Handbook of Qualitative Research Techniques and Analysis in Entrepreneurship
Show Less

Handbook of Qualitative Research Techniques and Analysis in Entrepreneurship

Edited by Helle Neergaard and Claire Leitch

This insightful Handbook introduces a variety of qualitative data collection methods and analysis techniques pertinent in exploring the complex phenomenon of entrepreneurship. Detailed and practical accounts of how to conduct research employing verbal protocol analysis, critical incident technique, repertory grids, metaphors, and the constant comparative method are provided. Scholars new to the area, doctoral students, as well as established academics keen to extend their research scope, will find this book an invaluable and timely resource.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

The future for the constant comparative technique

Alistair R. Anderson and Sarah L. Jack


A good study can help anticipate the future, not because it predicts but because it provides a road map or guide (Hoepfl 1997: 57). It has been said that ‘researchers should use tools and techniques that will really bring out a deeper understanding and appreciation about entrepreneurial work as it is enacted in practice and in thought’ (Short et al. 2010: 10). While entrepreneurship provides opportunities for researchers, it has also been confronted by challenges and criticism. Short et al. (2010: 9) argue that increased reliance on prominent guides to qualitative research such as Lincoln and Guba (1985), Yin (2003), Gephart (2004) and Miles and Huberman (1994) could remedy the mixed impressions entrepreneurship research has received. We are fortunate in entrepreneurship research because we may have more control in selecting contexts that are theoretically grounded. We can often also select purposeful samples, those that reflect the phenomenon, or aspect of the phenomenon, we want to understand. We contrast this favourably to approaches which have to begin with a representative sample; we have the luxury of theoretical choice. Yet in spite of this advantage, too much poor quality work is labelled as grounded theorizing. It is unsurprising then that grounded theory has been criticized on several grounds: it is rarely done properly, there seem to be several different grounded theories, in the sense it is meant to be used, it is actually very difficult to do and in reality often does not work very well.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.