterwith
aleadingveterinarian
bodies
wellfor
future
impact
E19
–Sm
ithand
Somerville
(2013)
Specifically
written
upas
ajournalp
aper
toreachapolicingaudience.
Itwas
initially
devisedas
aresearch
note
butexpand
edthroug
hthe
review
processto
becomeafullpaper
Itssign
ificanceisthat
itisat
presentthe
only
oneto
tacklethis
importanta
ndpernicious
issue.Itisanicheoffering
andhasyet
tomakean
impact
E20
–McE
lwee
andSm
ith(2013)
Written
specifically
tohigh
light
thesuccessful
stream
ofresearch
toa
wider
ISBEaudience
The
piecereachedawider
audience
andpositio
nedourresearch
inthewider
entrepreneurship/practitioner
audience
E21
–Sm
ithand
McE
lwee
(2014)
Specifically
plannedandwritten
asaresultof
thecallforchapters
The
impact
ofthisworkisthat
itsynthesisesandtheorisesa
literatureof
crim
inal
entrepreneurship
includ
ingillegal
rural
enterprise
(IRE).Itshould
have
considerableim
pact
E22
–Somerville
etal.(2015:early
view
)
Resultedfrom
astream
ofworkthat
emergedoutof
materialexcised
from
otheraccepted
andrejected
papers.Itwas
adelib
eratestrategy
born
outofp
arsimonyandperseverance.Itw
asadirectresponse
tothe
accusatio
nsofdilettantismandexhortations’ofB
usinessSchoolSenior
Managem
entto
publishin
top-tierjournals
The
sign
ificanceof
thispieceisthat
itwas
aplannedworkthat
was
written
andcraftedto
makean
impact.Ittargetedandwill
thus
reacharuralstudies
audience
andacrim
inologyaudience.
Ithasledto
greaternetw
orking
andouracceptance
with
ina
nichearea
ofcriticalcriminological
endeavour.Wefeelithas
vind
icated
andlegitim
ised
ourcoun
tless
hoursof
patient
scholarship.
Tim
ewill
tellifitim
pacts
E23
–Sm
ithand
Manning
(2015)
Developed
from
astream
ofworkthat
emergedouto
fmaterialexcised
from
otheraccepted
andrejected
papers.Itwas
adelib
eratestrategy
born
outofp
arsimonyandperseverance.Itw
aswritten
asaconference
paperandfrom
aninvitatio
nof
theScud
amoreInqu
iryinto
Food
Fraudto
presentaliteraturereview
ofacadem
icmaterialrelevantto
thematter.Itwas
written
upas
amonograph
asitexceeded
thenorm
alboun
dsof
aresearch
paper
Thiswas
atim
elypiecewhich
evolvedfrom
awritten
invitatio
nfrom
with
intheindu
stry
–thus
ackn
owledg
ingtheexpertise
andauthority
oftheresearcher.T
heim
pact
hasyetto
materialize
(con
tinued)
373
Developingqualitativeresearchstreams
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
Exh
ibitnu
mber
andprojectdetails
Strategicaim
Importance/im
pact
E24
–Sm
ith(2015a,b)
Developed
from
aconference
paperbasedon
acase
know
nto
the
author
RobertS
mith
.Itw
aswellreceivedby
aninternationalaud
ience
with
scholars
from
DenmarkandCa
nada
remarking
that
itmirrored
entrepreneurialcriminal
practices
intheircoun
tries
Itwas
subm
itted
toan
organisedcrim
ejournalw
here
itwent
throug
htw
oiteratio
nsof
review
before
beingrejected
bythe
edito
rial
team
asnotcontaining
enough
crim
inological
theory.
Being
positio
nedin
asociologyandpolicyjournaltakes
the
topicto
anew
readership
E25
–Manning
andSm
ith(2015)
Specifically
written
totarget
aSp
ecialE
ditio
nin
anentrepreneurship
journal
The
paperispositio
nedvery
muchwith
intheentrepreneurship
andSM
Eliteraturebu
tbu
ildsup
ontheprevious
know
ledg
ebase
E26
–Sm
ithand
McE
lwee
(2015b)
Initial
plansto
write
itup
forafarm
ingjournalw
eresetaside.This
stud
ywas
written
toextend
anddevelopthestud
yof
rogu
efarm
ers
andRural
Organized
Crim
eGroup
sinto
thearea
oftractortheft
The
sign
ificanceof
thisworkisthat
itwas
presentedto
anentrepreneurship
audience
andalso
used
new
managem
ent
know
ledg
esuch
astheBusinessModelCa
nvas
(Osterwalder
andPign
eur,2010)
E27
–Sm
ithand
McE
lwee
(2015a)
Thispiecewas
specifically
invitedby
theedito
rHas
yetto
bepu
blishedandits
impact
hasyetto
berealized
E28
–Sm
ith(2015a,b)
Aninvitedpieceby
theEditorto
dissem
inatethenotio
nto
practitioners
intheScottishCrim
inal
Justicesystem
Impact
yetto
beestablished
Table I.
374
IJEBR21,3
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
problems of interdicting the criminals involved as well as an appreciation of how to do“insider research” (Costley et al., 2010) in real life settings. This discussion is centralto this essay because Robert’s knowledge and skills were developed in practice andthe information base upon which this knowledge was built is mainly from policeintelligence covered by the Official Secrets Act[7]. There is also a potentially large gulfbetween intelligence and legally, provable fact. Thus one must be careful to identifywhat is a suspicion, an allegation or an interpretation. From an academic perspective,the legal problem mirrors the ethical problem of conducting research in that justbecause data are unverifiable, does not mean that it is true or untrue. However,repeated exposure to raw data or intelligence on individuals and their criminal acts,allows those privy to the data to develop sophisticated, nuanced and often insightswhich are akin to an apercus. This, in investigative terms, can be fact based or a hunch.This lengthy discussion is necessary because it lies at the heart of the methodologicaldilemmas which faced us in later years as active researchers. It is quite common forpractitioners in any field with an academic background to write about their work andfields of knowledge. Qualitative research is also about proof and verifying theauthenticity of claims (albeit this is a disputable claim). However, like intelligence workit has a framework of quality (reliability, trustworthiness) which set it apart from thescientific, generalisable claims of quantitative research.
3.2 Turning information and anecdote into academic dataIn 2003, the author Robert Smith attended the rural entrepreneurship conference inDumfries and presented a paper on the illegal halal trade as an example of criminalentrepreneurship[8]. This paper arose from his interests discussed above. To overcomethe legal and ethical dimensions, Rob fictionalised his knowledge base and wrotecollectively about individuals whom he described as “The Network”. The use offictional case studies or more appropriately “case stories” is an acceptable academicstrategy (Boylan and Johnson, 2010). Case story methodology is part auto-ethnographic(Muncey, 2010). Indeed, Teresa Muncey provides an example of how, as a PhDresearcher and early career scholar, she was often forced in to dressing up auto-ethnographic facets of her work as case studies because it was not felt appropriatemethodologically to use auto-ethnography. Robert did not consider auto-ethnographyat this point[9]. At the 2003 conference, Robert and Gerard met and later found a sharedinterest in rural entrepreneurship and in particular criminal entrepreneurship. At thatmoment in time, because of the niche focus of the work, neither Robert nor Gerardanticipated that illegal rural criminal enterprise would become a major focus of theirwork. Robert was pleasantly surprised that over the years the 2004 article began toslowly generate citations. This is an important insight because not all qualitativeresearch is meticulously planned like quantitative empirical studies must be. Indeed,it often emerges (and indeed merges with other studies) from quite prosaic interests.It can have a spontaneous element to it whereby one’s urge to write can be sparked bya series of real life events or an article in a newspaper or even out of curiosity.
During the period 2005-2008 Robert continued to track the criminal activities of reallife rural rogues giving rise to the 2008 rural entrepreneurship conference paperentitled. This paper tracked the illegal pluriactivity and diversification as “The Network”expanded their activities into theft from farms and illegal puppy farming[10]. In 2008Robert retired from the police to become a full-time academic. In 2009, he wassuccessful in publishing a study in the Policing Journal on the problems of interdictingenterprise orientated crime in rural areas and of the changing face of rural policing
375
Developingqualitativeresearchstreams
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
(see Smith, 2010). It became apparent to us (the authors) that we had developed aninterest in a potentially useful niche area of entrepreneurship research worthy offurther exploration. At this stage we had an interest but not yet a cohesive,complimentary qualitative research strategy (Coffey and Atkinson, 1996). This streamof early work utilised ethnographic and observational methods which we belatedlycame to classify as a type of retrospective ethnography (Watson, 2012). However, beingimmersed in the field we began to document other instances from newspaper andinternet accounts.
3.3 Documenting and developing a qualitative research streamThese early papers later developed into a full blown qualitative research stream. In 2010,Gerard organised a seminar on rural enterprise at Lincoln University. Robert presented apaper on typologies of rural criminals which was later published in The InternationalJournal of Rural Criminology as Smith (2013). This emphasises the stop/start nature ofthis output. This is a central feature of our work because being business school scholarswe were primarily doing such research out of genuine interest. Our research was aninteresting sideline and we treated it as such. We did not prioritise the individual studies.Our output developed in a piecemeal manner. Our day-to-day teaching and mainstreamresearch/writing projects took precedence as we attended to the rural criminal research inour spare time. Delays in writing for publication almost caused us to sideline, or totallyshelve the research. However, at the seminar, discussions with Professors Colin Williamsand Alistair R. Anderson convinced us that there was merit in continuing with thisstream of research. Additional conversations with Professors Alain Fayolle and Leo PaulDana also buoyed us as did our engagement with Professor Joseph Donnermeyer.However, we appreciated the need for an over-arching research strategy which wouldinclude trying to attract research funding and trying to increase the quality of theresearch output to legitimise the research.
We were both under pressure from REF coordinators and line-managers to increaseour three- and four-star business school publications based on the ABS list. Theseinstitutional barriers were potentially detrimental to our research futures becausebureaucrats simply did not see the merit of us “wasting research time” on two-starpublications and below. Time spent on less productive aspects of a work load is subjectto a time/cost equation. We asked ourselves was it worth it? This caused us minorstress and because of this we concentrated on other more mainstream research topicsand projects whilst still slowly collecting stories and vignettes from farmers andindustry insiders.
It would have been easier for us to have stopped the research stream andconcentrated on mainstream entrepreneurship. However, interaction with the journaleditor of IJRC Joseph Donnermeyer further encouraged us to continue with the researchinto illegal rural enterprise. Nevertheless, progress towards publication was slow. Weappreciated that we were actually part of a wider group of around 20 policing,criminology and geography scholars worldwide who were interested in aspects of ruralorganised crime/enterprise. This proved to be a turning point and we were forced toaccept that it was time to reconsider research strategies. By this time we were alsowriting with Professor Peter Somerville from Lincoln University who had an interest inrural enterprise and crime. Collectively we worked out a strategy to:
• target entrepreneurship research journals particularly high-ranking journals; and• acquire research funding to finance the research stream and legitimise it.
376
IJEBR21,3
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
The two part strategy appeased our critics within our business schools – well for awhile at least. We shall discuss this more in depth.
3.3.1 Journal publication strategies. Eventually the strategic decision to targethigh-ranking entrepreneurship journals proved ineffective. We made a “snap-decision”to target criminology journals which proved ineffective wasting time and energy as wesat back and patiently waited for the responses from reviewers. Our material satbetwixt and between both disciplines. Entrepreneurship reviewers wanted moreentrepreneurship theory and conceptualisation; whilst criminology reviewers wantedmore criminological theories and insights. Striking the balance was difficult. However,the main problems reviewers highlighted irrespective of discipline related tomethodology and methodological rigour. The reviewers liked our respondent’sstories and vignettes but wanted larger scale studies, not case studies. Our work wasfrequently criticised for being descriptive and not analytical enough[11]. Clearly we hadto urgently develop a methodological strategy too.
Our redrafted strategy was to tailor articles for particular journals where theadaption of qualitative methods would hopefully be better received than to continuetrying to submit to more positivism-oriented, top/US journals or funding bodies. Onthe whole this worked well for us. These alternative choices of publishing venueswere not included on the ABS list albeit they are excellent journals, publishinginteresting, provocative thought provoking work. This made sense to us because thecompetition in top class entrepreneurship journals was simply too fierce, rejectionrates too steep, turn-around times were high for reviewers and the likelihood ofsuccess poor. This appealed to us as we believe it would to early career researchersand PhD students. In our case rurality took centre stage and entrepreneurship tookon a contextual tone. Of course this was a high-risk strategy because writing outsideone’s comfort zone and knowledge base is hard work but potentially rewarding. It didentail considerable external reading of criminology, rural sociology and ruralityliterature. With hindsight we should have recruited an established criminologist toour writing team.
Simultaneously, we persevered with our writing and had a success in theInternational Journal of Rural Criminology where we discussed the concept of illegalrural enterprise (see McElwee et al., 2011). Robert Smith also conducted a related studyon the financial aspects of illegal dog fighting in the UK which was published in TheJournal of Financial Crime (Smith, 2011) demonstrating that there was a market forsuch niche research. We decided to target rural studies type journals but thesubmission to was rejected because of concerns that we had not addressed the ruraldimension robustly enough. Again reviewers liked our stories. Nevertheless, Robertand Gerard finally succeeded in publishing a paper in the journal Sociologia Ruralis (seeSmith and McElwee, 2013b). We found the review process deeply encouraging becauseit confirmed our belief that ultimately to achieve publication we would have to placeour work out with the entrepreneurship field[12]. On analysing our lack of publicationsuccess we believe that our work is marginalised because of the niche nature of ourinterest; because we wrote in sub-disciplinary silos; and also because most of theresearch in the area is exploratory and lends itself to case studies. We made a consciousdecision to expand our writing into agricultural and farming journals establishing aknowledge transfer dissemination strategy.
3.3.2 Research funding. Circa 2010-2011 we decided to try and legitimise ourresearch by attracting research funding to legitimate our research to our respective
377
Developingqualitativeresearchstreams
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
business schools. We worked on an ESRC funding application which ultimately provedunsuccessful. Unperturbed we submitted a second to Leverhulme we eventuallyabandoned due to time pressures. We began to question our qualitative writing skills orat least our skills in qualitatively writing research bids. Robert submitted a thirdunsuccessful solo-bid to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. This failed onmethodological grounds. Writing funding bids is a qualitative writing skill which wewill require to master in the future. Again we felt that our topic was perhaps ofmarginal interest to funders. Writing these bids took several months spare writing timeand ultimately proved to be a dead end. It was frustrating because to finance a full-blown qualitative study requires paying for travel costs and on costs, etc. We designeda full-scale research project to gather the empirical data to answer our expandingresearch questions but without money could not commit to gathering the data. Robertsuccessfully secured a £3,000 small grant from the Scottish Institute for PolicingResearch (SIPR) to finance a pilot study and in 2012 ran a focus group and laterinterviewed ten industry insiders including farmers, trading standards officers, animalhealth officers, officers from the Food Standards Agency and employees of the NationalFarmers Union. We utilised the services of a Research Assistant, Dr Audrey Laing tomaximise the number of hours. We uncovered data on the closure of rural policestations which was later published in a Policing Journal as Smith and Somerville (2013).Robert also presented a conference paper on the black fish scandal at ISBE in London(later published as Smith, 2015a, b). Gerard and Robert also wrote and published a casestudy based on the Boston Still explosion (later published as Smith and McElwee,2012). We also targeted a book chapter (see McElwee and Smith, 2013a, b). Robert hasalso written and published on the illegal trade in veterinary medicines with MartinWhiting (see Smith and Whiting, 2013) an eminent veterinarian ethicist. What all thesequalitative publications have in common is that they use documentary researchmethods to research and map areas of criminal entrepreneurship which wouldotherwise have remained un-researched and undocumented.
3.3.3 Broadening our methodological strategies. We worked hard on our perceivedmethodological shortcomings. We did not want to pursue the auto-ethnographic routeto legitimise our qualitative knowledge base. However, in discussion with a colleagueProfessor Tony Watson, we developed the aspects of retrospective ethnography(Watson, 2012) which we have aligned to the case story methodology (Smith, 2004). Wefind it ironic that insider knowledge (Costley et al., 2010) reliant upon auto-ethnographyand retrospective ethnography is disparaged as anecdotal. Of course, we could havelegitimised it by interviewing each other and reporting it as empirical data but feel thatethically this would be misleading and counterproductive. Had Gerard interviewedRobert and vice versa the anecdotal nature of some of the narratives would havebecome legitimate research data. In a discussion with Professor Helle Neergaard westruck upon using the qualitative methodology of documentary research (Scott, 1990).From then onwards the research took on a documentary focus which complimented theinsider knowledge base. This is an integral part of our research strategy because LexusNexus searches have allowed us to broaden our database considerably and capturemore empirical narratives of rural criminal enterprise from a wide variety of newspaperand internet sources. Another benefit of the approach of conducting case studies basedon documentary sources is that each case are all nested cases capable of being used tocollectively theorise some of the developing arguments. In our research journeythrough qualitative research methodologies we sought to explore and understand a
378
IJEBR21,3
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
person’s definition of an experience and the meaning which is attributed to it usingan interpretivist tradition (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). In discussion with ProfessorDavid Rae we incorporated Immersion (Borkan, 1979) into our methodologicalframework and from there also Narrative Inquiry.
3.3.4 The knowledge transfer dissemination strategy. This unintentional aspect ofthe strategy met with some success resulting in publications (see Smith et al., 2013c;Smith and McElwee, 2012). These publications are pivotal in that they engaged theacademic and practitioner communities and make them aware of our work. We havealso participated in dialogue, debate and discussion with practitioners via theRUSource Briefing Series (see Smith and McElwee, 2013a, b) and the Rural Networkwhich has a reach of approximately 43,000 academics and practitioners interested inrural affairs.
Whilst this scholarship is both, necessary and academically stimulating, it comes ata cost as collectively, we have been criticised by colleagues at our respectiveinstitutions who advise us to restrict our output to writing one three-star article a year.Whilst this may be sound career advice for early career scholars, we are forced to rejectit because it is only through developing a lively debate between academics andpractitioners across the areas of farming, rural entrepreneurship and policing, that theimportance of our work will be fully appreciated. We have developed a multi-facetedand complimentary qualitative research strategy (Coffey and Atkinson, 1996)conceptualised in Figure 1.
This iterative scholarly process has generated a mass of situated qualitativelyderived data whereby we have developed a body of knowledge that is greater thanthe sum of the academic outputs as measured in REF terms. Our strategies are
FieldResearch
(Interviews)
QualitativeMethodologies
and Approaches
Conference PapersCase Studies
(Descriptively orientated)
Journal Publication(Academic Holy Grail)
Qualitative Reading/Writing Process(Documentary Research)
Knowledge Transfer(Book chapters/Books/SeminarsMagazine articles/Blogs/Training
Manuals)
Research FundingContract Research
(Academic and CommercialHoly Grail)
Consultancy(Commercial Holy Grail)
Activities Outputs
Active Researchers (Auto-ethnographic knowledge)
Figure 1.The qualitativeresearch cycle
379
Developingqualitativeresearchstreams
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
complimentary in that the field research and constant reading generates case studiesand publications that have a value in terms of knowledge transfer and potentiallyconsultancy work. This is a staged process which begins with research and developsthrough conference presentations and develops through to publications and otheroutputs. We have developed this into an overarching conceptual model based onintegrative theory/immersion which we have turned into a comprehensive frameworkwhich permits us to interrogate the literatures to develop our key arguments.We acknowledge that in our process of immersion we have yet to directly interviewcriminal respondents (Figure 2).
This helps elaborate upon the distinctiveness of the paper and its implications forresearch and practice. Collectively, the analyses from the research stream contribute totheory building and to existing debates on research methodology. One of the mainlessons we learned from our evolving strategy is that we need to learn to take researchstrategy as seriously as we take our researching and writing. We were slow to pick upon this and to articulate an implementable strategy. We learned from conversations butdid not always follow up on our ideas and feelings quickly enough. Also whenwe did act we often tried to do much in terms of the concepts and their articulation. Wepresented readers with a narrative and some of the issues/challenges of undertakingqualitative research in practise instead of working it out for ourselves. The reviewswere conversations with others who helped shape our methodology as we articulated it.We mentally reviewed our strategy but did not set the context for the review. Weappreciate with hindsight that reviewers may have been faced with a stream ofconsciousness approach. We often failed to link research philosophy and strategy to
Research Focus
Criminal
Respondent
Insider
Respondent
Immersion
Stream of ConsciousnessInsider knowledge
Qualitative Influences
EthnographyAuto-ethnographyRetrospective ethnography
Observational Method
Case StudiesCase Stories
In Depth Interviews
Focus Groups
Documentary Research
Informs research focus
Informs self and allows selfdirected knowledge to be broughtto bear.
Builds up thick description
Allows typologies and theories to emerge
Adds substance / thick description
Adds group knowledge
Adds weight to emerging theories
Narrative Inquiry Authenticates and restories
Respondents
Figure 2.The qualitativeframework
380
IJEBR21,3
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
methodology and data and concentrated on findings and how these helped develop ourunderstanding. We should have been concentrating on analysis based on experienceand providing a clear explanation of how this analysis contributed to an understandingof the issues at both theoretical and practice levels of analysis. Our approach was toowide sweeping and undermined our own ability to see a clear set of key concepts and tocomprehend the way in which they link in order to contribute to or advance ourunderstanding of research methodology and its application. Theory building is difficultbut we made it more so. We were intrigued to read that a blind reviewer had readfrom our strategy that we had abandoned first-hand qualitative research in favour ofsecond-hand desk research. We were appalled. Our attempt at articulating our strategyhad failed yet again. There was an apparent disjoint. Yet readers still read and citeour papers.
4. Reflections, reflections, reflections …Writing this reflective paper on our conjoined research and publishing strategies hasbeen very, very helpful to us in positioning our research and ourselves in the bodyof entrepreneurship research. As heterodox entrepreneurship scholars and academicswe constantly engage in a strategic assessment of our marketplace(s). This has causedus to question the purpose and value of academic papers, and our very work itself.We have received critical and even vitriolic comments at job interviews with commentssuch as “Your research is not empirically robust […] have you considered addinga quantitative element to it so you can quantify the problem” and “We do not see verymuch entrepreneurship here […]”. We are frequently criticised as being “unscientific”.Yet still we feel compelled and driven to continue researching on this path. We arefirmly of the belief that our writing passion and the broader research strategy itselfare guided by the practical utility of our research to practitioners. We have enjoyed thediscussions, debate and engagement with alternative audiences although what impactit will have on our broader academic careers remains to be seen? This paper sets outa valuable contribution from us as experienced researchers and presents our insightsand reflections on “ploughing” a particularly niche furrow of qualitative research offthe beaten entrepreneurship track[13]. We see clear value in this approach inpresenting lessons for early career researchers and a point of debate and engagementfor other qualitative researchers interested in entrepreneurship and SMEs. In terms oforiginality, this paper contributes by providing an original employment of qualitativemethodology. We believe we have advanced knowledge in this area and have movedexisting conceptualisations forward and advanced thinking in relation to existingdebates.
There are implications for research, practice and/or society. These arepredominantly research based. It has potential to be of value to other researchers,especially those early in their career. The main implication is that strategically there ismuch more to writing, than merely writing. For research to work for you in terms ofcareer progression one has to learn to be more strategic and plan not only the draft, butthe conference paper, the ensuing publication and how these gains can be factored intoyour “continual planning loop” so that they generate the next paper and so forth.Otherwise you are in danger of letting the writing dictate the outcome, or of driftinginto a rambling and unplanned output trajectory. You owe it to yourself to plan aheadand get the most out of your ideas, energy and linguistic blood, sweat and tears.Knowing when a research stream is jaded or exhausted will help you move on to thenext more profitable trajectory. What have we learned that we would apply to a future
381
Developingqualitativeresearchstreams
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
research stream? We would probably cut out the conference paper stage andconcentrate earlier on writing higher impact articles whilst writing a monograph toarticulate the back-grounded knowledge.
We see merit in continuing this research stream with its open, honest andautobiographical nature and its reflective stance. Our renewed methodological focuscould be labelled a “mixed method” approach employing the positivist approachesplanned along with a qualitative methodology incorporating contemplative iterativeethnography. We appreciate that there are dangers in this approach because incontemporary academia time is of the essence and time is money. However, we are“long enough in the tooth” to be able to make our own rational decisions. It has beena difficult paper to write and to negotiate through the review process. At timeswe were embarrassed at being too self-referential, a point appreciated by more thanone of the reviewers. We were glad they saw merit but it would have been easier“psychically” not to pursue publication. Writing with honesty, openness and candour isnot always easy.
This special issue has offered us a timely opportunity to reflect on, critique anddebate the skills and knowledge which we have developed as active qualitativeresearchers to develop meaningful, informative and we believe trustworthy qualitativeresearch. It is not for us to evaluate and recognise what is deemed to be high quality,authentic qualitative research – it is for reviewers, our peers and our readers to do this.We have come to equate writing qualitatively with writing creatively. We are veryaware that what we do involves a trade off in time, energy and reputation. We attendassiduously to our teaching and other academic duties but we look forward to andenjoy our creative writing time because it is enjoyable to us in the manner described by(Wolcott, 1990). This act of enjoyment of scholarship and scholarly activity is crucial inachieving success (particularly in relation to publication success). It generates thepassion which transfers in the writing and makes the paper an enjoyable readingexperience for the readers[14]. In celebrating our work and upon reflecting upon it inthis research note, we have confronted, embraced and celebrated the challenges offeredby qualitative perspectives which allow us as researchers to appreciate the complexityof human dynamics and behaviour. In the process we contribute to the special issueby engaging in the following debates:
(1) We have begun the process of critiquing the appropriateness of the abovequalitative methods and have demonstrated how we use and adapt these aspart of an evolving qualitative research strategy. We appreciate that manyscholars may believe that our work exists on the margins of entrepreneurshipresearch and has no place in it per se. All we can do is acknowledge this. It is acriticism of the “pipeline model” of authorship as it is of us.
(2) We have also discussed the methodological challenges we faced in designingand conducting qualitative research into illegal rural enterprise. We havehopefully added value by demonstrating that flexibility in methodologicalframe-working and scaffolding is both necessary and healthy.
(3) In the process, this has allowed us to understand and improve research practicein this neglected and multi-disciplinary field. In effect we acted as academicentrepreneurs in that having spotted a gap in the market we used qualitativemethods and approaches to research the phenomenon and in developing casestudies we created outputs or products which we have attempted to place in theacademic marketplace.
382
IJEBR21,3
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
(4) This has allowed us to reflect and comment upon the relationship betweenreflexivity and becoming a qualitative researcher and to reflect on the multi-disciplinary contribution our approach has made to the Entre/SME debate.
(5) And finally upon the euphoria and pitfalls of learning how to conductunorthodox or novel approaches and methods in qualitative research.
These five contributions are valuable and worthy of further consideration. They will betaken into consideration if and when we sit down to plan a formal research andpublication strategy and decide whether to continue the research stream or not. Untilsuch time as we reach this point we are continuing at a qualitatively slow pace. Wehave now constructed an Excel Spreadsheet database of rogue farmers andentrepreneurs identified through newspaper and internet reports. In the fullness of timethis will allow us to legitimise our research as empirical and perhaps engage inquantitative narrative research (Franzosi, 2010). We will expand the database toinclude up to 500 identifiable individuals and research their activities through writingmicro-case studies and intend to subject the database to quantitative narrativetechniques. The recent interest in the horsemeat scandal in 2012/2013 has led to anincreasing interest in our work. We have broadened our research team to includespecialists from other academic disciplines[15]. We could look forward to celebratinganother ten years of similar qualitative research. What drives us forward is thefeedback we have received from practitioners and other academics that our research isimportant because what we write has practical implications.
Writing qualitatively at the margins of entrepreneurship is difficult, and takescourage and perseverance particularly when writing to different audiences because oneconstantly loses ones position and identity as researchers. Indeed, one is vulnerable tocriticism and in fact one anonymous reviewer of this manuscript remarked – “Thispaper […] does not therefore seem to belong within the field of entrepreneurship, orrural enterprise, but may lend itself to exploratory/experimental criminology studies”.Another anonymous reviewer berated us for our lack of methodological rigour andreminded us that “One can often tell which researchers in our field have spentconsiderable time intensively involved with entrepreneurs. The knowledge andinsights that stem from all of their research just seem to ring a bit truer and clearer”(Gartner and Birley, 2002, p. 393). The reviewer continued – “Given the seeming lack ofexposure to actual entrepreneurs on the ground, there is limited insight provided”. Weread this as an exhortation to engage more with the criminal entrepreneurs we werewriting about rather than research them via other sources of information. On bothcounts, our initial reaction was ouch! We argue that our slow and patient qualitativescholarship has provided numerous new insights into a neglected area of study.However, when taking stock of our collective achievements we appreciate that we havebeen accepted into a particular niche of rural criminal sociology where qualitativescholarship, an ethnographic research focus and entrepreneurship are welcomeinnovations. Nevertheless, we will endeavour to take our future research stream into adirective interviewing phase. But should we allow ourselves to be directed by businessschool and REF politics?
Notes1. When referring to we, Gerard McElwee and I are referring to each other and sometimes
to other writing partners. Writing qualitatively and reflecting upon a stream of work aspart of a research team is a difficult scholarly activity to undertake – just ask any
383
Developingqualitativeresearchstreams
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
student how difficult it is to write reflectively. There is something distinctly individualand personal about doing qualitative research that makes writing in the first-personvoice preferable to using the “Royal we” or the dispassionate third-person voice. In ourcase we have adopted the third-person collective voice unless talking about specificexperiences.
2. Ged grew up in Middlesbrough and left school at 16 without any qualifications beforecompleting an Apprenticeship in a Shipyard. He then travelled around Europe working athis trade and at 23 started a degree. He now has a small holding. Rob grew up in ruralAberdeenshire, Tayside and Perthshire in Scotland and Lincolnshire in England. His fatherwas a farm worker who rose to become a farm manager. Rob started working on farms atthe age of ten – helping his father at weekends and holidays. Life in families of farmworkers was an itinerant life, as workers were forced to change jobs every few years tobetter their pay and conditions. Indeed, it was an integral part of the system. On leavingschool at 17, Rob went to Craibstone College of Agriculture near Aberdeen. A life in farmingseemed inevitable. After leaving college, Rob got a job as a junior farm manager but quicklyrealized that progression would be slow in such a closed system.
3. In many respects this has been a very difficult qualitative writing experience for us becausein seeking to position our work and discuss it we have had to be very self-referential.In effect we are writing an essay in the manner of the US Position paper (see Novak, 1999).This is an extremely difficult genre for European scholars to mimic particularly because ofour cultural aversion towards self-citation. Also in entrepreneurship scholarship an“orthodoxy” has arisen as to what constitutes a sound empirical contribution and we donot have a history or heritage of scholars writing about their research stream and howit develops and ebbs and flow through time. We would benefit greatly from this type ofqualitative scholarship. We are grateful to the robust critique of our work by threeanonymous reviewers who challenged us to expand upon our initial submission of thisarticle as a research note.
4. Space precludes a discussion of the literature bases upon which we build our theories.
5. See www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/mlr3cmanual/mlr3c14,000.htm page entitled “MLR3C14,000 -Appendix 3: The National Intelligence Model (5× 5× 5)” for a full discussion of the system.
6. From an academic research perspective the author Robert Smith still uses the system toassess the veracity of any information received. Thus although critics and detractors maybe critical of an anecdote even anecdotes can be classified according to the Provence of theirinformation.
7. The UK Official Secrets Act was drafted in 1899 and has had iterations in 1911, 1920, 1939and 1989. The legislation provides for the protection of state secrets and officialinformation, mainly related to national security. Each officer signs the Act when joining thepolice and prohibits officers from using any information for personal, professional orcommercial gain. All information is, therefore considered sub-judice and may be subject tothe act. Thus whilst individual officers can write memoirs and discuss individual cases, theycannot authenticate these using the original intelligence sources.
8. The study was published later that year in this journal (IJEBR) as Smith (2004).
9. If he had he would have dismissed it because the research was not about him nor did it givehim a central voice. Instead Robert rationalised his research as a “stream of consciousness”approach (Friedman, 1955) told as a case story.
10. Interestingly, this study was written up and accepted for a rural enterprise journal butunfortunately the journal folded. This caused a hiatus in the gestation and subsequentpublication of the paper which led to the published work of Smith and McElwee (2013b).
384
IJEBR21,3
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
11. We did consider including quotations from journal or funding reviews to illustrate this pointbut ethically we would need to receive permission from the journals and the reviewersnegating the very principles of double-blind reviewing. In any case this is not an anatomy ofa revise and submit type article of which there are several excellent examples. Instead weadded more detail on the feedback relating to methodological concerns, and our reflectionson this element of their failed bids.
12. The purpose of this part of the discussion is not to denigrate top-ranked entrepreneurshipjournals nor scholars who review for them. We fully accept that our articles may not havebeen a good fit for such journals and that our work may not have been good enough.
13. As rural entrepreneurship scholars we make no apology for these puns or play on words.
14. Other definitions or synonyms associated with the act of celebration include – having agood time; being amused or entertained; rejoice, revel, romp and importantly for us to regale.
15. Our team of experts now includes Louise Manning, a well-published food scientist andTetty Havinga, a legal expert on food.
References
Angrosino, M. (2007), Doing Ethnographic and Observational Research, Sage, ThousandOaks, CA.
Blackburn, R. and Brush, C.G. (Eds) (2008), Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vols 1-5, SageLibrary in Business and Management, London.
Borkan, J. (1999), “Immersion/crystallization”, in Crabtree, B.F. and Miller, W.L. (Eds), DoingQualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 187-197.
Boylan, M. and Johnson, C. (2010), Philosophy: An Innovative Introduction: Fictive Narrative,Primary Texts, and Responsive Writing, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elementsof the Sociology of Corporate Life, Heinemann, London.
Coffey, A. and Atkinson, P. (1996), Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary ResearchStrategies, Sage, London.
Costley, C., Elliott, G. and Gibbs, P. (2010), Doing Work Based Research: Approaches to Enquiryfor Insider-Researchers, Sage, London.
Croall, H. (2001), Understanding White-Collar Crime, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Dana, L.P. and Dana, T.E. (2005), “Expanding the scope of methodologies used inentrepreneurship research”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and SmallBusiness, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 79-88.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2003), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, Sage, London.
Flick, U. (2006), An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., Sage, London.
Flick, U. (2007), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage, London.
Flick, U. (2008), Managing Quality in Qualitative Research, Sage, London.
Franzosi, R. (2010), Quantitative Narrative Analysis, Sage, London.
Friedman, M.J. (1955), Stream of Consciousness: A Study in Literary Method, Yale UniversityPress, New Haven, CT.
Gartner, W.B. and Birley, S. (2002), “Qualitative methods in entrepreneurship research”,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 387-395.
Geertz, C. (1975), The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, Hutchinson, London.
385
Developingqualitativeresearchstreams
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
King, G., Keohane, R.O. and Verba, S. (1994), Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference inQualitative Research, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Krefting, L. (1991), “Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness”, AmericanJournal of Occupational Therapy, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 214-222.
Kvale, S. (1996), Interviews: An introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage, ThousandOaks, CA.
Leitch, C., Hill, F.M. and Harrison, R. (2009), “The philosophy and practice of interpretivistresearch in entrepreneurship: quality, validation and trust”, Organizational ResearchMethods, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 67-84.
McElwee, G. and Smith, R. (2013a), “Illegal diversification in the farming community”, RUSource,available at: www.nationalrural.org/organisation
McElwee, G. and Smith, R. (2013b), “Illegal diversification in the farming community”, ISBEEnterprising Matters Magazine, available at: www.isbe.org.uk/Illegal-Diversification-in-the-Farming-Community
McElwee, G., Smith, R. and Somerville, P. (2011), “Theorising illegal rural enterprise: is everyoneat it?”, International Journal of Rural Criminology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 39-59.
Manning, L. and Smith, R. (2015), “Providing authentic(ated) food: an opportunity-driven-framework for small food companies to engage consumers and protect the integrity of thefood-supply-chain”, International Journal Entrepreneurship Behaviour & Research(forthcoming).
Muncey, T. (2010), Creating Autoethnographies, Sage, London.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation: Handbook for Visionaries, GameChangers and Challengers, self published book.
Patton, M. (1982), “Qualitative methods and approaches: what are they”, in Kuhns, E. andMartorana, S.V. (Eds), Qualitative Methods for Institutional Research, Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-16.
Robson, C. (2002), Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers, Sage, London.
Scott, J. (1990), A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social Research, Sage, London.
Scott, J. (2006), Documentary Research (4 Volumes), Sage, London.
Silverman, D. (2006), Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text andInteraction, 3rd ed., Sage, London.
Smith, R. (2004), “Rural rogues: a case story on the smokies trade”, The International Journal ofEntrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 277-294.
Smith, R. (2009), “Understanding entrepreneurial behaviour in organised criminals”, Journal ofEnterprising Communities: People and Places, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 256-268.
Smith, R. (2010), “Policing the changing landscape of rural crime: a case study from Scotland”,International Journal of Police Science & Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 373-387.
Smith, R. (2011), “Investigating financial aspects of dog-fighting in the UK: a research note”,Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 336-346.
Smith R. (2012), “Bid to Rowntree Foundation on ‘understanding forced labour business modelsin the UK’”.
Smith, R. (2013), “Developing a working typology of rural criminals: from a UK police intelligenceperspective”, International Journal of Rural Criminology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 126-145.
Smith, R. (2015a), “The farmer as environmental criminal”, Criminal Justice Matters Magazine,Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 10-11.
386
IJEBR21,3
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
Smith, R. (2015b), “The UK ‘black fish scandal’ as a case study of criminal entrepreneurship”,International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 199-221.
Smith, R. and Laing, A. (2012), “Bid to SIPR for £3,000 to research ‘alternative perspectives onrural crime’”, SIPR Research Summary 15, available at: www.sipr.org.uk
Smith, R. and Laing, A. (2013), “Listening to alternative perspectives on rural crime andcriminality: a report on the pilot study”, SIPR Research Summary 15, available at: www.sipr.org.uk
Smith, R. and McElwee, G. (2012), “Bid to Leverhulme Trust on ‘investigating rural criminalentrepreneurship’”.
Smith, R. and McElwee, G. (2013a), “Developing a conceptual model of illicit rural enterprise”,Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship: EMS.
Smith, R. and McElwee, G. (2013b), “Confronting social constructions of rural criminality: a casestory on illegal pluriactivity in farming”, Sociologica Ruralis, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 112-134.
Smith, R. and McElwee, G. (2013c: early view), “The embededness of illegal entrepreneurshipin a closed ethnic community”, International Journal of Business and Globalisation, Vol. 11No. 1, pp. 45-62.
Smith, R. and McElwee, G. (2014), “Synthesizing the literatures on informal, illegal and criminalentrepreneurship”, in Welter, F. Baker, T. (Eds), Routledge Companion on Entrepreneurship,Routledge, London.
Smith, R. and McElwee, G. (2015a), “Food fraud and the role of the criminal farmer: a UK casestudy”, in Donnermeyer, J. (Ed.), The International Handbook of Rural Criminology,Routledge (forthcoming).
Smith, R. and McElwee, G. (2015b), “Stolen to order: tractor theft as a global criminalenterprise”, in McElwee, G. and Smith, R. (Eds), In Volume V Exploring Criminal and IllegalEnterprise: New Perspectives on Research, Policy & Practice, Emerald Publishing, Bingley,pp. 121-153.
Smith, R. and Manning, L. (2015), “Critiquing the inter-disciplinary literature on food-fraud”,International Journal of Rural Criminology (forthcoming).
Smith, R. and Somerville, P. (2013), “The long goodbye: a research note on the closure of rural‘police stations’ and the decline of rural policing in the UK”, Policing: A Journal of Policyand Practice, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 348-358.
Smith, R. and Whiting, M. (2013), “Documenting and investigating the entrepreneurial trade inillegal veterinary medicines in the United Kingdom and Ireland”, Handbook of VeterinaryBusiness and Enterprise, Elsevier, London, pp. 59-73.
Smith, R., Laing, A. and McElwee, G. (2012), “Organized rural crime groups”, RUSource, availableat: www.nationalrural.org/organisation
Smith, R., Laing, A. and McElwee, G. (2013c), “The rise of illicit rural enterprise within thefarming industry: a viewpoint”, International Journal of Agricultural Management, Vol. 2No. 4, pp. 185-188.
Smith, R., McElwee, G. and Somerville, P. (2010), “Bid to ESRC”.Smith, R., Drakopoulou-Dodd, S., McDonald, S. and McElwee, G. (2013: early view), “Qualitative
entrepreneurship authorship: antecedents, processes and consequences”, InternationalJournal of Entrepreneurship Behaviour and Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 364-386.
Somerville, P., Smith, R. and McElwee, G. (2015: early view), “The dark side of the rural idyll:stories of illegal/illicit economic activity in the UK countryside”. Journal of Rural Studies,Vol. 35 No.1.
Wager, E. (2010), Getting Research Published: An A to Z of Publication Strategy, RadcliffePublication, Abingdon.
387
Developingqualitativeresearchstreams
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
Watson, T.J. (2012), “Making organizational ethnography”, Journal of OrganizationalEthnography, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 15-22.
Welter, F. (2011), “Contextualizing entrepreneurship: conceptual challenges and ways forward”,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 165-184.
Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., Audretsch, D.B. and Karlsson, C. (2011), “The future ofentrepreneurship research”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Wolcott, H.F. (1990), Writing Up Qualitative Research, Sage, London.Yin, R.K. (2010), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, London.
Further readingChell, E. and Pittaway, L. (1998), “The social constructionism of entrepreneurship”,
Proceedings of the 21st ISBA National Small Firms Policy and Research Conference,Durham University Business School, Durham.
Neergard, H. and Ulhoi, J.P. (2007), “Introduction: methodological variety in entrepreneurshipresearch”, in Neergard, H. and Ulhoi, J.P. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methodsin Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 1-16.
Novak, J.D. (1979), “Position papers: the reception learning paradigm”, Journal of Research inScience Teaching, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 481-488.
Rae, D. and Carswell, M. (2000), “Using a life-story approach in researching entrepreneuriallearning: the development of a conceptual model and its implications in the design oflearning experiences”, Education+Training, Vol. 42 Nos 4/5, pp. 220-227.
Corresponding authorDr Robert Smith can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: [email protected]
388
IJEBR21,3
Dow
nloa
ded
by P
rofe
ssor
Ger
ard
McE
lwee
At 1
0:00
06
May
201
5 (P
T)
