Learning by doing: six dimensionsof complexity inresearching SMEs

Kate Lewis and Claire MasseyNew Zealand Centre for SME Research, Massey University,

Wellington, New Zealand, and

Candice HarrisAuckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to present practical methodological insights into doingresearch with the owner-managers of small and medium enterprises.

Design/methodology/approach – Practical methodological lessons are reported from a projectinvolving interviews with owner-managers of a set of 50 firms recruited from a random sample of 500New Zealand “manufacturing” or “service” firms employing 5-50 full-time staff.

Findings – The experiences of the project team were reflected on, refined, and presented as sixpractical “lessons” to be considered by others contemplating engaging with SMEs to achieve aresearch objective.

Research limitations/implications – The findings are subjective (in that, they are the opinionsand experiences of the researchers involved) and are derived from a specific context (the SME sector inNew Zealand).

Originality/value – The paper contributes to the small, but growing, body of literature thatspecifically deals with “good practice” research methodology in relation to small firms.

Keywords Small to medium-sized enterprises, Research methods, New Zealand

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe relative “youth” of the small and medium enterprise (SME) paradigm is wellestablished in the relevant research methodology literature. Not surprisingly, thismeans that there are few substantive works specifically pertaining to “good practice”research in the area of SMEs. Whilst this situation is in part an acknowledgment of theinappropriateness of aiming for uniformity in terms of the execution of good research,it is also characteristic of a young field in which the research community is somewhatguilty of “talking” after one another rather than to each other. It is also symptomaticof the very nature of research – there is naturally more emphasis placed upondisseminating the findings of the work rather than discussing the methodologicaldimensions as “findings” in themselves. Therefore, there exists an opportunity toamplify the experiences from specific research projects to gain lessons aboutmethodology and research practice in the area of SMEs more generally.

This paper derives practical methodological “lessons” from a specific researchproject involving an investigation of SMEs in the New Zealand context as well asoutcomes pertaining to the project objectives, the researchers involved in the study wereable to describe “findings” with regard to the methodological aspects of the exercise.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1176-6093.htm

Complexity inresearching

SMEs

151

Qualitative Research in Accounting &Management

Vol. 4 No. 2, 2007pp. 151-163

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1176-6093

DOI 10.1108/11766090710754213

These have been further refined in order to identify six dimensions of complexity thatthe researchers face within the context of their study. The notion of complexity and theassociated ways it has been conceptualised and applied – in particular as complexitytheory (Lichtenstein et al., 2007; Magala, 2000) was taken as a lens through which toframe this paper because (at its simplest) it engenders an appreciation of the subjectivityof experiences, and the impact of the interactions of individuals and groups on thoseexperiences. The subsequent complexity of those experiences and interactions is alsoposited to be the result of a complex “system” being governed by relatively few, andconversely, simple “rules” (Keene, 2000). Therefore, it seemed appropriate that as wewere reflecting on the complex nature of the fieldwork interactions we had experiencedin the context of this project that we make some attempt to refine them into the “simplerules” (acknowledging six corresponding issues of increasing complexity) that we mighttake with us into our next research “experience” in the SME sector. As such, thesix dimensions of complexity relate to:

(1) attitudes of the SME owner-managers to participating in research;

(2) access to SMEs;

(3) attitudes of “purchasers” of research;

(4) isolation as a research community;

(5) the lack of an SME paradigm; and

(6) working in research teams.

In turn, reflection on these dimensions led to the creation of six corresponding lessonsfor “good” or “better” SME research practice. These have implications for the creators,participants and users of research in this area.

Researching SMEsThe importance of SMEs to New Zealand in both economic and sociological terms isbeyond dispute (Cameron and Massey, 1999). Indeed, this accepted importance hasperhaps forestalled debate on the best methodological approaches to put to use ininvestigating the sector. The misconception that everyone “knows what they aredoing” is further perpetuated by the plethora of research coming out of academicinstitutions and government agencies alike. Whilst the prolific production of newthinking is to be admired, and helps move small business research away from being aperipheral activity, the pursuit of such knowledge without due consideration to the“ways and means” of its generation (or what becomes codified as the “cumulative bodyof knowledge”) is risky.

However, identifying the “cumulative body of knowledge” of contemporary SMEresearchers is not easy. Partly, this is because those engaged in this field do notnecessarily come from a single, unified background: while there are those who areprimarily interested in the SME sector and whose research careers demonstrate thisfocus, there are also many who are primarily interested in examining a particularbusiness issue (e.g. strategy or human resource practices) and merely conduct theirinvestigations in the context of SMEs. Some researchers also engage in research withSMEs as they see them as tangible manifestations of other phenomena – for example,innovation or entrepreneurship. The authors of this paper acknowledge that there is aseparate, and burgeoning, body of literature on methodological issues in relation to

QRAM4,2

152

entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship (some of which seeks to subsume literature onmethodology and SMEs within it as a subset – or, merge the two research contextstogether). However, in order to keep a focus on the purpose of this paper (the derivationof practical methodological lessons based on experiences from a project with SMEs) theauthors have restricted their coverage of relevant methodological literature to thatwhich has an explicit, and specific, focus on SMEs.

Related to this difference of approach – what some might call a difference inworldview – may be a difference in the training that researchers have. In each of thesetwo groups (researchers with a primary focus on SMEs, and those whose interestmight be described as secondary to another phenomenon), there may be those whohave come from “traditional” and well-bounded disciplinary backgrounds(e.g. psychology, economics and sociology) or those who may consciously operate inan inter-or multi-disciplinary way. This difference will have an impact on theirapproach to research, as well as at a very practical level – in terms of providing eachset of researchers with a different set of key methodological texts to draw upon. Someof these are well known outside a single discipline – such as the texts by Patton (1982),Burrell and Morgan (1979), Miles and Huberman (1994) and Yin (1994) – but, most arediscipline-specific, creating a situation where SME researchers from differentbackgrounds use a different set of “reference points”. A factor which contributesto making it more challenging for them to have meaningful conversations witheach other.

Another challenge is that the body of knowledge surrounding “doing” SMEresearch specifically is scant, though increasing in size in recent years. Examples ofliterature include those articles that focus on the appropriateness of a particularmethod for the SME context, for example, case studies (Chetty, 1996) and surveys(Dennis, 2003; Newby et al., 2003) and those that make contributions in more generalterms (for example, Hill and McGowan, 1999; Holliday, 1995). The most comprehensiveand recent contribution is that of UK academics Curran and Blackburn (2001), withtheir book entitled Researching the Small Enterprise. The authors argue for thedistinctiveness and richness of small business research, as well as outlining debatessurrounding more practical issues such as data analysis and working in the field.In particular, they make the point that one of the reasons that small business researchhas had difficulty in achieving higher status academically, and a subsequent influenceon policymakers, is because the sector is such a challenge to do research in. WhilstSMEs are viewed by some as an “accessible ‘laboratory’ for the study of businessactivities” – implying that small firms can provide an easy introduction to researchingbusiness practices – this assumption is not borne out by the reality of doing researchwithin this sector (Curran and Blackburn, 2001, p. 5). Indeed, small does not equate tosimple, nor is a small firm a scaled-down version of a large firm. Instead, the opposite isactually the reality – a small firm represents “the lived experience” of anowner-manager or entrepreneur – with all the complexity that implies. In a small firm,the boundary between the “person” and the “firm” is permeable, if not non-existent.That situation means the researcher needs to understand the nuances of a person aswell as a firm, and to deal with subtlety and diversity – a complex situation that beliesthe small “size” of the firm itself.

Another challenge for SME researchers derives from the purpose of their research.Curran and Blackburn (2001) note that the small business field of research is frequently

Complexity inresearching

SMEs

153

described as “applied” (i.e. not of a single discipline and often striving to addresspractical problems). This description represents a unique situation whereby smallbusiness researchers are faced with a number of specific stakeholder audiences, notonly other academics and researchers. These stakeholders include policy makers andagencies that “support” SMEs and their owner-managers, as well as the small businessowners themselves. This creates a situation where academics are frequently engagedto do research for “clients” (i.e. the aforementioned stakeholder groups). Whilstfulfilling in many senses, this situation does create a research context that is fraughtwith the tension resulting from attempting to achieve a balance betweenmethodological and/or academic robustness (for researchers) and usefulness (forpractitioners, policymakers and other end-users). The inherent “debate” such tensionsbring about is typically manifested in decisions relating to what type of research getsfunded or commissioned, whilst for those concerned with academic rigour it caninfluence how research design is formulated and implemented. By contrast, in the UK,the applied nature of the field has resulted in a different sort of divide – between “thosewho ‘theorise’ and those who ‘do’” (Curran and Blackburn, 2001, p. 23). This divideemerges most clearly when looking at the conversations between academic researchersand the staff of support agencies. As Curran and Blackburn (2001, p. 24) observe:“Frequently, such doubts surface in questions of the ‘what use is research?’ kind”.

The cumulative effect of these challenging issues within the sector: the relativeyouth and multi-disciplinary nature of the field of small business research; the absenceof a critical mass of key methodological texts written specifically for the sector; and theabsence of a widely accepted overarching or integrating theoretical framework(Romano, 1989) ensures the perpetuation of many of the dilemmas for those working inthe area that have been described above. It also helps maintain circumstances where,in a fashion, researchers “talk” after (and past) one another rather than to each other.This situation discourages, rather than encourages, cumulative developments inknowledge (Curran and Blackburn, 2001).

The solution is not entirely clear, but one aspect of it is this: researchers need tofocus more closely on examining the methodological lessons (for working with theSME sector) specifically that can be taken from individual research projects, andconsider how best to apply these lessons to other studies.

The projectThe project that this paper uses as its foundation was titled “Lifecycles and Transitions”and was carried out by a team of New Zealand researchers during 2003. The eightresearchers were all from Massey University, came from the university’s three campuses(Palmerston North, Wellington and Albany) and were associates of the New ZealandCentre for Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) Research. The team was interested inidentifying the key “transitions” that New Zealand firms encounter as they attempt togrow, and how the owners’ experiences of these transitions related to the stage models ofbusiness growth. (Findings from the project have already been reported elsewhere, seefor example: Massey et al., 2003; Lewis, 2004; Massey et al., 2004a, b; Massey et al.,2004a, b; Massey et al., 2005). Given the aims of the research, which could only beachieved by the collection of rich data via in-depth interview and site visits, the researchteam designed a qualitative methodology. However, in recognition of the addedcredibility often assigned to quantitative methodology in studies of SMEs in

QRAM4,2

154

New Zealand, it drew on design principles more typically associated with quantitativeprojects. In theory, this should represent some paradigmatic assumptions and result in amixed methodology, however, in reality this represented the experiences of theresearchers in having qualitative work “written off” by key stakeholders (e.g.policymakers) unless it was of a sufficiently large-scale. So, in practice, it meant that thisstudy was based on a dataset of 50 firms – a large number for a qualitative project.These were recruited from a random sample of 500 New Zealand firms (sourced from acommercial database) which employed 5-50 full-time staff and were either in the“manufacturing” or “service” sector.

All 50 firms were visited by a member of the research team and during this visit theowner(s) or manager(s) were interviewed and taken through a semi-structuredinterview schedule. This asked them to identify the key events and/or milestones in thelife of the business retrospectively (with some approximate dates and/or some sense ofchronology) and describe in some detail their objectives for the firm (e.g. growth,consolidation and contraction). They were then asked to represent these eventsdiagrammatically and to identify any obvious developmental “phases” and/or any“points of transition” (i.e. whether any of the events marked an obvious point at whichthe firm made a fundamental shift between one phase and another). This approachprovided the researcher and the interviewee with an implicit guiding theoreticalframework (the life-cycle) which lent itself to a narrative style of investigation (“so,what happened next?” type of question). Each interview lasted between 45 and 90minutes and was recorded and then transcribed. Informed consent was gained via theprovision of a project information sheet and the subsequent completion of a consentform. A written research protocol was devised by the project team and the variousadministrative steps associated with the research (including the process of recruitingthe firms, organising the field work and dealing with the data) were fully documented.

The systematic approach to the research design and execution in this projectappears to provide an example of what Curran and Blackburn (2001, p. 30) describe asa “craft orientation. . . (where the researcher shows) a willingness to carefully andmeticulously complete tasks to a high standard”. They add that “this is especiallyimportant in the early stages of any project”. This was certainly the case in this project,as although on one level the “Lifecycles and Transitions” project was designed toprovide stand-alone data, it also had a second purpose: From the very start of theproject it was clear that it would not be a single study. Instead, it represented the firstbuilding block (or first step in the “crafting stage”) of the strategic research programmeof the New Zealand Centre for SME Research. The overall aim of the programme is toproduce reliable and regular evidence on the business practices and performance ofNew Zealand’s SMEs – for use by the organisations that provide support to the sector(e.g. government agencies).

The overall research programme operates in the following way: during 2003-2005,a series of five on-site investigations (i.e. five separate research projects) involving50 firms each took place. In each investigation a team of researchers visited the firmsand interviewed the owner-manager(s) and each set of 50 interviews comprised aproject with a particular focus. For example, while the 2003 investigation was into the“Lifecycles and Transitions” of NZ SMEs, the two projects carried out in 2004examined the topics of “Business Assistance” and “Business Excellence” respectively.In 2005, the investigations were into the “Relationship of SMEs with their Banks and

Complexity inresearching

SMEs

155

Accountants” and “SMEs and their HR Practices”. While each project had its own focus(and own set of research questions and/or objectives), each of the projects also retainsan explicit link to the others in the overall programme through the inclusion of anumber key questions that were repeated each time. This approach follows theprinciple of concatenated research as described by Stebbins (1992).

A secondary objective of the on-site investigations was to provide the researcherswith an opportunity to recruit the firms into the survey element of the project. Once all250 firms had been visited, the survey element of the study would be launched. It isenvisaged that the survey (to be known as BusinesSMEasure) will be conducted as anonline questionnaire (with printed versions available for those without internet access)and repeated at regular intervals (possibly six-monthly) for a significant period of time(ideally five years).

Together, these two methods (the interviews and the survey) will produce resultsthat can be analysed in a number of ways: Firstly, each of the on-site investigationswill produce a set of “stand-alone” results that address a particular issue. Secondly, thefact that the firms that form the dataset for the survey have also been visited, will makeit possible to analyse the data produced from both methods as part of a single dataset.The way in which the research programme has been designed will also make itpossible to gather data from SMEs in New Zealand over time. This will allowresearchers and research users to track changes in firm practices and performance inthe context of specific firms (i.e. the research will be longitudinal in nature, rather thanrelying on data from repeated cross-sectional surveys). In-depth analysis of a largenumber of firms will also occur, making it possible to gain a detailed understanding ofthe way in which firms of different types operate. Finally, the design approach willensure that the propositions that emerge from the detailed data collected through theon-site visits are verified with a sample that has been selected in a way to ensure it isrepresentative of the New Zealand business population.

Six dimensions of complexityIf researchers are to continue to develop the field of small business research, they needto perform “excellent” research (from the perspective of a number of stakeholders).However, excellent research can only be undertaken if:

. the particular issues of researching individuals in the context of small firms areunderstood; and

. the issues that emerge are reflected upon.

In part, this means understanding the characteristics of the research context, and inearlier sections of this paper, we have represented some of the many complexities that areinvolved in doing research with small firms (and the individuals connected with them). Aswe have already argued, those researching SMEs are faced with a number of significantchallenges. While in some ways, this multi-layered context adds to the difficultiesresearchers face, we would also argue that the aforementioned complexities ultimatelycontribute to the richness of the data that are collected and the insights that are gained.The situation also requires a commitment to recognising that researching in the context ofsmall firms is quite different to researching large firms (Hill and McGowan, 1999).

In terms of reflecting on the methodological issues that have emerged from aresearch project, this is, in the authors’ experience, often something that happens

QRAM4,2

156

haphazardly, if at all. And it almost always happens at the end of the project – usuallyat a time when little value can be gained by identifying the lessons that can be learnedother than if you commence another project. This was not the case in the project thispaper describes – where although the end of the Lifecycles and Transitions projectmarked the completion of one project, it was also a key milestone in a wider strategicresearch programme. For this reason, the end of the project offered the research teaman opportunity to summarise some of the issues that the team faced in researching inthe unique context of New Zealand SMEs. These have been conceptualised as sixdimensions of complexity which in turn translate to implications (or lessons) for “good”or “better” SME research practice.

Attitudes of SME owner-managers to participating in researchIn the case of research projects involving SMEs (or indeed any size of organisation), youare imposing upon the time and life of other human beings in order to progress yourproject. The “Lifecycles and Transitions” project was no exception. The first phaseinvolved the recruitment of the 50 respondent firms. The initial approach was bytelephone and each owner-manager was given some brief background information onthe project before being invited to participate. If the response was “yes” further screeningquestions were then posed to ensure the information from the database itself was correct.

As anybody with any experience “recruiting” people to research knows this phasecan be both exciting (as it often signals the first “action” of the project) and daunting(as the rejections can soon mount up). In this project we were surprised at the relativelyfew firms (110) that needed to be telephoned in order to recruit the set (50). Whilst wecan only surmise, we have found that on the whole SME owner-managers areextremely willing to give of their time in order to share their story (of business and self).Instead of scepticism, regarding the nature of academic research, the owner-managerstypically responded in a way that indicated that anything they could do to contributeto the knowledge base in New Zealand regarding the sector they are part of wasworthwhile (i.e. they perceived our research as being useful). This attitude was bothrefreshing and a reminder that researchers in the field of SMEs are responsible forfeeding back their findings in a way that ultimately has both impact and influence. Inthe context of the Lifecycles and Transitions project, this has been achieved throughthe presentation of results to a forum of academics and government policymakers, thewriting and circulation of a “plain language” report to the SME owner-managers whotook part, and the publication of findings in academic journals.

The attitude towards participation in this project may also have been affected bythe fact that it was not government funded. Members of the research team werefrequently questioned as to the identity of the “sponsor” of the research, withparticipants revealing that had the work been government funded they wouldprobably have declined the offer to participate. When researchers probed this, orexplanations were offered voluntarily, they indicated that owner-managers harboureda degree of cynicism regarding participating in research that was funded or executedby government agencies. Some expanded on this, describing how they felt that thattype of research sometimes had little hope of achieving its objective; was often framedin a way that participants felt the answers they gave were not the “right” ones; and inparticular that that they never saw any outcome of the research or recognition made oftheir contribution.

Complexity inresearching

SMEs

157

The attitudes of SME owner-managers once members of the research team got onsite varied. The experiences of individual team members reflected the diversity ofhumanity, we were engaging with and represented challenges to the researchers’abilities as interviewers. One example was the owner-manager who appeared to haveliteracy difficulties and seemed to have trouble both comprehending and completingthe information sheet and consent form. Whilst a challenge to present the questions ina language and manner that engaged him, his willingness to take part overcame thedifferences in the way that he was able to participate in the interview. Indeed, hisarticulation of the vision for his business belied his lack of written communicationskills: “First, happy workplace; second, profitable with growth and return business”.Another example reflected the attitudes of the participants towards the fact theinterviewers were academics from universities: “So you’re a doctor. A doctor of what?”“Management”. Long, long, long pause. “Oh right”. Whilst humorous in hindsight, atthe time it clearly demonstrated that not all the owner-managers comprehended what itis researchers do and why they do it. The implication in practice of these examplesis that we must take seriously the role of explaining who, why and what we are doingat a variety of levels and in a variety of ways.

Access to SMEsWhile one of the advantages of doing research in New Zealand is that researchers haveaccess to accurate and reliable statistics on businesses (collected by the government’sstatistical agency, Statistics New Zealand), this is not to say that there are no issuesrelating to access. In fact, one of the key issues facing researchers is that of thedifficulty in gaining access to lists of firms that are up to date and which include thesort of data that is of value to researchers trying to select appropriate datasets that canconvincingly be described as representative of the New Zealand business population.In this project, the research team purchased a sample set of firms from a commercialdatabase provider. Although the amount of information available about each firm waslimited, and the database was weak in some areas (e.g. it included almost noagricultural enterprises – an important part of the New Zealand business sector – andvery few micro-enterprises), it was the largest such database of its kind available.

A second, and related issue of “access” in the New Zealand context is the absence ofa significant body of New Zealand research. While a number of individuals have beenactive in researching the sector over the last twenty years, there are still manyunanswered questions and unresolved issues. This is partly a function of thehaphazard way in which research agendas are set – a situation that is not specific toNew Zealand. As with other counties, research agendas tend to be driven either by thecommitment and curiosity of individual researchers or by the research programmes ofthe funding agencies. While the interests of these two groups of stakeholdersoccasionally coincide, often they do not. This can mean that the body of researchdevelops not in a cumulative way, with each study building upon the findings of thosethat have been completed, but in a series of “fits and starts”. Researchers may findthemselves in a situation where the same (or very similar) questions are asked over andover again – the result being that there is an absence of studies that can be describedas providing a strong foundation for those which follow.

In this project, the researchers were well aware of the absence of a body of“foundation” research, and the team was committed to attempting to redress this gap

QRAM4,2

158

by undertaking a study that was thoughtfully designed and carefully executed.This meant that a great deal of effort was put into identifying potential research users(such as policymakers) and the discussing the research design (and purpose) withthem. This task was quite achievable in New Zealand, where the researchers onlyneeded to make contact with a relatively small number of policymakers from one ortwo government departments.

The implication of considering issues of access and SME research in New Zealand isthe conclusion that research does need to be conducted with an awareness of thecontextual issues. For example, reflection on whether there are good statistics (or not)and whether there is a substantial existing body of knowledge (or not). Then, and onlythen, can researchers ensure that they are designing research that is appropriate.

Attitudes of “purchasers” of researchWhilst researchers in the area of SMEs no longer have to argue the merit of qualitativeresearch in their own circles, this is not the case when it comes to research users. A lesssophisticated understanding of research by such stakeholders frequently leads to theneed for justification of both research and its methods. The ideal is of coursemethodologies that are appropriate, researchers that are capable, and clients that canappreciate them both. However, the reality is too often that “clients” (frequentlygovernment agencies in the case of the New Zealand Centre for SME Research) in someinstances lack the “research maturity” (i.e. are not experienced in conducting research,and less well trained in the range of approaches available to contemporaryresearchers), or in others are driven by short parliamentary terms and short ministerialwork programmes. This presents a very clear choice: take on board the responsibilityfor “educating” clients, or methodologically modify research (Massey and Lewis, 2004).

In the case of “Lifecycles and Transitions” a client was not the project sponsor.However, if the study, as part of the strategic research programme of the researchcentre, is to achieve its long-term objectives then some buy-in to the project is neededfrom “clients” no matter who is funding the work itself. The lesson being that there isno real choice – we have a responsibility to our key stakeholders (the individuals whoown and manage small and medium sized firms in New Zealand) to get thatinvolvement. Engaging with such groups of government and client stakeholdersduring the research design phase of both “Lifecycles and Transitions” andBusinesSMEasure has helped to ensure they are aware of what we are doing andvice versa. This goes some way to contributing to ensuring that the knowledge we arecreating is cumulative rather than mere replication.

Isolation as a research communityWhile the small numbers of individuals involved in researching SMEs in New Zealandworked to the research team’s advantage when it came to dealing with issues of access,it worked against them on another level: while a small community may provide greatopportunities for researchers to draw upon each other’s experience (as there is atendency for everyone to know each other), the lack of a critical mass of researchers(particularly the lack of a critical mass of researchers who are prepared to actcollaboratively rather than compete with each other) can prove problematic when newmethods are being trialled or when a major new project is in the process of beingestablished.

Complexity inresearching

SMEs

159

This was the case with this project, which was deliberately conceptualised to functionon a number of levels (as a strategic research programme for the New Zealand SMEResearch Centre, and as a mechanism for collecting data that would benefit thegovernment agencies responsible for assisting the New Zealand business community) andwhich was designed by the research team “from scratch” in response to a number ofcharacteristics of the New Zealand context at this time. These factors included: the dearthof reliable evidence about the way in which New Zealand SMEs (and the individuals whooperate them) behave over time, and the increasingly urgent need of policy-makers tounderstand the needs of this sector. This led the research team into committing to theestablishment of the first longitudinal study of New Zealand SMEs – an ambitiousobjective – especially given the lack of government funding for research of this kind. Thefact that this was the first time this had been attempted was another factor thatemphasised the relative isolation of the New Zealand research community – as there waslittle in the way of local experience to draw upon. In this project, the researchers addressedthe lack of experience in this regard within the New Zealand academic community bydesigning a research approach that explicitly drew upon international expertise. Thelesson here is that it is important to ensure you connect with (and remain connected to),the appropriate international researchers in the field – however, laterally, theseconnections might occur or be established – whatever country you are doing research in.

The lack of an SME paradigmMany academics engaged in researching small firms have commented on the lack of asingle research paradigm. This has led to a series of debates on related topics such aswhether having a single research paradigm is in fact achievable and/or desirable.

In this project, the lack of a single paradigm (which is largely accepted by all thosewho research in the SME area) was a given. Recognising this situation, the projectleader attempted to find ways in which it could be used to their advantage – i.e. inproviding the rationale for developing a research methodology that would be strongerdue to the lack of a single accepted framework. In this context, the first decision was toinclude within the team researchers who were interested in entrepreneurship as well asthose who were interested in SMEs. A second key-design decision was to design theinterview schedule as an “omnibus” survey. This means that the central section of thequestionnaire was designed in consultation with the team, and the second section wasmade up of a set of questions that had been contributed by different team members.This allowed them to gather data on their appropriate research interests (e.g. youth,Maori business) – and to use these data within whatever framework was appropriate(e.g. those drawing upon the entrepreneurship literature or the literature on smallbusiness management).

The essential issue to take stock of with regard to this dimension of SME researchpractice is the need for researchers to be explicit about whether their project makes use of asingle theoretical framework (or many) or whether it is explicitly inter-disciplinary(i.e. where in the context of a team different researchers can draw on multiple frameworks).

Working in teamsThe “Lifecycles and Transitions” project involved eight researchers of varying ages,genders, ethnicities, academic backgrounds and levels of experience in terms of SMEresearch. This gave the research team a richness that paralleled the individuals and

QRAM4,2

160

firms it was engaging with. The team-based nature of the research design alsopresented both strengths and weaknesses in the context of this project. It was achallenge to coordinate the activities of such a number of researchers who were in threedifferent geographic locations. The majority of tricky project logistics were overcomethrough the devising of a tight and comprehensive project protocol. This includedinformation that ranged from macro details relating to project objectives and theinterview schedule itself, through to micro tips on research “protocol” in SMEs inNew Zealand (e.g. “don’t wear a suit”) and the inclusion of emergency phone numbers(such as that of the project administrator). The advantages of a team that wasdispersed geographically lay in the accomplishment of data collection within a timelyand cost effective parameter. For example, each researcher was responsible for at leastsix interviews and a proportion of those would have been in or near their home town orcity. It also meant that some matching of researcher expertise to interviewee couldoccur (e.g. the researcher with expertise regarding Maori businesses could be pairedwith the relevant firms).

The other strength of a team is the very fact it is a team. Research by its nature canbe an isolating experience, especially if you are carrying out fieldwork alone. By beinga member of a team, both, the joys and burdens of fieldwork in this project could beshared. There are other people you can benchmark your experiences with (e.g. thelength each interview was taking and what were proving to be “thorny” questions) aswell as funny or distressing stories. For example, the nature of the interview schedulemeant that interviewers were asking what personal or family events had had an impacton the lifecycle of the business. This often brought about reactions that were upsettingfor both interviewee and researcher, as one researcher reflected:

The interview seemed to be following the same pattern as all the others in theproject. The interviewee was talking about his success, excitedly drawing a wordpicture of his plans for the next year. Then I asked him to clarify the reason behind thechange of business. This question unlocked another whole story – of the businessgoing into liquidation and its subsequent rebirth. Telling this story the intervieweepaused often, to block back tears as he relived the pain of losing his business, feelinghumiliated and unable to carry his head high within the small community that he is apart of.

Being able to share such experiences with other team members, who sometimes hadbeen through the same thing, was at times a relief.

Data analysis proved another area where the different backgrounds and experiencesof team members proved a strength. At the initial stage of brainstorming themes, theteam came together to share ideas, quotes and perceptions with each other. Whilst achallenge to coordinate all this thinking, the richness of insights was more than oneperson could have achieved individually. Often, the resonance of different researcherswith different interviewees (e.g. the team members that had themselves beenself-employed in the past) meant they were more able to “draw out” more data that mightotherwise have been possible. A team approach at this point also helped avoid whatEnnis (1999, p. 159) described as “tunnel vision” (i.e. the pre-conceptions and prejudicesof researchers working on an individual basis). It also helped ensure that the researcherswho were highly experienced in the field of SMEs did not fall into “seeing” thesame stereotypes of SME owner-managers or asking questions that merely perpetuatedthem.

Complexity inresearching

SMEs

161

ConclusionDoing research with SMEs is a complicated endeavour, as is evidenced bythe “Lifecycles and Transitions” project discussed in this paper. The authors havepresented some of these dimensions of complexity and derived from them some“lessons” of research practice. The purpose of a paper such as this is to put forwardsome practically driven reflections on a methodological experience in the hope that itresonates with, or stimulates reflection by, other researchers. At best, we can hope thatit provides others with an insight that furthers their own research efforts with SMEs,at worst, it will demonstrate the experiences of each SME research project are uniqueand that other researchers will therefore need to document their own research journeys.

Ultimately it is a contribution of a single New Zealand team’s effort to the collectiveeffort of an overall SME research community. It is an attempt to add a piece to theincomplete picture that is SME research. Whilst all research is incomplete, as Curranand Blackburn (2001, p. 25) acknowledge, what “sound research achieves is moreunderstanding not complete understanding”. What we have shown is that byconsidering the dimensions of complexity that pervade SME research they can beovercome. They can make us richer as researchers, not poorer. They should notbe considered barriers, they are part of a rich research tapestry and a unique researchcontext: that of the small, medium or micro enterprise and its owner, manager orentrepreneur.

References

Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Research,Heinemann, London.

Cameron, A. and Massey, C. (1999), Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: A New ZealandPerspective, Addison Longman Wesley, Auckland.

Chetty, S. (1996), “The case study method for research in small and medium sized firms”,International Small Business Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 73-85.

Curran, J. and Blackburn, R.A. (2001), Researching the Small Enterprise, Sage, London.

Dennis, W.J. Jr (2003), “Raising response rates in mail surveys of small business owners: resultsof an experiment”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 278-95.

Ennis, S. (1999), “Growth and the small firm – using causal mapping to assess thedecision-making process: a case study”, Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 2 No. 2,pp. 147-60.

Hill, J. and McGowan, P. (1999), “Small business and enterprise development: questions aboutresearch methodology”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research,Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 5-18.

Holliday, R. (1995), Investigating Small Firms, Routledge, London.

Keene, A. (2000), “Complexity theory: the changing role of leadership”, Industrial & CommercialTraining, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 15-18.

Lewis, K. (2004), “New Zealand SME owners: in it for the ‘lifestyle’ or ‘freestyle’?”, paperpresented at The Institute for Small Business Affairs 27th National Conference, NewcastleGateshead, November.

Lichtenstein, B.B., Carter, N.M., Dooley, K.J. and Gartner, W.B. (2007), “Complexity dynamics ofnascent entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 22, pp. 236-61.

QRAM4,2

162

Magala, S. (2000), “Critical complexities: from marginal paradigms to learning networks”,Journal of Organisational Change Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 312-33.

Massey, C. and Lewis, K. (2004), “Doing qualitative research with New Zealand small andmedium-sized enterprises”, paper presented at the Qualitative Research in BusinessSymposium, Auckland, December.

Massey, C., Cameron, A., Cheyne, J., Harris, C., Lewis, K., Tweed, D., Wallace, C. and Warriner, V.(2004a) Stories of Growth in Small and Medium Enterprises in New Zealand: A Report onthe Lifecycles and Transitions Project, NZ Centre for SME Research, Wellington.

Massey, C., Harris, C. and Lewis, K. (2004b), “Death, divorce and disease: personal life event andthe business life-cycle”, paper presented at The RENT XVIII Conference: ManagingComplexity and Change in SMEs, Copenhagen, November.

Massey, C., Harris, C. and Lewis, K. (2005), “Nice rhetoric but it’s not quite us: work-life balanceand NZ SME owners”, paper presented at the 50th ICSB World Conference, Washington,DC, June.

Massey, C., Harris, C., Tweed, D., Warriner, V. and Lewis, K. (2003), “Speaking up: stories of SMEgrowth in New Zealand”, paper presented at a research symposium: Growing Up? SMEs inNew Zealand, New Zealand Centre for SME Research, Wellington, pp. 16-30.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Newby, R., Watson, J. and Woodliff, D. (2003), “SME survey methodology: response rates, dataquality, and cost effectiveness”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 28 No. 2,pp. 163-72.

Patton, M.Q. (1982), Practical Evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Romano, C. (1989), “Research strategies for small business: a case study approach”, InternationalSmall Business Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 35-43.

Stebbins, R.A. (1992), “Concatenated exploration: notes on a neglected type of longitudinalresearch”, Quality & Quantity, Vol. 26, pp. 435-42.

Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Corresponding authorKate Lewis can be contacted at: k.v.lewis@massey.ac.nz

Complexity inresearching

SMEs

163

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints