Most research in evidence–based entrepreneurship builds on quantitative designs, which is unfortunate because qualitative studies provide a unique contribution to the domain of entrepreneurship. They look at distinctive phenomena in their specific time period and context in one way or another, and can help generate and test new theories. We, therefore, suggest using a systematic synthesis of case studies to aggregate the findings of qualitative research. Moreover, as a first step, we developed an example to demonstrate how this approach can advance evidence–based entrepreneurship. Specifically, we synthesized 13 cases to examine how business clusters increase the performance of firms within clusters.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbiolaB. (2006a). Knowledge, technology, and growth: The case study of Nnewi Auto Parts Cluster in Nigeria.New York: World Bank.
2.
AbiolaB. (2006b). Knowledge, technology, and growth: The case study of Otigba Computer Village cluster in Nigeria. Unpublished manuscript, World Bank Technical Report, Washington, DC.
3.
AdeyaN. (2006). Knowledge, technology and growth: The case study of Suame Manufacturing Enterprise Cluster in Ghana.New York: World Bank.
4.
AlosillaJ.I. (2002). Gamarra: El Peru de los peruanos. Quehacer, 136(3), 66–71.
5.
AlvarezS.A. & BarneyJ.B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26.
6.
AlvarezS.A. & BarneyJ.B. (2013). Epistemology, opportunities, and entrepreneurship: Comments on Venkataraman et al. (2012) and Shane (2012). Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 154–157.
7.
AudretschD.B., GriloI., & ThurikA.R. (2011). Globalization, entrepreneurship, and the region. In FritschM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on entrepreneurship and regional development (pp. 11–32). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
8.
BaronR.A. & MarkmanG.D. (2004). Toward a process view of entrepreneurship: The changing impact of individual–level variables across phases of new firm development. In RahimM.A., GolembiewskiR.T., & MackenzieK.D. (Eds.), Current topics in management (pp. 44–64). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
9.
BeerepootN. (2004). Learning in small enterprise clusters: The role of skilled workers in the diffusion of knowledge in the Philippines. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 1(1), 78–91.
10.
BeerepootN. (2005a). Collective learning by artisanal subcontractors in a Philippine furniture cluster. Tijdschrift vor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 96(5), 573–584.
11.
BeerepootN. (2005b). Collective learning in small enterprise clusters, skilled workers, labour market dynamics and knowledge accumulation in the Philippine furniture industry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
12.
BezdinD.L. (2005). En la Suscripcion de la renovacion del convenio entre la coordinadora de empresarios de Gamarra e Indecopi [Speech].
13.
BrautigamD. (1997). Substituting for the state: Institutions and industry development in Eastern Nigeria. World Development, 25(7), 1063–1080.
14.
BrinerR.B. & DenyerD. (2012). Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and scholarship tool. In RousseauD.M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence based management (pp. 112–129). New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
CampbellR., PoundP., PopeC., BrittenN., PillR., MorganM., et al. (2003). Evaluating meta–ethnography: A synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Social Science & Medicine, 56(4), 671–684.
16.
ChandlerG.N. & LyonD.W. (2001). Issues of research design and construct measurement in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 101–113.
17.
ChristensenC.M. & CarlileP.R. (2009). Course research: Using the case method to build and teach management theory. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(9), 240–251.
18.
CopeJ. (2011). Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 604–623.
19.
CreswellJ.W. (2009). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
CrookT.R., ShookC.L., MorrisM.L., & MaddenT.M. (2010). Are we there yet? An assessment of research design and construct measurement practices in entrepreneurship research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 192–206.
21.
CrottyM. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process.London: Sage.
22.
DavidssonP., LowM., & WrightM. (2001). Editor's introduction: Low and McMillan ten years on: Achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25(4), 5–15.
23.
DaviesH.T.O. & NutleyS.N. (1999). The rise and rise of evidence in health care. Public Money & Management, 19(1), 9–16.
24.
DenyerD. & TranfieldD. (2006). Using qualitative research synthesis to build an actionable knowledge base. Management Decision, 44(2), 213–227.
25.
Dixon–WoodsM., AgarwalS., YoungB., JonesD., & SuttonA. (2004). Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence. London: Health Development Agency.
26.
DulJ. & HakT. (2008). Case study methodology in business research.Oxford: Elsevier.
27.
DuxburyT. (2012). Towards more case study research in entrepreneurship. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(3), 9–17.
28.
EckhardtJ.T. & ShaneS.A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333–349.
29.
EckhardtJ.T. & ShaneS.A. (2013). Response to the commentaries: The individual–opportunity (IO) nexus integrates objective and subjective aspects of entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 160–163.
30.
EisenhardtK.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
31.
EisenhardtK.M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. The Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620–627.
32.
ElfringT. & HulsinkW. (2007). Networking by entrepreneurs: Patterns of tie formation for emerging organizations. Organization Studies, 28(12), 1849–1872.
33.
EvansD. (2002). Database searches for qualitative research. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90(3), 290–293.
34.
FinfgeldD.L. (2003). Metasynthesis: The state of the art—So far. Qualitative Health Research, 13(7), 893–904. doi:10.1177/1049732303253462
35.
FreseM., BauschA., SchmidtP., RauchA., & KabstR. (2012a). Evidence–based entrepreneurship (EBE): A systematic approach to cumulative science. In RousseauD. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence based management (pp. 92–111). New York: Oxford University Press.
36.
FreseM., BauschA., SchmidtP., RauchA., & KabstR. (2012b). Evidence–based entrepreneurship (EBE): Cumulative science, action principles, and bridging the gap between science and practice. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 8(1), 1–62.
37.
GartnerW.B. (2007). Entrepreneurial narrative and a science of the imagination. Entrepreneurial Narrative Greif Symposium on Emerging Organizations, 22(5), 613–627.
38.
GartnerW.B. & BirleyS. (2002). Qualitative methods in entrepreneurial research. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5), 387–395.
39.
GeorgeG. & BockA.J. (2011). The business model in practice and its implications for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 83–111.
40.
GephartR.P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454–482.
41.
GibbertM., RuigrokW., & WickiB. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study?Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1465–1474.
42.
GiulianiE., PietrobelliC., & RabellottiR. (2005). Upgrading in global value chains: Lessons from Latin American clusters. World Development, 33(4), 549–573.
43.
GlaserB.G. & StraussA.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
44.
HakT. & DulJ. (2010). Theory–building with cases. In MillsA.J., DureposG., & WiebeE. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 932–937). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
HoonC. (2013). Meta–synthesis of qualitative case studies: An approach to theory building. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 501–521.
46.
HunterJ.E. & SchmidtF.L. (2004). Methods for meta–analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47.
JensenJ.L. & RodgersR. (2001). Cumulating the intellectual gold of case study research. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 235–246.
48.
JickT.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611.
49.
JohnsonP., BuehringA., CassellC., & SymonG. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(3), 131–156.
50.
KaplinskyR. & MorrisM. (2001). A handbook of value chain research (Vol. 113). Sussex, U.K.: IDRC.
51.
KinyanjuiM.N. (2006). Knowledge, technology and growth: The case study of Kamukunji Jua Kali Enterprise Cluster in Kenya.New York: World Bank.
52.
KnightF.H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit.New York: Kelly and Millman.
53.
KodithuwakkuS.S. & RosaP. (2002). The entrepreneurial process and economic success in a constrained environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 431–465.
54.
KraussS., MarxtC., FilserM., & GuieuG. (2011). Strategic entrepreneurship: Analyse der Strukturen und Entwicklung des Forschungsfeldes [Strategic entrepreneurship: Analysis of the structure and development of the research field]. Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, 59(3), 203–228.
55.
KrippendorffK. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
56.
LarssonR. (1993). Case survey methodology: Quantitative analysis of patterns across case studies. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1515–1546.
57.
LawsonT. (2009). Ontology and economics: Tony Lawson and his critics.London: Routledge.
58.
LeplinJ. (1984). Scientific realism.Berkeley: University of California Press.
59.
LoebisL. & SchmitzH. (2005). Java furniture makers: Globalization winner of losers?Development in Practice, 15(3/4), 514–521.
60.
LopezM.P., CunhaM.P., & PalmaP. (2009). Cases studies on what entrepreneurs actually do to attract resources: A two–route framework. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 17(3), 323–349.
61.
LowM.B. (2001). The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: Specification of purpose. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 9–26.
62.
LowM.B. & MacMillanB. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–162.
63.
MagrettaJ. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86–92.
64.
MarshallA. (1920). Principles of economics.London: McMillan.
65.
McCormickD. (1998). Enterprise clusters in Africa: On the way to industrialization? Brighton, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
66.
McKelveyB. (1997). Organization positivism: Separating myth from reality: Presented at the Macro Organizational Behavior Science Meeting. Los Angeles: The Anderson School at UCLA.
67.
McKelveyB. (1998). “Good” science from postmodernist ontology: Realism, complexity theory, and emergent dissipative structures. Non–linearity and the Organization Conference, Las Cruces, NM.
68.
McKelveyB. (2002). Postmodernism vs. truth in management theory. In LockeE.A. (Ed.), Modernism and management: Pros, cons, and alternatives (pp. 113–168). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
69.
MertonR.K. (1957). Social theory and social structure.New York: Free Press.
70.
MillerD. & FriesenP.H. (1977). Strategy–making in context: Ten empirical archetypes. Journal of Management Studies, 14(3), 253–280.
71.
MintzbergH., RaisinghaniD., & ThéorêtA. (1976). The structure of “unstructured” decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(2), 246–275.
72.
MorosiniP. (2004). Industrial clusters, knowledge integration and performance. World Development, 32(2), 306–326.
73.
NeergaardH. & UlhoiJ.P. (2007). Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship.Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
74.
NewigJ. & FritschO. (2009). The case survey method and applications in political science. APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper.
O'BoyleE.H.Jr., PollackJ.M., & RutherfordM.W. (2012). Exploring the relation between family involvement and firms’ financial performance: A meta–analysis of main and moderator effects. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 1–18.
77.
ObengG.Y. (2002). Kumasi Suame Magazine. Kumasi (Ghana): Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology.
78.
Oyelaran–OyeyinkaB. (1997). Newi: An emergent industry cluster in Nigeria.Ibadan: Technopol Publishers.
79.
Oyelaran–OyeyinkaB. (2001). Networks and linkages in African manufacturing firms: A Nigerian case study. Discussion paper, UNU/Intech.
80.
Oyelaran–OyeyinkaB. (2004). Networking technological change and industrialization: The case of small and medium firms in Nigeria. Special paper series, 20, ATPS.
81.
Oyelaran–OyeyinkaB. (2006). Learning hightech and knowledge in local industries: The Otigba computer hardware cluster in Nigeria. Working paper series, UNU/Intech.
82.
PawsonR. (2002). Evidence–based policy: The promise of “realist synthesis.”Evaluation, 8(3), 340–358.
83.
PerrenL. & RamM. (2004). Case–study method in small business and entrepreneurial research: Mapping boundaries and perspectives. International Small Business Journal, 22(1), 83–101.
84.
PerryM. (2005). Business clusters in the south: A critical appraisal from Indonesian evidence. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 26(2), 227–243.
85.
PettigrewA.M. (1997). What is a processual analysis?Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 337–348.
86.
PietrobelliC. & BarreraT.O. (2002). Enterprise clusters and industrial districts in Columbia's fashion sector. European Planning Studies, 10(5), 541–562.
87.
PietrobelliC. & RabellottiR. (2004). Upgrading in clusters and value chains in Latin America: The role of policies.Washington, DC: Inter–American Development Bank.
88.
PittawayL. & CopeJ. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510.
89.
PorterM.E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations.New York: Free Press.
90.
ProInvest. (2005). The ProInvest program and cluster and enterprise networks. Economisti Associati, Bologna, Italy.
91.
RaginC. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
92.
RauchA. & FreseM. (2006). Meta–analysis as a tool for developing entrepreneurship research and theory. In WiklundJ., DimovD.P., KatzJ., & ShepherdD. (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, Firm emergence, and growth (pp. 29–52). London: Elsevier.
93.
RauchA. & FreseM. (2007). Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta–analysis of the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353–385.
94.
ReadS., SongM., & SmitW. (2009). A meta–analytic review of effectuation and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(6), 573–587.
95.
RochaH.O. (2004). Entrepreneurship and development: The role of clusters. Small Business Economics, 23, 363–400.
96.
RosenbuschN., RauchA., & BauschA. (2013). The mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation in the task environment–performance relationship: A meta–analysis. Journal of Management, 39(3), 633–659.
97.
RousseauD.M., ManningJ., & DenyerD. (2008). Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field's full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 475–515.
98.
SandeeH., AndadariR.K., & SulandjariS. (2000). Small firm development during good times and bad. In ManningC. & DiermenP.v. (Eds.), Indonesia transition: Social aspects of reformasi and crisis (pp. 184–198). Singapore: Institute of South–East Asian Studies.
99.
SandeeH., IsdijosoB., & SulandjariS. (2002). SME clusters in Indonesia: An analysis of growth dynamics and employment conditions.Geneva: International Labour Organization.
100.
SarasvathyS.D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.
101.
SatoY. (2005). Linkage formations by small firms: The case of a rural cluster in Indonesia. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 36(1), 137–166.
102.
SchmitzH. (1995a). Collective efficiency: Growth path for small–scale industry. The Journal of Development Studies, 31(4), 529–566.
103.
SchmitzH. (1995b). Small shoemakers and fordist giants: Tale of a supercluster. Industrial Organization and Manufacturing Competitiveness in Developing Countries, 23(1), 9–28.
104.
SchmitzH. (1999a). Collective efficiency and increasing returns. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23, 465–483.
105.
ScottA.J. (2005). The shoe industry of Marikina City, Philippines: A developing–country cluster in crisis. Philippine Journal of Third World Studies, 20(2), 76–99.
106.
ShaneS. & VenkataramanS. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
107.
ShawR., BoothA., SuttonA., MillerT., SmithJ., YoungB., et al. (2004). Finding qualitative research: An evaluation of search strategies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 4(1), 1–5.
108.
ShortJ.C., KetchenD.J., ShookC.L., & IrelandR.D. (2010). The concept of “opportunity” in entrepreneurship research: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 36(1), 40–65.
109.
SiggelkowN. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.
110.
TambunanT. (2006). Development of small and medium scale industry clusters in Indonesia. Kadin Indonesia Jetro.
111.
ThorneS., JensenL., KearneyM.H., NoblitG., & SandelowskiM. (2004). Qualitative metasynthesis: Reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qualitative Health Research, 14(10), 1342–1365.
112.
TourishD. (2012). “Evidence based management,” or “evidence oriented organizing”? A critical realist perspective. Organization, 20(2), 173–192.
113.
TranfieldD., DenyerD., & SmartP. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence–informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
114.
UzorO.O. (2004). Small– and medium–scale enterprise cluster development in the South–Eastern region of Nigeria. Paper presented at the 86 Weltwirtschaftliches Colloquium der Universitaet Bremen.
115.
VenkatramanN. & RamanujamV. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11, 801–814.
116.
VisserE. (1999). A comparison of clustered and dispersed firms in the small–scale clothing industry of Lima. World Development, 27(9), 1553–1557.
117.
VisserE. (2000). Structural adjustment and cluster advantages: A case from Peru. In SverrissonA. & DijkM.P.v. (Eds.), Local economies in turmoil, the effects of deregulation and globalization (pp. 77–94). London: MacMillan.
118.
VisserE. & BoschmaR. (2004). Learning in districts: Novelty and lock–in in a regional context. European Planning Studies, 12(6), 793–808.
119.
YinR.K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
120.
ZuckermanH. (1972). Interviewing an ultra–elite. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 159–175.
