This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The relationship between culture and entrepreneurship has produced causalities that are indeed more complex, as both culture and entrepreneurship hold a unique position in affecting each other. Even though it is highly affected by culture, entrepreneurship through its entrepreneurs also drives cultural changes. Unfortunately, most literatures on entrepreneurship and culture do not address these complexities into their relationship. This research will fill those gaps by studying the relational nature between culture’s attributes and entrepreneurship that exists locally within a nation, as well as how they mutually affect one another in their local settings. It seeks to understand the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship by describing and analysing entrepreneurs’ social actions through the form of multiple mental constructions, socially and experientially, from the entrepreneurs’ point of view. Therefore, unlike traditional models and theories that focus solely on economic reality or personality traits of individual entrepreneurs, this research will acquire holism that has the potentiality to lead to a satisfactory alternative paradigm for entrepreneurship. It will adopt an exploratory research design that emphasized on naturalistic research inquiries. Rather than aiming to verify pre-defined theoretical constructs concerned with specific issues, this research aims to generate new theories and concepts from the data collected in the field. Moreover, considering that it is also concerned with the underlying pursuit of contextual depth, this research will use Indonesia as a research context and the multiple-case study as an approach. This approach consists of communities as cases (macro-cases) and several individual entrepreneurs within those communities as sub-cases (micro-cases). Both contribute to the unique relation between the particular situations and phenomenon of interest mentioned before. Beside the fact that many of its population depend on various informal entrepreneurial activities for subsistence and that entrepreneurship through various Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) played a crucial role in sustaining its economy during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, Indonesia is chosen as a research context because it is also the most culturally diverse developing country in the world. As a result, from the Indonesians’ viewpoint, the research outcome is expected to represent the Indonesia’s culture-fit model of entrepreneurship informing effective policies to foster entrepreneurial competitiveness, while at the same time enhancing and highlighting local culture as the country’s regional asset. Meanwhile, from the social science’s standpoint, the research outcome is expected to provide understandings on how cultural variability explains the effect of entrepreneurial activity, the insights into the significance of entrepreneurship in many communities, and the possible responses, both individual as well as community, which balances the needs of individuals, communities, and economic institutions as a whole.
Entrepreneurial activity has been around for as long as man existed. However, serious researches regarding the nature of the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship have only begun since the early twentieth century1, 2,3. Although the concept of culture is very complex and is used with various meanings, it has become a generally accepted view that cultural factors affect entrepreneurial activity4. Weber, through his thesis, outlined the relationship between the attributes of culture (mainly religion)
and entrepreneurship, which he represented as the spirit of capitalism, and was discovered to be an interesting topic to be studied5,6. Nevertheless, it is only in the last three decade, when Hofstede introduced his famous model on cultural dimension based on national culture for the first time in 1980, that this relationship was empirically studied. Consequently, since then many studies on the relationship between entrepreneurship and culture or cultural values have been using his model as the basis of their research7. Hoftstede8 defines culture as “… a collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another”. He considers culture as a collective phenomenon, formed by the social environment of individuals in a particular place. According to Hofstede, variations related with nationality, ethnicity, social classes, religion, gender, and language cause cultural differences. In the core of his model of culture are values, which he holds as a critical feature of culture and cultural distinctiveness9. Hofstede’s research has successfully shown how national culture affects the environment essential for entrepreneurship across a range of countries. However, by assuming that national culture is a ‘common component’ of a wider culture which contains both its global and subnational constituents10, his study ignores the differences among local cultural groups within a country11,12,13,14,15. In fact, in a highly centralized country, cultural systems that exist locally still dominantly influence grassroots community’s way of life16. In reality, local cultural attributes also serve as a non-formal standard entry requirement needed to be acquired by a person in order to be accepted as a community member17. In other words, compared to Hofstede’s ‘common component’ of national culture, the dynamics of culture that exist locally have a greater impact towards a community member of a country. Moreover, the evolution of local cultures and their interactions with supporting national policies have also been a key determinant of success that encourages entrepreneurship activities locally18. Hence, aspects contained in a locally cultural system along with all of its supporting attributes are more dominant in building a local environment that fosters entrepreneurship19,20. Moreover, the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship does not only produce a one-way interaction21. Although regarded as the elements orientating further actions, in reality culture itself is also the product of actions22,23,24,25. Therefore, this condition places culture as a subject of both repulsive and attractive forces of change, which are typically wrapped in innovations and cultural inventions. Innovations as well as cultural inventions change community’s social structures and affect culture internally26. They produce changes within a community by altering social dynamics, which facilitate creative actions in promoting new cultural models. Subsequently, these social shifts will stimulate ideological modifications and other types of cultural changes27. Besides, in order to survive, a culture always needs to be re-acceded and re-integrated under the consensus of the community where it belongs to28. This is where entrepreneurship, through its entrepreneurs who were previously shaped by culture, takes its critical role in driving cultural changes. Entrepreneurs act as a catalyst of change that imagines new solutions. As the true agents of creative destruction, they endogenously destroy old ways and replace it with new ones29. Entrepreneurs possess the power in advancing those cultural changes, no matter how big the impact is30,31. They are fully equipped with various new ideas, as well as the ability to convert those ideas into successful innovations and social inventions in order to alter inferior creation as a whole or a part (for examples see: Putnam32, Baumol33, Boettke & Coyne34, Kirzner35, and Leff36). Eventually, through their creativity, entrepreneurs will not just create new products or even new business models, but also develop a new cultural system37.
All of those situations previously mentioned produce causalities that are indeed more complex, due to the unique position both culture and entrepreneurship hold in affecting each other. While it is highly affected by cultural factors existing locally within a nation, entrepreneurship through its entrepreneurs also act as the catalyst of cultural changes38. Unfortunately, most studies on entrepreneurship and culture have not integrated these complex causalities (see Low & MacMillan39 and Voros40). They relegate the complexities by considering the relationship as simply a one-way interaction, treating questions, such as how cultural attributes affect entrepreneurship and how entrepreneurship through its entrepreneurs acts as the driver of cultural changes, as a separate study or research topic. This condition will obviously enlarge the literature gap regarding the relational nature between culture’s attributes and entrepreneurship that exist locally within a nation, as well as how they mutually affect one another in their local settings41.
1.1 Rationalizing the Research Context
During the course of the twentieth century, globalization has marginalized indigenous people around the world. The rapid shifts in economic forces, advances in technology, social acculturation forced by the dominant ‘ruling culture’ under the premise of ‘common culture’, as well as other negative effects have made them suffer greatly. Therefore, studies on the degree of cohesion that remains and the desire among many indigenous people to rebuild their communities on a traditionally and culturally grounded foundation are important42. However, those studies should not only be used as a supporting tool or a simple exercise in analysing the existence of outliers in the global world-system. Studies of indigenous populations comprise of efforts in providing theoretical and empirical sources of analysis, and are considerably relevant to the development of a generalizable theory of entrepreneurship and its associations with culture. These theories can be put forward in many settings including, but not exclusive to, indigenous communities43. They can be used to provide insights into the significance of entrepreneurship in many communities and the possible responses, both individual as well as community, which balances the needs of individuals, communities, and economic institutions as a whole. Indonesia, as the most culturally diverse country in the world, has numerous indigenous populations that are separated into various distinct ethnic groups. While in some colonialized countries indigenous people are considered minorities in their own motherland, in Indonesia they represent the majority of the population. Nevertheless, we have to trace back through history in order to describe clearly the concept of indigenous people in Indonesia44. From the year 1844 until 1942, through the Regeringsreglement 1854 article 109, the Dutch divided citizenship of the Dutch East Indies (currently Indonesia) into three social classes45,46. The Europeanen (Europeans) was designated the highest of the three groups, followed by the Vreemde Oosterlingen (Foreign Orientals which consisted of mostly Chinese, Indian, and some Arabians). The Inlanders stood at the very bottom of these groups (nativeindigenous). After declaring its independence, Indonesia recognizes only two types of citizenships, the warganegara Indonesia (Indonesians) and the warganegara asing (foreigners)47. Until now, warganegara Indonesia consists of the indigenous people as well as the former Europeanen and Vreemde Oosterlingen, as well as their descendants who have chosen the Indonesian citizenship. Since the colonial period, culturally the indigenous people (Inlanders) are called the pribumi, while those whose ancestors originated from other races or countries (Europeanen and Vreemde Oosterlingen) are called non-pribumi48. The pribumi, consisting of 1,128 distinct ethnic groups49, are spread all over
Indonesia. Each differentiates itself mainly based upon ancestry and resides in particular places, which they culturally proclaim as their land of origin. This differentiation has produced 746 different local languages (Bahasa Daerah)50 and informally legislate each pribumi ethnic group its ‘local status’ as the ‘local community’ attached to a certain areas in Indonesia. In these local communities, the pribumi retain their ancestral graves and main cultural practices. Thus, the concept of indigenous community and local community are interrelated to each other, as for Indonesians they have the same meaning. This condition defines the concept of local culture in Indonesia and raises the term of Orang, which is used to refer an indigenous community and their inherited culture, tied as the local community and local culture of a particular area. For instance, Orang Bali (Balinese) and their inherited culture represent the local community and local culture of Bali, or Orang Sunda (Sudanese) and their inherited culture represent the local community and local culture of West Java. Referring to the above situation, multicultural interaction and acculturation among those ethnic groups are a compulsory requirement for the country’s sustainability. Hence, from the declaration of independence, Indonesia has been trying to strengthen its culture, unfortunately, by imposing a national culture in the name of national unity and integrity through centralized political structure, leadership, legislation, and education51. Yet up until today, the expansion of Indonesia’s national culture was never able to replace local cultures. Even under Soeharto’s centralized regime, local cultures still dominated the lives of those pribumi ethnic groups52. In fact, their significance was reaffirmed through the regional autonomy law first introduced in 1999. Consequently, the pribumi are increasingly wishing for and talking about ‘local wisdom’ possessed by their local cultures and traditions. They believe that each local culture has its own geniuses that are instrumental in the maintenance of socio-cultural stability and harmony53. This is not surprising, because younger generations are initially brought up according to the values and modesty of their own ethnicity, culture, and tradition54. This creates the idea of personhood in relation to their parents, families, and society based on the ‘traditional’ norms that are considered most appropriate for each group. In terms of economic activity, many Indonesians depend on various informal entrepreneurial activities for subsistence. As a result, entrepreneurship in this country is highly manifested in the form of various SMEs. Historically they have played the main role in the household economy of the country’s population, a generator of primary or secondary sources of income for many families55, 56, 57. SMEs in Indonesia are regionally dispersed and are mostly located in the rural areas. According to BPS58, in 2008 the majority of Indonesian SMEs operate in agriculture (including forestry and animal husbandry, 52.48%), trading and hospitality (28.1%), production (6.32%), service (4.25%), and transportation (6.25%) sectors of the economy. They have employed approximately 94 million people (97.15% of the total number of national employment) and contributed to 55.67% of Indonesia’s real Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Until 2009, the number of SMEs in Indonesia grew to roughly 52.76 million units or approximately 99.99% of all business units59. This shows how Indonesia deeply relies on its SMEs’ entrepreneurship in maintaining its economic growth, enhancing income distribution at the rural and regional level, as well as their potentiality in reducing unemployment. It must be admitted that the country’s awareness on the importance of entrepreneurship studies is however due to SMEs’ pivotal role in sustaining the country’s economy during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis60. This is why studies or researches on entrepreneurship in Indonesia were notoriously limited before the end of the twentieth century61,62,63. Literature such as ‘The Achieving Society’ of David McClelland64 and ‘The practice of Entrepreneurship’ of Geoffrey G. Meredith, Robert E. Nelson, and Philip A. Neck65 were translated into Bahasa Indonesia more than a decade since they were first published in English, in 1987 and 1996 respectively. Even both literatures are still used as primary
textbooks for entrepreneurship courses in the country until today. The oldest comprehensive account on entrepreneurship and its relationship with cultural attributes in Indonesia was written by Clifford Geertz66 in his ‘Peddlers and Princess’, which consists of a closely observed case study examining cultural factors of economic development through an examination of entrepreneurs in Kediri (East Java) and Tabanan (Bali). Geertz published his work in 1963, which was then translated to Bahasa Indonesia in 1973. Nevertheless, since Geertz’s publication, no more in-depth research on the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship found in Indonesia. This condition allows no other alternatives for academics in Indonesia but only to uncritically validate various indices or models on national culture, such as models built by Hostede, as something that is irrefutable (for example Nursjanti & Sulganef67, Purnomo68, Suryana69, Winarningsih70, Handayani71, Atmanti72, and Ciputra73). Indeed, they encourage the Indonesian government to foster the development of entrepreneurship by sponsoring an ‘entrepreneurial culture’ (see Presidential Instruction No. 474, Winarningsih75, Atmanti76, and Ciputra77), which is built based upon various characteristics of entrepreneurship introduced by prominent scholars around the world. For Indonesian academics, local culture is regarded as a hindrance for entrepreneurial activity78,79. From their point of view, local culture is incapable of assisting entrepreneurs to gain Lambing and Kuehl’s80 initiatives, selfconfidence, self-determination, as well as high tolerance for ambiguity and failure; Hyrsky’s81 innovativeness and creativity; Littunen’s82 ability to learn; Deakins’83 needs for achievement; Mazzarol, Volery, Doss, and Thein’s84 locus control; Bridge, O’Neill and Crome’s85 autonomous and independence; Brockhaus’86 risk-taking propensities to gain profits. This situation in fact contradicts the affirmation of local culture in Indonesia discussed earlier. It is actually a general datum that while the phenomenon and the role of entrepreneurship in the economy have been widely studied in developed countries, studies of entrepreneurship in developing countries, such as Indonesia, are still under-represented87. Even Lingelbach, De La Vina and Asel88 claim that, “Entrepreneurship in developing countries is the most understudied important global economic phenomenon today”. This situation is also exacerbated by the presence of mainstream development theories and classical theories of entrepreneurship in those countries, where they maintain their own conceited view in promoting the universality and superiority of their western model89. Both failed to render real contribution to the developmental aspirations of the people in developing countries, because most of their assumptions often ignore cultural, environmental, technological, and structural differences found between the developed and developing countries. Even when regarded as a common phenomenon, entrepreneurship should still remain a country-specific experience that must be promoted accordingly. Thus, it is argued here that by not considering the complexity of local contexts will consequently hinder attempts to understand entrepreneurship.
1.2 Guiding Question and Research Objectives
Since culture is intangible and lies within the subjective realm of entrepreneurship, this research is in accordance with the interpretivists’ position via the framework of naturalistic inquiry and can be regarded as an exploratory study that does not conform to any existing hypothesis90,91. Thus, the central research question is general and focuses mainly on a ‘what’ question92,93. This type of question is used to guide the study towards exploring the individual and social phenomenon through an integrative rocess94, 95 . The question is designed to better understand the interface between exogenous factors and the unique elements of the existing local culture, as well as entrepreneurial activity, where the emphasis can be changed or modified throughout the field study. The goal is to substantively comprehend and
systematically generate theory that emerges from the data96,97 in order to bring new insights to the study of entrepreneurship. By considering the research background and the above explanations, this research will be directed by the following central research question: What is the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship in a culturally diverse developing country? The central research question will guide this research to achieve the three main objectives below. First objective - develop a theoretical framework that directly germane to understand the socio-cultural structures and contexts related to entrepreneurship within a particular community. The research seeks to develop, as its principal finding and output, an analytical framework that can describe and explain how different local cultures construct the concept of entrepreneurship and how entrepreneurship manifests itself in those cultures. Second objective - develop a theoretical framework that directly germane to understand how sociocultural structures and contexts construct the subjective and objective elements of entrepreneurs’ actions. The study seeks to develop, as its principal finding and output, an analytical framework that can: 1) describe and explain how local entrepreneurs understand the concept of entrepreneurship that exists in their local culture and how that concept develops local entrepreneurs’ values on business practices; and 2) describe and explain how local entrepreneurs’ values on business practices change overtime, what drives those changes, and how those changes influence their first understanding on the concept of entrepreneurship that exists in their local culture. Third objective - develop a theoretical framework that directly germane to understand how entrepreneurs drive cultural changes in their community. The study seeks to develop, as its principal finding and output, an analytical framework that can: 1) describe and explain how local entrepreneurs understand their local culture; and 2) describe and explain how local entrepreneurs accommodate their business with their domestic activities along with all social activities related to their local culture overtime.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Studies regarding the relational nature of culture and entrepreneurship consist of multifaceted backgrounds, informed by several disciplines98. Each discipline can be considered as a domain for examining the relevant scholarly works including, but are not limited to, social psychology, cultural anthropology, sociology, economics, political economy, or international business99. Furthermore, apart from the range of theory that informs both subjects, concomitant exploration of culture and entrepreneurship is further complicated by the very different spectrums through which scholars approach economics and cultural studies. Indeed merely defining them has spawned a mass of literature (see Schumpeter100, Leff101, Morrison102, and Kuratko & Hodgetts103). The positive outcome is that the subject has produced a diversity of approaches and perspectives. However, at the same time it may also be viewed as a negative outcome because every single academic discipline speaks with its own distinct language or methodology, much too solid for outsiders to comprehend. As noted by Mankiw104, social
scientists attempt to study the authenticity of cultures and their conformity to specific norms, whereas economists study universal laws of economic decision-making by individuals and firms. With the above annotations in mind, this discussion will first begin with a section overviewing the evolution of entrepreneurship studies to date and different perspectives within the research field. Afterwards, the second section is dedicated to explore the connection between culture and entrepreneurship in order to relate the research background with the guiding research question and objectives. It consists of a discussion on defining and measuring culture, followed by an outline regarding various discourses on the relationship. Finally, the third section of the literature review will discuss the importance of SME as a representation of entrepreneurship in developing countries and will serve as the basis for examining entrepreneurship in Indonesia.
2.1 Overviewing Entrepreneurship Studies
Historically, Richard Cantillon’s105 ‘Essay on the Nature of Commerce in General’ and Jean Baptiste Say’s106 ‘A treatise on political economy’, are often given credit of being the first in introducing the concept of entrepreneurship into scientific literature, primarily economics. Cantillon recognized that discrepancies between demand and supply in a market create opportunities for buying cheaply and selling at a higher price, and that this arbitrage would bring the competitive market into equilibrium. His presumption was that the entrepreneur would buy products at a fixed price, have them packaged and transported to market, and sell them at an unpredictable price107. Cantillon loosely defined entrepreneurship as self-employment of any sort and entrepreneurs as risk-takers108. On the other hand, Say considered that effective entrepreneurs must possess the moral qualities of judgment and perseverance, as well as enrich themselves with the knowledge of the world. He realized that wealth is essentially and originally metaphysical. Say reasoned that wealth is the result of creativity, ideas, imagination, as well as innovation, thereby placed the role of the entrepreneur at the hub of economic theory109,110,111. He also stated economic advancement requires both entrepreneurs and the accumulation of capital. Nevertheless, until now it must be acknowledged that a generally accepted definition for entrepreneurship does not exist112,113,114,115. Subsequently after Cantillon and Say, entrepreneurship research has become highly diverse and complex116, 117. It cannot be confined to one discipline only, because entrepreneurship research currently involves a variety of disciplines outside economics to its field, such as psychology, anthropology, sociology, and management (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 (will be inserted here) Bases of Entrepreneurship Theory Building
Entrepreneurship research has also included individual, group, organization, industry, and society within its level of analysis119. The research topic seems to have an expanding trend, discussing issues such as gender, ethnicity, migration, social capital, culture, or religion. The diversity is further complicated by the proliferation of subcategories of entrepreneurship research, which introduce additional terminology such as ‘venture capitalist’, ‘corporate entrepreneurship’, ‘corporate venturing’, ‘intrepreneuring’, ‘internal entrepreneurship’, and ‘venturing’120. This is why any effort to condense them (see Table 1) into a single summary of definition is dubious121.
Table 1 (will be inserted here) Definition List of Entrepreneurship
Hans Landstrom146 argues that this diversity is due to the time discrepancy of interest among researchers on entrepreneurship studies, which are linked to societal economic development on a particular time. He labels this time discrepancy of interest as ‘swarms’ of entrepreneurship research and classifies it as follow:
Table 2 (will be inserted here) The Linkage between Societal Development and Entrepreneurship Research
Landstrom furthermore explains that those swarms have been evolving entrepreneurship as a multidimensional concept148, where each definition depends largely on the disciplinary approach, the focus of the research undertaken, and the level of analysis149. According to Verheul et al.150, all of the existing definitions can be categorized into two broad perspectives, the supply side and the demand side. Commonly it is also referred as the pull and push factors of entrepreneurship151. The demand side’s perspective emphasizes its studies on entrepreneurship opportunities created by the diversity of consumers’ demand or the industrial structures. Its Supporters highly consider the influence of technological developments and government regulations as being central for their research. Meanwhile, the supply side’s perspective highlights the characteristics of the population or demographic compositions within a particular country as important subjects to be studied. Examples of those characteristics are the influences of cultural and institutional environment on individuals, as well as their attitudes towards entrepreneurship. In reality, the real debate between those perspectives lies in theories of entrepreneurship emphasizing variation in individual traits versus theories that privilege variation in the structural environment152, in explaining factors determining the level of entrepreneurship in a certain place or time153. This condition has divided literatures on entrepreneurship into two main traditions, concentrating largely on individuals and structure respectively154,155,156. The first seeks to explain the prevalence of entrepreneurs in terms of innate psychological traits or special characteristics formed in certain social groups. They argue that special types of people are pulled to create entrepreneurship. Alternatively, the second highlights how social and cultural structures call forth entrepreneurs by providing opportunities for entrepreneurship. They argue that people are pushed into entrepreneurship by a supportive culture that stems from any number of infra structural factors. The first important contribution that highlights individuals as the primary focus of entrepreneurship studies was done in 1961 by David McClelland through157 ‘The Achieving Society’. According to McClelland158, societies are bounded by cultural attributes, which can be translated into primary socialization practices that foster entrepreneurship. Since McClelland’s publication, various researchers have studied the individual characteristics associated with entrepreneurship in order to find the differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs (see Gartner159). They have sought the entrepreneurial personality as having qualities, such as innovativeness and creativity (see Hyrsky160); the ability to learn as well as the need for achievement, autonomy, and independence (see Littunen161 and Bridge et al.162; locus of control (see Mazzarol et al.163); initiative, self-confidence, self-determination, as well as tolerance for ambiguity and failure (see Lambing & Kuehl164); and risk-taking propensity to gain profits (see Brockhaus165). Barreira166 compiled a list characteristics most often attributed to entrepreneurs by the individual tradition, as follow:
Table 3 (will be inserted here) Entrepreneurship Characteristics
On the contrary, scholars in the structural tradition seek to understand how social, cultural, and institutional factors induce entrepreneurship167. Although some insist on the significance of social distortion and marginalization, most of them agree that cultural and institutional supports encourage entrepreneurship168. Under the structural tradition, supporting factors of entrepreneurship can be categorized into three core dimensions169,170. They are the regulatory dimension consisting of institutions and policies, the cognitive dimension consisting of a widely shared social knowledge, and the normative dimension consisting of value systems. Moreover, in the field of management, structural tradition researchers often emphasize on distinctive organizational influence before an individual decides to work in a particular established firm171. These researchers claim that organizations provide opportunities in building confidence, knowledge about the opportunities, social networks, and access to critical resources172. The importance of the totality of interpretation to reunite the two traditions has been repeatedly reminded by various scholars such as Patricia Thornton173. She suggests the use of sociological frameworks, an embeddedness perspective, ecological and institutional theories, as well as multilevel models to integrate both traditions’ analyses of individuals, groups, organizations, industries, and the characteristics of a society in explaining how, where, and why entrepreneurship exist. However, these attempts appear to have failed174. There is still no common link across the broad array of academic disciplines to reflect the rich diversity of settings in which entrepreneurship may possibly takes place175. Thus, up until now, questions on how cultural attributes affect entrepreneurship and how entrepreneurship through its entrepreneurs act as the driver of cultural changes are treated as separate studies by those traditions. This counter-intuitive situation prohibits the uncritical adoption of western concepts in entrepreneurship studies and is considered not relevant in a culturally different context176, 177 .
2.2 Culture and Entrepreneurship
The relational nature between culture and entrepreneurship is a circumstance hard to be disputed. Although the hypothesized link between them is still not well established178, it has become a generally accepted view that cultural factors affect entrepreneurial activity179. This situation has motivated several disciplines, such as economics180, sociology181, psychology182, and anthropology183 to raise several synthetic issues attributed to several social characteristics, which consequently consist what we understand about their relationship. Both traditions mentioned in the previous section put different emphasis on culture in their research. The individual tradition considers culture as an essential factor for the development of psychological traits to pull entrepreneurship. In contrast, the structural tradition considers culture as an important part of Kostova’s184 normative and cognitive dimensions in order to push entrepreneurship. These differences divided literatures discussing the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship into two broad streams of research questions185: questions addressing the impact of cultural structure on entrepreneurial activity, inquired by the structural tradition; and questions addressing the association between personal entrepreneurial characteristics with entrepreneurship, inquired by the individual tradition. Nevertheless, before discussing the differences between those traditions any further, it will be best to discuss the definition and measurement of culture first.
2.2.1 About culture
Kroeber and Kluckhohn186 made a critical review of culture based upon a compiled list of over 100 different definitions and concepts. They systematically sketched together different meanings, then grouped them into six groups: descriptive, historical, normative, psychological, structural, and genetic. They summarized that culture explains the way of life, thinking, feeling, and believing, which not only comprises of social legacies and learned behaviour of an individual, but also refers to the stored learning of society and groups187. Both men suggested that culture is more than just social habits or patterns of behaviour learned and passed on from generation to generation. In the 1950s, culture is defined as the ideational side of social action or social practice, and anthropologists are called upon to view cultural analysis as the interpretative study of behaviour. Geertz188, on the other hand gave a definition emphasizing on symbol. He defined culture as a historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic form by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes towards life189. He also placed attention to the regulatory function of culture on individual and gave an emphasis on religion as cultural system. Until recently, parallel with entrepreneurship, there is no single comprehensive definition of culture because it is also a multidimensional concept. Williams190 admits that culture is “… one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language”. Further complications with the concept of culture arise from the slippage of meaning between the academic usages and the popular usages of the term, and largely depend on experiences and trends that shape it. Culture both as an individual and a social phenomenon, connects individual behavior to community attitudes and values vice versa. It characterizes the way of shaping society, consisting of rules for structuring and guiding society’s behavior. Hodgetts et al.191, outlines the definition of culture into six main characteristics. First, culture is ‘learned’, not genetically or biologically inherited. Second, culture is ‘transgenerational’ or passed on through learning processes from generation to generation. Third, culture is ‘shared’ because it is shaped by groups, organizations, or entire societies. Fourth, culture is ‘symbolic’ because it defines how the world is perceived and how life is organized. Fifth, culture is ‘patterned’, or in other words, it is integrated within a structure. Finally, as it is based on human who are able to change and adapt, culture is ‘dynamic and adaptive’. According to Hofstede, culture, or in his own word ‘mental program’, is intangible and largely unobservable192. It is acquired only through the expression of various manifestations, which comprise of features that may well be learned. Hall193 dichotomized culture into context, the lower and higher context respectively. In the lower context of culture, most of the meanings of communication are embedded in explicit verbal expressions, whereas in the higher context of culture, the meanings of communication depend heavily on the context or non-verbal aspects of communications. Peterson clarifies this by noting that observable cultural manifestations or the lower context194 of culture can be recognized very quickly, because they contain anything that can be perceived by human senses. He portrays culture as an iceberg, puts the observable manifestations of culture above and the unobservable below the water line of the iceberg (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 (will be inserted here) Culture as an Iceberg
Peterson argues that to understand all manifestations of culture, a researcher has to look beyond the unperceived, studying the unobservable. He claims that the unobservable manifestations are in fact the foundation of the observable, because they contain the hidden origins of culture and act as the core of
it. Brett195 supports Peterson’s argument by declaring that there is “… more to culture below the surface”. She furthermore claims that just like an iceberg, “… culture is not static, it drifts and shifts” 196. Wederspahn197 explains that the deep manifestations of culture however will not drift rapidly overnight, even when the surface factors of culture shift over time due to either modernization or trend. Hofstede et al.198 describes that the shifting of modern world will only affect the level of practices, not values. They are visible to outside observers and are subsumed under the manifestations of symbols (words, gestures, pictures, or objects that carry a particular meaning), heroes (persons, dead or alive, actual or imaginary, who serve as models for behaviour in a particular community), and rituals (collective activities that are considered socially essential by a community) (see Figure 3). Hofstede199 places value in the core of his onion model of culture, which he holds as a critical feature that distinguishes one culture from another. He believes that changes in values will still make it invisible and not converging, because values lies only in the interpretation of the insider. Hofstede200 augmented that changes in values are only due to four different kinds of effects: the maturation effects (changes in personal values as a person grows older); the seniority effects (changes in personal values because of greater responsibility); the generation effects (fixed personal values that were built when adolescence); and the zeitgeist effects (changes in values that occur widely in a society, regardless of age, due to drastic global changes or external shocks, such as political revolution, war or recession).
Figure 3 (will be inserted here) Hofstede’s Onion Diagram of Cultural Manifestations at Different Level of depth
There are many different ways in analysing then subsequently measuring cultural manifestations and differences. Especially for researches on entrepreneurship, Lalonde202 suggests the use of naturalistic method as a powerful tool to infer the complexity of culture. Rituals, symbols, and heroes can be studied through content analysis of any recorded materials. Values can be studied through direct observations, informal interviews, participation in the life of the cultural group, collective discussions, analysing personal documents, self-analysis, and life histories. Additionally, since cultural values affect the perception of an individual through cognitive scheme, interpretation, and sense making, it is important to distinguish between ‘how people think the world should be’ or ‘the desirable-values’ and ‘what people want for themselves’ or ‘the desired-values’ when analysing statements on values obtained from interviews203. The desirable-values maintain what is right or best. They relate more to absolute, deontological, and ideological matters. Alternatively, the desired-values indicate the choices actually made by the majority. They relate more to statistical, phenomenological, as well as practical matters. Furthermore, cultural differences can be analysed using Rijamampianina and Maxwell’s204 framework of culture that takes into account the visibility and centrality of values (see Figure 4).
Figure 4 (will be inserted here) Values Visibility and Centrality Framework
The most famous systematic attempt to study culture and cultural differences is made by Hofstede. He aims to measure cultural difference between nations by utilizing national culture. His work is based on the largest survey of work value at IBM subsidiaries that was held twice, in 1963 and in 1967 respectively, comprising of 116,000 questionnaires, from which over 60,000 people responded from over 40 countries206. Through these cross-cultural studies, overall he identifies six main dimensions of cultural values, which he claims to affect human thinking, organizations, and institutions in predictable ways. Those dimensions are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity, longterm orientation, and indulgence versus restraint. Although dimensions are “… hypothetical construct
[and] … not directly accessible to observation”207, Hofstede208 argues that they are the “… aspect of a culture that can be measured relative to other culture”. His pioneering study of character based on a huge amount of data was taken up enthusiastically by many researchers. It has been accepted and adopted quickly within academic and organizational environment ever since. In addition to Hofstede, there is also a wide range of cross-national empirical studies conducted by various other researchers (for a complete catalogue of these studies and their measurement tools, see Taras209), such as Lynn210 who studied different national attitudes to competitiveness and money; Mcgrath, Macmillan, and Scheinberg211 who examined cultural values shared by entrepreneurs across the globe; or Tan212 who studied the impact of culture and national context on entrepreneurs and non‐entrepreneurs. Compared to those researchers, Hofstede’s research has a more remarkable effect on academics and practitioners213. He is the most cited Dutch author and the ninth most cited European author according to the Social Science Citation Index made in 2001214. His model is taught in classrooms and has been instrumental in the implementation of various social contexts, including cross-cultural issues of entrepreneurship215,216,217. Since his first publication in 1980, Hofstede’s influence has become so pervasive and successively developed so many offshoots. Even those who reject his theory or conclusions must at least acknowledge his work. However, by assuming that there is a large degree of homogeneity within nation states as opposed to large differences between nation states, and by considering that national culture is a common component of a wider culture that contains both its global and sub-national constituents218, Hofstede and his supporters overlooked cultural differences between regions within countries219,220,221,222. Hofstede also tends to ignore the importance and variations of the community influence223,224,225. Magala226 heavily criticizes Hofstede’s theoretical framework by denoting it as an in-built western bias. He concludes that all of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are highly influenced by western perspectives because the entire research process (particularly the empirical data gathering and processing) was conducted by western scientists chosen exclusively. Hence, if there was at all any local culture containing dimension, which were ‘salient’ for individuals to identify but ‘invisible’ to those unacquainted with the local community’s ‘tacit knowledge’, or ‘nonlinear’ with the six dimensions, they were deemed as unnoticed or were labelled as aspects within the six dimensions, not as independent factors. Child and Kieser227 admit that the boundaries in which culture is being shared are problematic, thus according to them “… it may make as much sense to refer to a class or regional culture as to a national culture”. Since cultures are not necessarily bounded by borders and indeed fragmented across groups and national lines, nations are not the proper units of analysis228,229. McSweeney230 argues that the limited characterization of culture in Hofstede’s work, its confinement within the territory of states, and its methodological flaws mean that it is a restrictor, not an enhancer, in understanding particularities. He claims that the identification of allegations is fundamentally flawed and the attribution of national level to national cultures is an easy but impoverishing move. He regards Singular theories, such as Hofstede’s national culture, as profoundly problematic. The combination and single-level analysis of these theories precludes considerations on the interaction between macroscopic and microscopic cultural levels, or between the cultural and the non-cultural factors. McSweeney suggests that to understand national culture, a researcher needs to know more about the richness and diversity of national practices and institutions, not by assuming their ‘homogeneity’. This is why, searches for culture-fit models, which provide understanding of how cultural variable explains the effect of different practices in different cultures, are desirable231.
2.2.2 Debates on their relationship
Various cross-national empirical studies underline the point that entrepreneurship in fact exists in every country. However, while the economic and institutional characteristics discrepancies among those countries are relatively low, the levels of entrepreneurship vary significantly232. Since extensive research on culture has showed a link between values and practices, it is plausible that differences in culture in which these values are imbedded, may influence a wide range of practices including entrepreneurial decision233. Using this logic, several studies explore the relationship between various aspects of culture and entrepreneurship across cultures234,235,236. Weber237,238 started this exploration through his famous theory on how religious doctrine provided the cultural legitimation needed to shape the economic behaviour of individuals that led to the rise of capitalism. His theory eventually endorses the individual and the structural traditions to develop research programs on the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship. The individual tradition has demonstrated how culture and personality guide entrepreneurship239, while the structural tradition has shown how entrepreneurial opportunities are determined by the structure of various institutional networks240. As mentioned in section 2.1, the central argument of the individual tradition and its trait oriented approach is that special types of individuals pull entrepreneurship. To advance economically, societies need an adequate supply of these special individuals. According to this tradition, differences in the rate, form, and location of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship are attributed to differences in culture that creates effective characteristics of individuals engaged in entrepreneurial activity. The individual tradition affirms that differences in entrepreneurship can be predicted by differences found in individuals241. Yet, the influence of culture explained by the individual tradition is difficult to establish and remains rather speculative242. The tradition underplays the influences of external structure, illustrating economic activity merely as a function of individuals243. In contrast, the structural tradition enhances the study of entrepreneurship by concentrating on the prevalence of entrepreneurial values within the realm of government and politics. These values may influence the scope of the private versus the social sector to push entrepreneurship, particularly the utilities and personal services, the degree of entry regulation of new business start-ups, and the extent to which innovative regional clusters are fostered through private-public partnerships. Davidsson244 identifies two different perspectives within the individual tradition, which contribute to a ‘pull’ entrepreneurial behaviour explanation on the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship. They are the aggregate psychological trait perspective and the social legitimation perspective. The psychological trait perspective built its theory based on the idea that if a society contains more people with entrepreneurial values, more people will be entrepreneurs. It argues that the prevailing values and beliefs among others may make a person more or less inclined towards new venture formation. Davidsson notes that this is essentially the perspective taken by McClelland and other proponents of the individualistic view of culture, in which higher entrepreneurial activity is explained by aggregate effects of individual characteristics. Alternatively, the social legitimation perspective views the impact of social norms and institutions as the conduct of the society as a whole. It argues that the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship may occur only if a region has a larger pool of potential entrepreneurs245. In this perspective, higher entrepreneurial activity within some countries can be explained by the general occurrence of culture and institutions favourable to entrepreneurship. Thurik and Dejardin246 recognize a ‘push’ explanation within the structural tradition that contrasts with Davidson’s perspectives in viewing the relational nature between culture and entrepreneurship. The dissatisfaction perspective, as they call it, contends that cross regional and national differences on
entrepreneurial activity is due to differences in values and beliefs between individuals and the populations as a whole. It assumed that clashes of values or dissatisfactions between groups within a predominantly non-entrepreneurial culture may drive entrepreneurship to flourish247. Huisman and de Ridder248 notice this clash of values can lead to frustration or personal crises. According to Wennekers et al.249, this situation will drive potential entrepreneurs away from the average organization into selfemployment. Furthermore, the expected relationship between cultural indicators and entrepreneurship described by this perspective may highly conflict the expected relationship referred by the aggregate psychological trait perspective and the social legitimation perspective250. For instance, Wennekers et al. 251 found higher self-employment in countries with less prosperity (low GDP per capita), greater disappointment with society, and lower life contentment. Another perspective within the structural tradition that also attempts to explain the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship, is the post-materialism concept introduced by Inglehart252. This perspective tries to describe entrepreneurship within the transformation of a culturally materialisticoriented society into a non-materialistic society who prefers life-goals beyond material purposes253. Post-materialism based its value orientation on two hypotheses, the scarcity hypothesis and the socialization hypothesis respectively. The first assumes that priorities of an individual reflect their socioeconomic circumstances, where goods with a shortage of supply will have a subjectively higher value. While, the second assumes that people’s basic values reflect the circumstances of their childhood. The combination of these two hypotheses imply that younger birth cohorts by means of intergenerational replacement will place lower degree of importance to materialistic values (economic and physical security), and give higher priorities to post-materialistic values (self-esteem and life satisfaction), compared to older birth cohorts who may have experienced poverty in their early years. Although it supports the idea that culture affects entrepreneurial activities and the state of post-materialism in the society negatively influences the rate of entrepreneurship254, post-materialism sets a rather appalling conclusion that economic conditions drive change in cultural values, rather than the reverse255. Bygrave and Minniti256, who focus on the embeddedness of entrepreneurship in social and structural relationships, suggest a combination of all of the perspectives above to link the individual and structural traditions. They argue that entrepreneurship is a self-reinforcing process. They also give an emphasis that entrepreneurs act as the catalysts of economic activity. Hence, they believe that entrepreneurship leads to more entrepreneurship, and the degree of entrepreneurial activities is the outcome of that dynamic process in which cultural habits are as “… important as legal and economic incentives”257. Bygrave and Minniti view entrepreneurial activity within a community as an unintended consequence of many individual choices, and they claim that entrepreneurship is an interdependent act. They foothold their argument on the concept of collective behaviour, where the decision made by individuals does not depend on their preferences alone, but is highly influenced by what others choose. Bygrave and Minniti’s suggestion reaffirms Cooper and Denner’s258 portrayal on culture as capital, a theory of social capital that refers to the relationships and networks from which individuals are able to derive institutional support. Social capital is cumulative, leads to benefits in the social world, and can be converted into other forms of capital. Nevertheless, regardless of various perspectives offered by both traditions, this research will view culture as a crucial determinant of any social system and human behaviours as functions of a specific socio-cultural system in which cultural institutions may affect individual behaviours259,260. Entrepreneurs’ social actions, which are fundamentally shaped by value system, are meaningful human behaviours that cannot be separated from their social and cultural context261,262. Although human attitudes, beliefs, and values are neither measurable nor precise, it will be more useful for this research to think of them as
meaningful in the world. Their meanings are multiple, changing, and contextual. They can only be explored through the form of multiple mental constructions, socially and experientially, from the actor’s point of view. This is why an interpretative procedure will be very essential in reaching an understanding of how people describe things and experience them from their socio-cultural standpoint263. A sociocultural analysis of entrepreneurial activity is ethical. Therefore, unlike traditional models and theories that focus solely on economic reality or personality traits of individual entrepreneurs (see Covin and Slevin264), this research will acquire holism that has the potential to lead to a satisfactory alternative paradigm for entrepreneurship.
2.3 Portraying Entrepreneurship in Developing Countries
Most academics nowadays tend to agree that economies which discourage SMEs in any common sense are therefore likely to discourage newer dynamic industries from putting down the roots they may otherwise do265. Zimmerer and Scarborough266 even predicted in their book that the 21st century would dawn with the greatest number of small businesses ever. Their prediction turned out to be true and over the past two decades, new SMEs have been identified by many governments as significant components of economic strategies for job creation and wealth accumulation267,268,269,270. Still, these achievements would be impossible without the presence of David Birch271. In the mid-1970s, he received a grant from the Economic Development Administration of the United States to study how the movement of enterprises across state boundaries state employment growth. He found and reported that inter-state movement of enterprises was a minor part of the overall job changes, and that 82% of the new jobs created came from SMEs272. Birch’s systematic studies and empirical results gave SMEs a place on the research map. His report not only opened up the research field, but also received considerable attention from politicians and media, which placed a spotlight on the situation and the importance of SME273. Beside all of the recognitions given to them, SMEs are “… one of those things that is recognized when seen but difficult to define” 274. Up until today, there is no single, uniformly acceptable definition of SME275, because it varies significantly in line with the scale of the economy concerned, the degree of development and the economic structures that are present276. Early definitions of SME were often quite vague. Normally, the dominant principle behind those definitions, such as adopted by the US (Small Business Mobilization Act of 1942 and Small Business Act of 1953) or the UK (1971 Bolton Committee’s definition), was on defining a disadvantaged enterprise that need to be supported in terms of market share or bargaining power277. However, because small business policy has always attracted direct and indirect subsidies to businesses identified as sufficiently ‘small’278, definitions have gradually shifted towards a more objective sized thresholds that can be unambiguously enforced. Currently, almost all definitions on SME adopted by governments worldwide employ a small number of thresholds against variables accepted as proxies for size, which is ultimately a political decision, even though technical arguments for different treatments abound (see Table 4).
Table 4 (will be inserted here) Quantitative Definitions Adopted by Several Southeast Asian Nations and the European Union
Loecher280 categorized two groups of criteria in defining SME, the quantitative and qualitative criteria respectively. For the first group, similarly to the above list, the term SME refers to enterprises in different sectors with a given size of threshold that should not be exceeded. Due to simplicity, compatibility, and practicality of the application, economists within the quantitative group usually propose the ‘number of employees’ and ‘turnovers’ as the proxies to define SME. Alternatively, the
second group provides information on the nature of SMEs. It commonly suggests that the relationship between the ‘owner’ and ‘institution’ within the framework of ‘personal principle’ and ‘leadershipcapital unity’ as the most appropriate qualitative tool to define SME, and differentiate it from Large Enterprise (LE). The personal principle framework analyses SME’s manager in performing the central role in business decision making. Typically, she or he has a fundamental overview of all technical, administrative, and organizational procedures in the company. On the other hand, the leadership-capital unity framework examines SME’s manager as the proprietor, who is frequently much more selfsufficient and independent than the contracted management of LEs. While a variety of qualitative literatures inextricably associate entrepreneurship with SME281, scholars in developed countries insist on a clear definition to distinguish both of them. Nevertheless, as the major share of enterprises in developing countries are small in terms of assets and many of them operate informally using family labour, a clear distinction, as formerly insisted, will be very difficult to be achieved. In these countries, entrepreneurship and SMEs are used synonymously and interchangeably to describe entrepreneurial activities that include the formal and informal sectors282,283. For example, Fafchamps284 found that market intermediation in Africa is characterized by the excess of small traders that employ less than ten employees or family helpers. Moreover, due to their abundance, the World Bank has instead focused on SMEs in its effort to target entrepreneurship in developing countries285. Even if SMEs are not truly entrepreneurial in nature, it must be acknowledged that entrepreneurial start-ups are often a subset of SMEs. As Schumpeter286 once pointed out that to “… see the phenomenon even in the humblest levels of the business world is quite essential though it may be difficult to find the humble entrepreneurs historically”. SMEs indeed hold the added allure of being a key component of a wider economic development and poverty alleviation in developing countries287. They provide an avenue for entrepreneurship288, where their growth in these countries is often used as an indicator of entrepreneurial development. As previously noted, SMEs tend to dominate their corporate communities, at least in terms of enterprise registrations, if not always in terms of aggregate size. Furthermore, since they are labour intensive, SMEs are also recognized as a major and sustainable generator of employment, as well as income for their citizens working outside the public sector289. For example, in Cambodia, Laos, and Nepal, SMEs represent the vast bulk of the corporate sector, accounting for approximately 99% of all firms, over 70% of total employment, and more than 50% of GDP output290. Additionally, SMEs in developing countries also serve as a useful bridge between the informal economy of family enterprise and the formalized corporate sector, balancing development among regions291. They act as inter-industrial linkages, or as supporting industries producing components and parts for LEs, either via market mechanisms, subcontracting systems, or other forms of production linkages292. SMEs are in general much more selfsufficient and independent, because they finance their operations overwhelmingly by personal savings of the proprietors, supplemented by gifts or loans from relatives, from local informal moneylenders, traders, input suppliers, or payments in advance from consumers. Similar to other developing countries, Indonesian SMEs have historically been the main agent in domestic economic activities, especially as a large provider of employment opportunities, thus a generator of primary or secondary source of income for many households293. Moreover, because they are regionally dispersed, these enterprises also play an important role as the engine for an equitable economic development by stimulating economic growth, and enhancing income distribution at the rural and regional level294,295. During the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, SMEs in Indonesia also proved to be more resilient than LEs. In 1998, when the crisis reached its climax and the national economic growth was at minus 13%, SMEs’ output contribution to the formation of real GDP rose to almost 41%. In 1999, that
share increased to about 41.3%, but declined slightly in the next year to 40.4%296,297. Up Until 2008, the majority of Indonesian SMEs operate in the agriculture (including forestry and animal husbandry, 52.48%), trading and hospitality (28.1%), production (6.32%), service (4.25%), and transportation (6.25%) sectors of the economy. They employed approximately 94 million people (97.15% of the total number of national employ) and in 2009, the number of Indonesian SMEs grew to roughly 52.76 million units, or approximately 99.99% of all business units298,299.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A study on the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship includes social actors embedded within the cultural system. Social actors, both the entrepreneur or other groups of people involved with her or him, are characterized by diverse minds, psyches, emotions, thoughts, feelings, senses, attitudes, beliefs, views, self, individuals, ideas, motivations, consciousness, experience, education, skills, training, and behavioural patterns300. These characterizations are multiple realities because they contain frequent discontinuities and change in the real life context, hence positivistic science can be rejected as being an inappropriate framework for investigation301. Matza302 argues, “In the empirical world, man is subjective, not objective, except when he is likened to one by himself or by another subject”. According to him, naturalism must choose the subjective view, and must consequently combine the methods with the distinctive tools of humanism, such as experience, intuition, and empathy. Thus, the paradigmatic disposition chosen to consider entrepreneurial activity in this research will encompass the subjective as well as the objective elements of entrepreneurs’ actions (see Figure 5).
Figure 5 (will be inserted here) Paradigmatic Projection of the Research
Henceforth, all of the sections will discuss the research methodology that will be utilized by this research (see Figure 6). Methodology refers to “… the overall approach to the research process, from the theoretical underpinning to the collection and analysis of the data”303. Since there are several methods that can be used in social science, explicitly defining a methodological choice of study is important. In order to justify the methodology that will be employed in this research, the research philosophy that will be adopted first needs to be addressed. Understanding philosophical issues helps to identify the research design and provide good answers to the central research question being investigated304.
Figure 6 (will be inserted here) Methodological Structure of the Research
3.1 Choosing the Right Ism
A research philosophy is a set of basic beliefs and represents a worldview that defines, for its holder, the nature of the world or the individual’s place in it (ontology), also the range of possible relationships to that world or its part (epistemology)305. Ontology concerns with the nature of the world or social reality, and what can be known about it306,307. Blanche, Durrheim, and Painter308 define ontology as “… the nature of reality that is to be studied, and what is to be known”. Cohesively, epistemology refers to a general set of assumptions about the best ways of inquiring into the nature of the world309, 310,311. Hussey and Hussey312 define epistemology as “… the study of knowledge and what we accept as valid knowledge”. The philosophy of social science as a whole can be classified into two main paradigms based on its ontology, epistemology, and research design, namely positivism and interpretivism313.
Positivism rely on the basic belief that reality is objective and is driven by immutable natural laws, whereas interpretivism stems from the view that reality is not objective and exterior, but is socially constructed and given meaning by people (see Table 5).
Table 5 (will be inserted here) Positivism versus Interpretivism
Since this research seeks to understand the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship by describing and analysing entrepreneurs’ social actions through the form of multiple mental constructions, socially and experientially, from the entrepreneurs’ point of view, the research will settle for the interpretivism paradigm, which will be based on the constructionist ontology and the interpretivist epistemology (see Figure 6). Schwandt315 explains both ontological and epistemological terms as sensitizing concepts that direct researchers toward a particular view: Proponents of these persuasions share the goal of understanding the complex world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it. This goal is variously spoken of as an abiding concern for the life world, for the emic point of view, for understanding meaning, for grasping the actor’s definition of a situation, for Verstehen. The world of lived reality and situation-specific meanings that constitute the general object of investigation is thought to be constructed by social actors. Bryman316 defines the constructionist ontology as an ontological position which “… implies that social phenomenon and categories are not only produced via social interaction but that they are in a constant state of revision”. It regards “…all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon human practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context”317. The constructionist ontology is coherent with the interpretivist epistemology that comprehends the social world through an examination of the interpretation of that world by its participants318. It accentuates on the interpretive nature of inquiry, which is used to understand a particular phenomenon, not to generalize a population. However, according to Seale319, this ontological and epistemological mixture has its own limitation. He argues that it can promote a relativist perspective, which is a view that everyone makes their own meaning and all views are equal. Hence, as a result, this perspective fails to provide a basis for decisionmaking. Such failures usually occur when a researcher is oblivious to the value-laden position of her or his interpretations that shape the understanding of meaning. Wimmer and Dominick320 propose that this limitation should be first recognized in order for the ontological and epistemological mixture to be useful. Thus, during the course of the research, data and methodological triangulations will be used to minimize the researcher’s subjectivity. Furthermore, because studying people in their own community yields better results and in order to create a natural flow of the study, this research will also combine interpretivism with the method of inquiry used by naturalism. Weber321 suggested that this combination is important because they can mutually balance each other for a more valid causal interpretation. According to him, “… verification of subjective interpretation by comparison with the concrete course of events is … indispensable”322. In support of Weber, Geertz323 supplemented that “…man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning”. Bryman324 defines naturalism as “… a fusion of elements of interpretivist epistemology and constructionist ontology”. It is actually employed in social science to recognize that people are not passive objects because they also
attribute meaning to their behaviour and act as authors of their social world. Naturalistic inquiry can be characterized by its natural research setting (to keep realities in their contexts), qualitative methods, purposive sampling, inductive analysis, grounded theory, case study reporting mode, tentative application of findings, and special criteria of trustworthiness325.
3.2 Designing an Exploratory Multiple-case Study
Leedy326 postulates that research design is the strategy, the plan, and the structure of conducting a research study. Research design “… deals with a logical problem and not a logistical problem”327. It provides the overall framework for data collection. Since the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship has not been clearly defined, this research will adopt the exploratory research design that emphasizes on naturalistic research inquiries. This design was chosen in order to respond to the central research question and observing the requirements of the research paradigm. Rather than aiming to verify pre-defined theoretical constructs concerned with specific issues, this research aims to generate new theories and concepts from the data collected in the field. Moreover, considering the fact that it is also concerned with the underlying pursuit of contextual depth328,329, this research will use a multiple-case study approach, consisting of communities as cases (macro-cases) and several individual entrepreneurs within those communities as sub-cases (micro-cases), to contribute the unique relation between particular situations and the phenomenon of interest. According to Yin330, “A case study is an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” and “… it relies on multiple sources of evidence”. He also argues that case study is the “… logical sequence that connects the empirical data to initial questions and ultimately to its conclusions”331. Sturman332 notes that “while the techniques used in the investigation may be varied, … the distinguishing feature of case study is the belief that human systems develop a characteristic wholeness or integrity and are not simply a loose collection of traits”. Glaser and Strauss333 even suggested that it could ideally buttress ‘grounding theory’, which is the theory grounded from the data collected, in contrast to the theory generated from logical deduction from a priori assumptions. Case study is indeed special because it focuses on “… a bounded system, whether a single actor, a single classroom, a single institution, or a single enterprise - usually under natural conditions …”334. It involves the examination of a phenomenon in natural settings. Even though researchers have no control over the phenomenon, the scope and time of the examination can still be controlled. Case study research does not require the researcher to pre-define all variables prior to the study, allowing flexibility of variables emerging through the phases of data collection and analysis335. Such strength will bring advantage to this research, which will be exploratory in nature. It is essential to permit the emergence of new variables during the research process in order to grasp the reality and the complexity of interactions between culture and the entrepreneurs’ social actions in the particular context of a culturally diverse developing country, such as Indonesia. Despite the fact that case study has certain fundamental defining characteristics, distinction referring to the number of cases under investigation is often made. A single-case study is characterized by Yin336 as a study that: 1) represents the critical case in testing a well-formulated theory; 2) represents an extreme case or a unique case; 3) represents a revelatory case; or 4) is the representative or typical case. Whereas, the study of particular issues in a number of settings is referred to as ‘multiple-site study’ by Sturman337, ‘collective case study’ by Stake338, or ‘multiple-case studies’ by Yin339. Single-case study allows researchers to investigate phenomenon in depth in order to provide rich description and
understanding340. Benbasat, Goldstein, and Mead341 nevertheless propose that a single case used for exploration may be followed by a multiple-case study. Multiple cases are desirable if the intention of the research is descriptive, theory building, or theory testing. Herriott and Firestone342 saw multiple-case study as “… the emergence of a new form of qualitative research, one intended to strengthen its ability to generalize while preserving in-depth description”. It is noted by Sturman343 as a response to the perceived limitations of many policies and an evaluative research for policy makers. According to Yin344, “The evidence from multiple cases is often considered more compelling, and the overall study is therefore regarded as being more robust”. Multiple-case study refers to “… multiple experiments - that is, to follow a ‘replication’ logic”345, allowing cross-case analysis and comparison, and the investigation of a particular phenomenon in diverse settings, which lead to more general results346. In this research, the number of cases (communities) and sub-cases (individual entrepreneurs) to be studied, however, will not be predetermined. The proper number will depend, first, on how much is known about the phenomenon after studying a community, and second, how much new information is likely to emerge from studying further Communities347. Multiple-case study will help this research by producing literal and theoretical replication, which consequently will increase the generalization of research findings348. Communities and individual entrepreneurs will be carefully selected to produce similar or contrasting results for predictable reasons, which will provide substantial support for the propositions349. Due to the fact that this research also attempts to develop a theoretical framework in understanding the interface between exogenous factors, the unique elements of the existing local culture, as well as entrepreneurial activity within a country, multiple-case study will definitely improve the likelihood of an accurate and reliable theory, in which the researcher may capture new findings emerging from the data350. Multiple case studies enable the research to verify that findings are not merely the result of peculiarities of the research setting351.
3.2.1 The need for a pilot study
In addition to a variety of information that has been mentioned previously in section 1.1, Indonesia was selected as the research context because it will perfectly coagulate the research objective in identifying the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship in a culturally diverse developing country. Based on the concept of Orang, the contiguity of cultural homogeneity and heterogeneity in Indonesia can be studied concurrently within a single research site. Such situation will eventually deliver the most benefit in downplaying academic interest in stable personality traits and broad contextual pressures, in favour of a more detailed investigations and explanations of entrepreneurial action352. Nevertheless, as suggested by Benbasat et al.353 and with the intention to familiarize the researcher with the phenomenon in its context, this research will first use a pilot study before determining the actual communities or the actual individual entrepreneurs that will be regarded as cases and sub-cases. The pilot study will be considered as a ‘drift stage’ of the multiple-case study to be proposed in this proposal, in which the researcher will learn first-hand the relevant jargon and context where the phenomenon takes place354. This will be the stage where the research context will be observed in order to obtain a better perspective on modifications necessary for the central research question, as well as to ensure fruitful investigation355. Yin356 emphasizes this by claiming that the “… final preparation for data collection is the conduct of a pilot case study”. In this research, the format of the pilot study, whether it will include a complete case or not, will depend on the time and financial constrains that may appear during the research process.
The pilot study will consist of two phases, the pre-test and the pilot test respectively. Yin356 describes pre-test as a ‘dress-rehearsal’ in which the intended data collection plans will be used as faithfully as possible. Hence, the first phase of the pilot study in this research will be more influential, assisting the researcher to provide some conceptual clarification for the research design and to develop lines of subquestion that will back up the central question. It will be aimed to test and refine the research conceptual framework through various consultations with various reputable academics, religious or cultural leaders, and related government or non-government officials in Indonesia. The initial conceptual framework (the first version) developed before the pilot study, will be refined by integrating advices from those people mentioned, consequently producing the revised conceptual model (the second version). This second version will then be used for the second phase of the pilot study, which is a pilot test on a single community, as well as several women and men entrepreneurs within that community. The second phase will be aimed, first to develop the conceptual model further, second to develop a number of propositions, and third to refine the case study protocol of this research. Findings from the second phase will be integrated with the second version of the conceptual framework, in order to build the final version that will be adopted for the primary fieldwork. Both, the pre-test and pilot test, will be conducted in Indonesia after producing the initial case study protocol.
3.2.2 The units for mixed-level analysis
A unit of analysis identifies what constitutes a case, and a complete collection of data that is used to study a single case357. In social sciences, the unit of analysis can be an individual, a group, an organization, or an event, and generally notifies the appropriate levels of analysis informed by the research questions358,359, 360. As it provides the sufficient breadth and depth of data to be collected to allow the research question to be adequately answered361, a researcher must first determine the unit of analysis most applicable for her or his research prior to searching for sites362. This strategy is important in order to avoid interpretation problems that arise when concepts for the theoretical propositions being examined are defined from inappropriate units of analysis363. Since this research will focus on the relationship between the existing local culture and entrepreneurship bounded within a community through the subjective and objective elements of entrepreneurs’ actions, the unit of analysis will be classified into the micro and macro levels (see Figure 5). Unit of analysis at micro levels will consist of selected individual entrepreneurs who will be regarded as sub-cases. The analysis will be projected on her or his everyday life, family background, educational and working history, business partners or competitors, as well as business entity. Meanwhile, unit of analysis at macro levels will consist of selected communities, each as an integral collective institution that will be regarded as cases. The analysis will be projected on its socio-cultural structures and contexts associated with entrepreneurial activity. This classification is consistent with the mixed-level analysis strategy that will be utilized by this research, allowing the researcher to explore the dynamic relationship between individual entrepreneurs, between the individual entrepreneurs and their family as well as business entity, between the individual entrepreneurs and their socio-cultural environment, and between the entrepreneurial institutions and the cultural structures within a community364,365. Mixed-level analysis will assist the research methodology, slicing social structures vertically and obtaining data from multiple levels and perspectives, to understand all interacting factors366,367. It will provide holism to the multiplecase study, previously discussed, by allowing various analyses to be examined at the micro and macro levels synchronously. In this research, analysis at the micro level will include an understanding of how socio-cultural structures and contexts develop the subjective and objective elements of entrepreneurs’
actions, as well as how entrepreneurs drive cultural changes. Whereas, analysis at the macro level will comprise of a socio-cultural exploration on structures and contexts related to how entrepreneurship fits in the community. This multi-level analysis strategy will surely add significant opportunities for enhancing the insights into each single case368,369,370.
3.2.3 Convenience and purposive sampling
A sample can be defined as a segment or a subset of the population selected for an inquiry, whereas a sampling strategy is concerned with the selection of samples to produce some knowledge concerning the whole population. Based upon its criteria of selection, sampling strategies can be divided into the probability and non-probability schemes respectively371. The first is usually employed if every unit in the population has the same chance of being selected as a sample. Alternatively, the second is usually employed when the probability of selection cannot be accurately determined. Commonly, the naturalistic inquiry is in favour of the latter scheme for the reason that non-probability sampling “… can be pursued in ways that will maximize the investigator’s ability to devise grounded theory that takes adequate account of local conditions, local mutual shapings, and local values (for possible transferability)”372. It is also argues that there may be some circumstances in social research, as such found in this proposal, where it is not feasible, practical, or theoretically sensible to use probability sampling, as it is likely to suppress more deviant cases. Non-probability sampling schemes ease this problem by increasing the scope or the range of data to be exposed, as well as the possibility to uncover a full array of multiple realities373. Thus, by considering the above description and the fact that the research design will be an exploratory multiple-case study, this research will rely on two types of non-probability sampling strategies for data collection, the convenience and purposive sampling altogether374. Convenience sampling refers to a sample that is simply available to the researcher by virtue of its accessibility375. A convenience sample is obtained by using any groups or people who happen to be convenient. It is usually employed if the researcher is not familiar with the research setting. Although considered a weak form of sampling, in which the researcher exercises no control over the representativeness of the sample (also called accidental sampling), convenience sampling is still acceptable if the data obtained from the sample is used only as a preliminary data that will later be tested with a better sample from the intended population376. On the other hand, purposive sampling is a qualitative-based sampling method, which entails an attempt to establish a good connection between research questions and the samples to be studied377. In social research, it can be used to select samples that will be treated as cases to produce the logic of literal or theoretical replication. Most non-probability sampling strategies are purposive in nature because a researcher usually approaches the sampling problem with a specific plan in mind. This research will depend on the three most common forms of purposive sampling procedures: snowballing, expert, and deviant case sampling. Convenience, snowballing, and expert sampling procedures will be employed throughout the research, in order to select under a certain set of criteria the research participants (individual entrepreneurs, local religious or cultural leaders, related local government or non-government officials, and local academics) who will participate in a variety of data collection activities, providing the basis for data triangulation378,379. The initial set of selection criteria for the pilot test will be developed in the pre-test phase and will continuously be refined until it is ready to be used as a sampling foundation for the primary fieldwork380. Alternatively, deviant case sampling procedure will be utilized to select communities and individual entrepreneurs that will be treated as cases and sub-cases during the
primary fieldwork to produce the logic of literal and theoretical replication381. It will involve seeking out the “… most outstanding cases, or the most extreme successes and/or failures, so as to learn as much as possible about the outliers”382. However, unlike the convenience, snowballing, and expert sampling procedures, deviant case criteria of selection will be based upon the propositions of outcomes that was developed in the course of the pilot study of this research, that focuses “… on how and why the exemplary outcomes [may] have occurred and hoping for literal [or theoretical] replications of these conditions from case to case”383. Additionally, the number of the individual entrepreneurs as sub-cases for each community as a case will be equal across gender, and they will not have any form of family relationship between one another.
3.2.4 Collecting documents until direct observations
Data collection can be defined as “… a systematic and orderly approach taken towards the collection of data so that information can be obtained from those data”384. A multiple-case study can be drawn from multiple sources of evidence385. It can include data from archives, questionnaires, interviews, and observations386. “Unlike the physical reality such as atoms and molecules examined by natural science, people create and attach their own meanings to the world around them and to the behaviour that they manifest in that world”387. As a result, interpretivist researchers are urged to collect facts and data describing not only the purely objective and observable aspects of human behaviour, but also the subjective meaning this behaviour have for the human subjects388. This leads to the adoption of the different ways in which qualitative data will be collected in this study. The process of data collection in this study will be controlled by the emerging theory, whether substantive or formal, where the methods cannot be planned in advance of the emerging theory389,390. Yet, a separation is made here in this proposal simply to allow a presentation of the data collection methods that will be employed chronologically or simultaneously, depending on the needs during the process of analysis and interpretation. This research will use questionnaires, in-depth semi-structured interviews, observations, documentations, as well as recording and field notes as the methods for collecting data. Multiple data collection methods will be employed whenever possible to provide triangulation on the addressed phenomenon in order to generate more accurate and complete descriptions of the occurrences391. As proposed by Jick392, triangulation of data collection methods within a research ensures that occurring variances is not only the result of a single method. These methods will be discussed one by one below. Questionnaires Questionnaires will be employed throughout the research for collecting various complementary data that will be used first in the pilot study to develop the second as well as the final version of the conceptual framework, and second, during the primary fieldwork to analyse the macro-level unit of analysis. There are several advantages in favour of questionnaires. Since a questionnaire is usually completed anonymously, it is an ideal instrument for collecting data from a large diverse sample of people in a non-threatening way393. It saves time and minimizes bias as associated with other instruments because individual respondents can freely express their feelings in different ways when answering the questionnaire alone, without fear of being further probed by the interviewer394. Nevertheless, the major disadvantage of this method is that the response and return rates are usually low395. It is also viewed as shallow, by failing to dig deep enough to unveil the truth396. In this research, these limitations will be reduced by using various mixed-type of questioning and by hand delivering or collecting the questionnaires. Consequently, the questionnaires used in this study will be very diverse.
They will include all forms of questioning to eliminate monotony and will use Bahasa Indonesia as the written language. The types of questions that will be used in the questionnaires will comprise: 1. Open-ended questions, which are more courteous and provide background for interpreting results, will be used to elicit respondents own opinion. It will consist of various free-response questions that will be used to solicit suggestions as well as to justify reasons for other answers, thus explaining answers to previous questions. 2. Closed-ended questions will consist of easily tabulated responses that will be unaffected by the respondent’s verbosity. It will consist of ‘yes/no’ or ‘agree/disagree’ questions, multiple-choices or checklists. In-depth semi-structured interviews Interview is one of the most common and most powerful methods used to understand human beings397. Interviews are “… essential sources of information for case study research”398. Walsham399 argues that interviews are the primary data source for a naturalistic inquiry, because through this method the researcher can best access the participants’ interpretations regarding the actions and events, which have or are taking place, as well as the views and aspirations of themselves and other participants. As the interpretivist researchers try to elicit the interviewees’ views of their worlds400, interview helps uncover the meanings attributed by people to their experiences and social worlds401. However, the interaction between the researcher and the research participant in an interview depends largely on the degree of whether the interviews are structured or not. Fontana and Frey402 described these differences lie between the flexibility of the questions. An interview is better structured if it is aimed to capture further precise data under a codable nature to explain complex behaviour within pre-established categories. On the contrary, an interview will become less structured if it is aimed to understand further complex behaviour without imposing any prior categorization that may limit the field of inquiry. This research will use an in-depth, semi-structured format interview, guided by a number of predetermined topics under a particular framework rather than questions, because of the flexibility in allowing the emergence of new questions during the interview process to direct the discussion. Semistructured interviews will help this research in understanding the constructs that the interviewee uses as the basis for her or his opinions and beliefs about a particular matter or situation403. They will be employed throughout the research to gather primary information from various research participants, such as individual entrepreneurs, individual entrepreneurs’ family members and employees, local religious or cultural leaders, related local government or non-government officials, and local academics. Furthermore, all interviews in this research will use either the interviewees’ Bahasa Daerah or Bahasa Indonesia, depending on the interviewees’ preferred language of communication. They will also be recorded and transcribed (then translated to Bahasa Indonesia if they are in local language) for further analysis and interpretation, before finally translated into English for final report. Direct observations Observation can be defined as the act of seeing and listening to a phenomenon, providing the opportunity to document activities, behaviour and physical aspects, without having to depend upon people’s willingness and ability to respond to questions404. Observation is appropriate for case study research because it yields, under ‘normal’ conditions, the personal experience of the research context and allows observation of processes continuously over time405. Since it has the flexibility to yield insight into new realities or new ways of looking at old realities406, observation may also lead to the emergence of a theory instead of working with predetermined categories407. From the observer’s point of view, observation can be classified into the passive and active respectively. In a passive or direct observation,
the researcher is present at the research site but not involved in the setting. On the other hand, in an active or participant observation, the researcher becomes more involved with the setting’s activities, assuming responsibilities that advance the group, but without fully committing themselves to the values and goals408. The latter is usually employed in ethnography. This research will adopt the direct observation approach because of its non-interventionism, in which the researcher will not direct or impose his views on the participants observed409. It will be used principally to triangulate various data that will be obtained from interviewing the individual entrepreneurs as sub-cases. Although interviews are especially useful for “… understanding how people make sense of their work and the issues they believe are important”, they are, however, “… not credible sources of information on what people actually do or how they do it”410. Documents The need for the research to link the information that will be obtained from each case with its broader contexts will necessitate the use of document analysis. This research will take into account Yin’s411 categorization of five types of documents: letters, memoranda, and other communiqués; agendas, announcements and minutes of meetings, and other written reports of events; administrative documents - proposals, progress reports, and other internal records; former studies or evaluations of the same ‘site’ under study; newspaper clippings and other articles appearing in the mass media or in community newsletters. Organizational, governmental, and archived historical documents, such as the above categorization made by Yin, will be treated as secondary data that may provide valuable sources of information for this research. These types of data will help the researcher to align the research problem with conventional knowledge, where an adapted framework of analysis may arise. Document analysis will complement the empirical data obtained from all of the previous methods mentioned, hence validating the overall research outcomes. The documents will be reviewed with an interpretive approach, in search for meanings, themes, events, and actors related to the conceptual framework of the research. The sentences, paragraphs, words, and tone written in a document will be analysed and interpreted in line with the research problem and purpose. In some instances, specific data collection methods used on research participants will also be used on documents to engage the researcher in a conversation with the documents. Recording and field notes As advised by Strauss412, tape or video recording is especially needed when the research objectives demand accuracy of wording. Interviews in this research will be therefore tape or video recorded because it will be impossible to know in advance the important responses made by the interviewees in relation to the research objectives. Although much effort will be spent on transcribing, this technique will allow the researcher to gain large amounts of data. Recording will take up a substantial part of the research fieldwork, where the use of it in interviews will be undertaken with the interviewees’ permissions. In order to ensure the interviewee’s comfort in being interviewed using a tape or video recorder, prior to each interview the researcher will first ask for the interviewee’s consent and will also inform them that it can be turned off at any stage of the interview if she or he feels uncomfortable about expressing their opinions. The researcher will do his best to make the interviewees feel relaxed, in order to communicate freely when being recorded. In addition to the use of tape or video recording, field notes will be continuously used, as it will also be the media for recording observational data. Field
notes will be taken during observation soon afterwards to preserve episodes and contextual settings 413. Field notes will also be utilized to capture the data from informal conversations and discussions.
3.2.5 Within-cases and cross-cases analysis procedures
Following the interpretivist’s epistemological stance, data in this research will be analysed inductively and will consist of several emphases of analysis that will be employed chronologically or simultaneously, such as content (for document and questionnaires), conversation (for interviews and observations), thematic (for data reduction process) and matrix (for data display process). These emphases seek to make convincing sense out of the data, requiring “… detailed, intensive, microscopic examination of data in order to bring out the complexity of what is in those data”414. The researcher will start to analyse records from interviews and observations concurrently with the on-going data collection process. Nevertheless, since the research will adopt a semi-structured interview format, information obtained from interviews will not be directly analysed in a written form. By doing so, the researcher’s analysis during the data collection process will have more impact on how the interview protocols can be changed and directed to the interviewees, thus enabling the researcher to gain more insights and information about the focal issue. This is in accordance with the argument made by Miles and Huberman 415 who consider that data collection and data analysis should overlap to allow for flexibility in data collection procedures and in maintaining an open mind for emergence of new ideas or patterns. The analysis conducted throughout the data collection process will help the researcher to justify how much data are needed to be recollected. The data collection will end when the research reaches theoretical saturation in answering the central research question. However, even though the data collection and data analysis will be inseparable in this study, the following categorization is only intended to illustrate the adopted analysis procedures. The analysis process of this research will be divided into two phases, within-cases and cross-cases analysis respectively. Within-cases analysis Within-cases analysis will be an iterative and cyclical process between the data collection and data analysis, consisting of data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing416, which will take shape as follow: 1. Data reduction refers to the process of selecting, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the raw case data. At this point, the researcher will conduct open coding by breaking down transcripts and field notes into discrete parts to be analysed thematically, grouping similar data into categories or codes417. As the coding process progresses, codes will be refined and added as they emerge, and the categories will be further reduced to subcategories to represent the multiple perspectives regarding the categories. 2. Data display refers to the process of organizing and condensing data in a way that permits the researcher to see patterns for drawing conclusions. This research will use matrices to display its data, which will facilitate comparisons between features or aspects within a single case that may be useful for cross-cases analysis. The process of drawing conclusions in this research will call for further analytic moves in the data displays, which in turn will drive further conclusions. The process will also include re-coding or revisiting the previously developed codes to make necessary adjustments and modifications in order to reflect the reality418. Data reduction and data display will be iterative throughout the data analysis stage of this research. 3. In this research, conclusions will be drawn in the later stages, in order to avoid premature conclusions throughout the on-going progress of the research419. The logical relationship will be
drawn after analysing all of the data and identifying all factors, events, and outcomes. This approach is consistent with Miles and Huberman420, who claim that, “… assessing [logical] causality is essentially a retrospective matter”. They argue that researchers should be historians writing history of events in order to determine cause and effect. Cross-cases analysis Cross-cases analysis can be described as ‘casting a net’ to catch many specimens (cases) of a particular species in order to examine the specimens to further understand the species421. In this research, the specimens will be the individual cases and the species will the relationship between the existing local culture and entrepreneurship, through the subjective and objective elements of entrepreneurs’ actions. It will be aimed to explore cross-case patterns422, enhance generalizability, as well as deepen understanding and explanation423. As suggested by Miles and Huberman424, a mixed strategy, which refers to “… the writing of each case using a more or less standard set of variables and then stacking the matrices from each case in a meta matrix, which is further condensed, permitting systematic comparison”, will be employed for cross-cases analysis. Emerging concepts, theories or hypothesis from cross-cases analysis will then be placed in the context of relevant literature425. This phase is called ‘theoretical sensitivity’ and will consist of gathering “…evidence from established theory that confirms, refutes or challenges the story that is being uncovered”426. This involves asking what is similar to, what is conflicting and why. This phase of analysis can be considered as an inductive approach, where the theory will be ‘directed’ by the research participants through their responses. The use of computers There will be a substantial amount of data gathered during the research project. Written documentations, such as interview transcripts and field notes, are the most important source of data for the whole research process. Therefore, special attention must be given to the analysing process. There are detailed guidelines available on how data should be analysed according to the grounded theory framework such as suggested by Glaser427. Yet, doing this manually would be a very tedious task that could easily result in tendencies to avoid strict categorization of data bits as demanded by the research method. Fortunately, computer programs exist to assist researchers in their task in analysing large quantities of qualitative data. Such programs will only be used in this research to aid the required data indexing or coding process, because theory building will remain completely in the researcher’s realm. The features of graphically connecting codes and categories will improve the researcher’s understanding and help him in presenting the evolving ideas.
3.3 Preserving the Quality
If a research is considered to represent a set of logical statements, then it is expected that it can also be assessed on a set of logical tests concerning its validity, reliability and generalizability. From an interpretivist’s point of view, validity reflects the extent to which an account accurately or faithfully represents the social phenomenon that it seeks to describe, explain, or theorize428. Reliability, on the other hand, is defined as “… the degree to which the finding is independent of accidental circumstances of the research”429. Reliability reflects on how meaning is drawn from the raw data430. Whereas, the research generalizability refers to the quality describing a theory previously tested and confirmed in a variety of situations431, or in other words, the degree to which the findings can be generalized across social settings432. Many scholars have noted the threats to the validity, reliability, and generalizability of a case study, and considered it as a relatively weak method to be used in social research433. Nevertheless, it is argued by Stake434 that this stereotype may be wrong because they have
misunderstood its strength and weaknesses. According to Yin435, case studies can also be rigorous. He recommends the use of four tests, which are commonly designed for empirical social research, to establish its validity, reliability, and generalizability.
3.3.1 Construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability tests
In order to maintain its quality, this research will adopt Yin’s recommendation, consisting of construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability tests (see Table 6).
Table 6 (will be inserted here) Case Study Tactics for Four Design Tests
First, the construct validity test refers to the establishment of correct operational measures for the concepts being studied. This will be addressed in this research by collecting data through multiple sources of review throughout the case study reports, as well as maintaining the chain of evidence from the respondents. It will include contriving case study protocol questions and asking questions throughout the interview sessions, which efficiently captivate a comprehensive and rich understanding about the research problem. Second, the internal validity test refers to the establishment of a causal relationship. This will be addressed by the use of pattern matching technique analysis to compare the findings from within-cases analysis with the research propositions related to the central research question. It will determine established relationships between dependent and independent variables of this research. Third, the external validity test refers to the establishment of the domain to which a study’s findings can be generalized. The notion of external validity is similar to the traditional definition of generalizability437. In this research, it will be achieved by using the multiple-case study method for imitation logic to generalize the findings into the theory, a theoretical framework as a template to compare research findings from within-cases and cross-cases, as well as a clearly defined contextual scope and research boundaries. Fourth, the reliability test refers to the demonstration of whether the study operations can be repeated with the same results. In this research, it will be achieved by using case study protocol and by developing a database of clearly specified conceptual and theoretical variables. The case study database will illustrate the reliable mechanism to access the established concept, allowing other equivalent studies using the same model and technique to form a similar result.
3.3.2 Data and methodological triangulations
In addition to the above test, Yin438 also argues that a major strength in using case studies is that they provide an opportunity to triangulate different sources of evidence. Triangulation refers to “… the combination of methods or sources of data in a single study” used to verify the consistency of responses to the research questions439. It is important to improve the rigor, accuracy, and strength of the analysis by assessing the integrity of the inferences that one draws from more than one vantage point 440. According to Denzin441, there are four basic types of triangulation. (1) Data triangulation uses multiple data sources with similar emphasis to obtain diverse views about a topic for the purpose of validation. It has three subtypes: time, space, and person. (2) Investigator triangulation is defined as having two or more investigators with divergent background to explore the same phenomenon at the same period. (3) Theory triangulation is an assessment of the utility and power of competing theories or hypotheses. This involves testing the competing theories, rival hypotheses, or alternate explanations of the same phenomenon through research. (4) Methodological triangulation is the use of two or more research
methods in one study and can entail within-method or between-methods. In within-methods triangulation, two or more data collection approaches are used to measure the same variable. They can be either quantitative or qualitative approaches. Alternatively, between-methods triangulation is the use of qualitative and quantitative approaches in the same study. As a PhD project research, the work will be completed by the candidate independently, hence, triangulation by different investigators are not permissible. Likewise, since there are no other theoretical framework that could explain the phenomenon to be investigated, theory triangulation will not be applicable as well. Consequently, this research will only apply two types of triangulation mentioned above, the data and methodological triangulations. Data triangulation will be employed in this study as a strategy for data collection and will be achieved by collecting data over different periods or from different sources. Ensuring the accuracy of data collection will be critical for the research reliability, where both the recordings of all interviews and written records of observations can be used to increase the data credibility. The data documents from all sources will be collected and copied into the case study database. Conversely, the data collection triangulation will be applied by mixing the data collection methods that will be used on the same variable. Both quantitative and qualitative data will be collected to answer the central research question, where they can triangulate with each other to reach more valid findings. If later in the research there is a convergence of findings, the validity will increase as a result. However, if divergent results emerge, alternative and more complex explanations will be likely generated442. Since qualitative data and analysis will be problematic to replicate, they will function as the glue that cements the interpretation of the triangulation results.
3.4 To Make It Happen
Understanding of socially and culturally bound social actors, social actions, and social outputs in entrepreneurial activity must be subjective. This includes institutional characteristics, the interface between cultural values and business, as well as the historical and cultural forces, which affect entrepreneurship. This research will answer the need to ground the reality of human behaviour embedded in deep-rooted cultural and social contexts, conceptualizing the association between cultural characteristics and entrepreneurship, where in turn will help to overcome the deficiencies of normative western approaches prescribed and promoted by consultants, education, as well as training system related to entrepreneurship development in developing countries. Hence, from the Indonesians’ viewpoint, the research outcome is expected to represent the Indonesia’s culture-fit model of entrepreneurship, informing effective policies to foster entrepreneurial competitiveness, while at the same time enhancing and highlighting local culture as the country’s regional asset. Meanwhile, from the social science’s standpoint, the research outcome is expected to provide understandings on how culture explains the effect of entrepreneurial activity, the insights into the significance of entrepreneurship in many communities, and the possible responses of individuals as well as community that can balance the needs of individuals, communities, and economic institutions as a whole. Nevertheless, apart from these expected outcomes, the most important thing of course is how to make the research design work. For that reason, this section will begin with a discussion on the researcher’s position in relation to the chosen research context and on several strategies to facilitate the ethical dilemmas that may be confronted. It will conclude with an overview of the operational design summarizing the research to be proposed and a time schedule organized for the implementation of the overall research process.
3.4.1 An Indonesian doing cultural research in and on Indonesia?
It has been mentioned previously in section 3.1 that the interpretivist naturalistic approach proposed by this research may raise the issue of subjectivity, influencing the researcher’s work in many ways, including the personal relationship between the researcher and the research setting (people and events). This is why Mehra443 draws attention to the risk of too much bias on the part of the researcher, to the point where the research becomes an account of the researcher’s own views, values, and preferences, and that the findings are merely a reflection of the researcher’s anticipated conclusions. To support this notion, Law444 argues that a researcher is both a viewer and influencer producing realities. Therefore, the only way to maintain objectivity is by admitting the subjective influence created by the researcher. This is where theoretical sensitivity allows the researcher to be creative in developing a new theory445, choosing the objectivist or constructivist perspective of grounded theory. In objectivist grounded theory, the researcher indeed aims to balance objectivity and sensitivity, whereas in constructivist grounded theory, the researcher does not strive for objectivity but instead aims to be transparent about the subjective approach and interpretations made through the research process with the participants446. As a result, it is important for an interpretivist researcher to document her or his fieldwork thoroughly by keeping detailed field notes and not deny or hide their subjectivity, because “… the researcher bias enters into the picture even if the researcher tries to stay out of it”447. It is also expected that she or he adopt appropriate procedures and apply certain measures that limit their bias to ensure the integrity of their research. Trying not to conceal his partiality, thus to answer the question on his position in relation with the research context and the subjectivity that has influenced him on the choice of the research topic, as an insider planning to do cultural research in and on his country, the researcher will first start with Bourdieu’s argument for a foothold. Bourdieu448 noted that an interpretive researcher “… who does not know himself, who does not have an adequate knowledge of his own primary experience of the world, puts the primitive at a distance because he does not recognize the primitive, pre-logical thought within himself”. According to him, since interpretive fieldwork requires observing what has been said, done, and what would have been told by participating in everyday life analytically, the choice of research topic, method and theory depends on what he calls as the ‘anthropological field’, where the researcher or the national tradition, habits of thoughts, shared beliefs, rituals, values and rules are located. The issue of the researcher being an insider or outsider to the group studied, as discussed, is in fact an important one and has received increasing exploration by social scientists, often because they find themselves studying a group in which they are not a member. Prior to postmodernism, complete member researchers were to avoid using their insider status, so as not to ‘unnaturally’ alter the interaction between the researcher and participants449. They were warned not to get involved in the field as an insider, because it makes it more difficult to conduct the research, in fear of not being able to step back and remain engaged in observations needed450,451. It is also possible that the researcher’s perceptions might be clouded by her or his personal experience and that as a member of the group she or he will have difficulty separating those perceptions from that of the participants’. While outsiders have an advantage of not bringing preconceived notions, they also have the disadvantage of pure ignorance. The role of complete membership, on the other hand, gives insider researchers a number of legitimacy452. Their status frequently allow them a more rapid and complete acceptance by their participants, who are typically more open in discussions, ensuring a greater depth of the data gathered.
It is true that an Indonesian is considered an insider of the research context, but due to the country’s cultural diversity, the researcher as Orang Bali may also still be considered as an outsider of the communities that will be treated as cases. Even if a Balinese community is selected as a case, the researcher will still be an outsider because he was born and raised in Jakarta and does not speak Bahasa Bali eloquently. The same condition will apply if a local community from Jakarta is selected as a case. Orang Betawi, the indigenous people of Jakarta, will culturally deem the researcher as Orang Bali. Hence, considering the previously addressed question on the researcher’s position and role, his insider versus outsider status in this research must be weighed based upon its benefits. Being an insider of the research context, he may not experience the trouble of a western fieldworker working in a non-western location in raising the awareness of ethnocentrism of outsiders, where it is hard to remain objective and unbiased toward any other group. At the same time, being an outsider of a local community, he may avoid the dual role confusion or role conflict between the ‘loyalty tugs’ and ‘behavioural claims’453. An ‘insightful outsider’ is able to reach an audience as widely as possible and make the rules of the inquiry as well as frameworks and meanings explicit454. All of these advantages will certainly be very useful for the researcher in producing responsible knowledge.
3.4.2 Easing cross-cultural and cross-language issues
Conducting a case study investigation in cross-cultural settings will introduce several challenges to this research. Since, the researcher’s task within the interpretivist research is “… to find ways to enter into the worlds of the different participants … to try to capture and understand the meanings that they give” 455 , the extent of his knowledge of the cultural context of the research setting, as well as his personal cultural background, experiences, and ideologies will also affect the data collection process and the interpretation he makes456. In this research however, in addition to navigating cultural differences, the study will also involve carrying out cross-language research. Apart from being a highly culturally diverse country, it may be surprising to know that Indonesia’s national language, Bahasa Indonesia, is merely the second language of the country, used only as the formal cross-cultural and cross-language communication for its citizens, similar to English as the international language of communication. Almost all Indonesians, except for those who grew up in Jakarta or other major cities, use their own Bahasa Daerah for everyday communication. In Indonesia, this explains why a person moving out from his local community, for example a Balinese undergraduate student who was born and raised in Jakarta but has to move to Salatiga for his study, will at first feel as if she or he is moving to another country with a totally different culture and language. Therefore, because of his positions as an insider of the country and an outsider of the community selected as cases, similar to that of the undergraduate student, the researcher will not only meet different cultures, but also a variety of different languages during the research fieldwork. Indeed, issues of interpretation in qualitative research are still regarded as an on-going topic that concern social sciences scholars, especially in cross-cultural and cross-language studies457. Temple458 emphasizes the importance of preserving a statement in their original spoken language for an unbiased analysis and interpretation. She states, “Researchers have shown that adopting a language that is not the one an account was given in may change how someone is perceived”459. As further discussed by Kravchuk460, since the “… conceptual or linguistic equipment of researchers from one culture is inadequate to describe the state of affairs that prevails in another culture”, cross-cultural research may lead a researcher accidentally involved in a discrepancy view on the culture being studied. Mistakes may be made in attribution of meaning where it does not exist, or due to the “… tendency to read the implicit in alien cultures”461. As a result, the ‘reification of concepts’, or the projection of the ‘familiar
onto the unfamiliar’ “… raises the danger that certain indigenous features of the systems under study— some of which may be crucial to the research question—may be ignored, disregarded, misunderstood, or missed altogether”462. To ease these problems, this research will be incorporated into a research fieldwork team consisting of ‘cultural brokers’, who share the cultural and linguistic background of each community that will be selected as cases463,464. The cultural brokers of this research will be made up of undergraduate students who are in their final year and will be selected based upon their locality. This criterion was chosen because at this stage of their study, undergraduate students in Indonesia will already have the general knowledge on research methodology and are capable of conducting a research fieldwork. Furthermore, although they may take the role far beyond the technical translational issues by making judgments in translating specific terms, improving the speech or expression of an informant, ‘filtering out’ what they consider unimportant, or overly emphasizing what they consider to be more important465, these cultural brokers are still more sensitive to the unobservable cultural meanings not seen by an outsider. Their cultural subjectivities can be reduced either by employing more than one cultural broker for each case to obtain a second view on each interview’s recording or transcription, or by including as many opinions as possible during the fieldwork and analysis process.
3.4.3 Overcoming ethical issues
As advised by Stake466, a researcher should perceive themselves as guests in the world of the participant, maintaining good manners, and following strict code of ethics, hence ethical considerations will constantly be addressed during the research process. Nevertheless, since the researcher acts as the research instrument “… who engages in a transactional process, recognizing that the process is ethics-inaction”467, in studying diverse cultures, he will confront dilemmas on distinctive definitions of what is ethical, where these dilemmas will not be easily resolved with guidance from existing ethical principles and guidelines468. A major ethical issue in social research is the need to consider how power relations operate between the researcher and participants within the process of carrying out empirical work. According to Soobrayan469, this will be very difficult to be literally explained, as they are “… contextually driven and simultaneously contextually bound”. Consequently, before the primary fieldwork, the researcher will seek to develop his basic cross-cultural understanding, especially on norms and practices related to power relations existing in the communities that will be selected as cases, to provide alternative methods in enhancing the participants’ participation and protection. This is where the research fieldwork team from each case will come in handy in developing culturally specific approaches to inform the information pamphlet regarding the participation and protection of research participants. The information pamphlet will generally consist of a letter introducing the research and the researcher, an informed consent, as well as a clear explanation of the participant rights and obligations as potential participants in the study. Through the pamphlet, the participants will be acknowledged about their rights to decline to answer any question and to end their participation at any time without having to give any reason or incurring any penalty. Each research participant will also be assured that the requested information will be combined with the information given by other participants and will be used solely for academic purposes in relation to the objective of this study. Their responses will be treated with utmost confidentiality and the results will be reported in such a way that no link whatsoever will be made to any participant in any form or way. Additionally, the researcher, along with the research fieldwork team, will also search for various cultural strategies to ensure
politeness of the research in order to maintain a good interviewer-interviewee relationship and respect from the research participants.
3.4.4 The operational design and scheduling the design
Many researchers have called for a more rigorous case study research. Seuring470 argues that it is crucial to conduct case studies in a structured way in order to ensure its rigorousness. According to Stuart, McCutcheon, Handfield, McLachlin, and Samson471, a case study research must consist of five critical stages as illustrated:
Figure 7 (will be inserted here) Five Stages of Research Process
Stuart et al.473 note that a researcher will have to define the research questions in the first stage and “all research starts from the examination of existing theories”. Having defined the research question, the researcher then needs to develop measuring instruments to capture data for future analysis. The second stage focuses on the development of a research instrument and selection of appropriate field sites. The third stage consists of data gathering via the selected methods previously built. The fourth stage involves analysing the data to determine what has been learned and how to present it. Stuart et al.474 state that this stage is integral to the researcher’s task developed from the earlier stage and may take a great deal of time and effort. Finally, in the last stage, the researcher will write the dissertation to disseminate the research findings. As previously discussed in section 3.2, this research will be designed as an exploratory multiple-case study. Thus to meet the requirement for logical replication, the operational design for the study will be based on a design suggested by Yin475, and portrayed as follow:
Figure 8 (will be inserted here) Operational Design of the Research
Based upon Stuart et al.’s 476 recommendation, the above operational design will be roughly scheduled into five stages consisting of several objectives as describe below:
Table 7 (will be inserted here) The Research Stages Proposed
The overall research duration to be proposed for this research is a full three years and the timeline can be pictured as follow:
Figure 9 (will be inserted here) The Research Timeline
The first stage will be dedicated to improve this proposal by making an intense literature review to identify more gaps, refining sub questions to support the central research question and building the initial (first version) conceptual framework out of sensitizing concepts related to the topic being addressed. Subsequently, a mature case study protocol used as the initial version for the pilot study will be developed in stage two and it is proposed to take another three months to be completed. The result from the first and second stages will be an approved research proposal. Then, as previously suggested by Miles and Huberman480 in section 3.2.5, the third and fourth stage will each consist of two episodes
overlapping each other to allow flexible data collection procedures, maintaining the researcher open to potentially emerging new ideas or patterns. The third stage will consist of the pilot study as well as the primary fieldwork. Whereas the fourth stage will include post-pilot data analysis, which will focus on refining the research sub questions, conceptual framework, and propositions. It also focuses on post primary fieldwork, which will comprise of within-cases as well as cross-cases analysis. In addition, the individual case reports and the cross-case reports will also be drafted in the fourth stage. Both stages will be conducted in Indonesia and are proposed to take roughly 24 months to be completed. Finally, the researcher will compose his thesis in the fifth stage, which is expected to be completed in approximately six months. Nevertheless, apart from dissertation, the researcher is also looking forward to disseminate this research through other means of scientific publications, such as conference or journal paper.
(will be inserted here from another file)
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.