Kvantitatiiviset tutkimusmenetelmät. Luento 2 Tiedonkeruu ja raportointi Kaisu Puumalainen. Raportointi. Raportoinnista. raportin perusrakenne: johdanto teoriaosa, jossa viitekehys ja hypoteesit tutkimuksen suoritustavan (metodologia) kuvaus (data collection + measures )
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Tiedonkeruu ja raportointi
The empirical data used in this study is drawn from a dataset collected using a structured mail questionnaire. The survey was carried out in spring 2004. The initial population consisted of Finnish companies engaged in R&D from eight different industry categories: food, forestry, furniture, chemicals, metals, electronics, information and communications technology (ICT), and services.
The questionnaire was developed partly by using extant measurement scales, which were translated into Finnish. The use of a back-translation procedure involving a native English speaker ensured that the meanings of the item statements were not altered. Seven-point Likert scales were mainly used to minimize executive response time and effort (Knight & Cavusgil 2004). Pretests for getting feedback regarding the clarity of the survey items were conducted with ten companies of varying size in different sectors.
Like numerous other researchers, we chose to rely on single key informants in our data collection. In order to maximize the data accuracy and reliability, we followed Huber and Power’s (1985) guidelines on how to get quality data from single informants. Entrepreneurial orientation is normally operationalized from the perspective of the CEO (Covin & Slevin 1989; Wiklund & Shepherd 2003), and CEOs are typically the most knowledgeable persons regarding their companies’ strategies and overall business situations (Zahra & Covin 1995). Most of our respondents had titles such as chief executive officer, managing director, chief technology officer and R&D director, indicating a senior position in the firm.
A total of 1140 companies were identified from the Blue Book Database. Of those, 881 were reached by telephone and were found eligible to answer questionnaire. Other firms were not reached in spite of numerous telephone calls, or were considered ineligible. Eligibility and the identity of the most suitable key informants were ascertained during the telephone conversation. Participation in the survey was solicited by means of incentives such as the offer of a summary report of the results, and by assuring confidentiality of the responses. Of the firms contacted by telephone, 200 refused to participate. The survey questionnaire, along with a preaddressed postage-paid return envelope and a cover letter describing the purpose of the research, was mailed to the 681 firms that agreed to participate. A reminder e-mail was sent to those who had not answered within two weeks.
A total of 299 responses were received, yielding a satisfactory effective response rate of 33.9% (299/881). Non-response bias was assessed on a number of variables (e.g., size, profitability, time of latest new product launch, international operation mode) by comparing early and late respondents, following the suggestions of Armstrong and Overton (1977). There was no evidence of non-response bias, with the exception that the firm size of the early and late respondents differed slightly: it was larger in the late-respondent group when measured against the number of employees (the sample means for the early and late respondents were 140 and 205 employees, t= -2.50, d.f.=121, sig.=.014). We also compared the distribution of the number of employees in our data with the corresponding distribution of all Finnish companies with more than 50 employees, and found that in the categories between 100 and 999 employees, the proportions were equal. Four per cent of firms have more than 1000 employees (Statistics Finland 2004), as did 13% of our sample. This suggests that very large companies may be over-represented, and is in contrast with the comparison of early and late respondents implying that companies with large numbers of employees might be under-represented. Furthermore, as there was no significant difference between the early and late respondents in terms of turnover, we concluded that our sample was not biased.
In order to minimize social desirability bias in the measurement of constructs, it was emphasized in the cover letter that there were no right or wrong answers, and that the responses would remain strictly confidential (Zahra & Covin 1995). The respondents were asked to recall the situation in their companies during the most recent three year period to avoid recollection errors.
The sample used in this paper includes 217 firms from manufacturing and service segments. Seven different industry sectors were selected in aim to obtain a heterogeneous sample so as to increase the generalizability of the findings. Since we want to make distinction between individual and firm-level factors and in this study we aspire for capturing firm-level entrepreneurship and rather formal organizational renewal capabilities, the size class was restricted to firms with 50 employees or more. The upper cut-off 1000 employees was used to filter the largest firms out. This was done because the measures used to assess hypothesized relationship between independent and dependent variables include questions concerning organizational changes and international performance during the last three years. It is presumable that due to the organizational inertia in very large firms the lag between organizational changes and enhanced performance is longer than in small firms. Thus, it is possible that to capture the impact of organizational changes on performance of very large firms, the time period should be longer than used in this survey. To avoid the possible bias in results, the largest firms were omitted from this study.
Dependent variables: international performance
We agree with many other authors (e.g., Cavusgil & Zou 1994; Katsikeas et al. 2000) that international performance is a multidimensional construct that should be measured using a variety of indicators (for a thorough review of the measures used, see e.g., Zou & Stan 1998; Leonidou et al. 2002; Manolova & Manev 2004). These indicators could be objective or subjective, absolute or relative, reflecting either the scale of international operations or success in them.
We measured the scale of international operations on two objective indicators: 1) international sales as a percentage of total sales, and 2) the number of countries in which the company operates. These are both among the most commonly used proxies in this context (Walters & Samiee 1990; Sullivan 1994; Robertson & Chetty 2000; Autio et al 2000). In their review of 31 performance studies, Walters and Samiee (1990) found that 68% of them used the first and 13% the second measure. We also computed objective relative measures of the degree of internationalization by standardizing the international sales percentage and number of countries within each industry. These relative measures gave results that were identical to the absolute measures, and are thus not reported separately. We acknowledge that growth measures would be useful objective indicators of international performance as well. Autio et al. (2000) examined change in international sales as a percentage of total sales and growth in total sales, in order to understand the overall impact of growth in international sales.
The success of international operations was assessed in a subjective manner. The respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with their international activities during the previous three years on six different dimensions of performance, and as a whole. The average of these seven items was also used as an overall indicator (Cronbach alpha = .91).
Our reliance on self-reported data from single informants introduces the risk of common method variance. In order to obviate this risk, we followed the procedure suggested by Wiklund and Shepherd (2003) and computed the correlation coefficient with a self-reported profitability measure and an externally obtained one. We were able to find the return on investment (ROI) figures of 68 respondent companies from Talouselämä and Tietoviikko magazines, which are Finnish business magazines that collect and publish annual financial data from several industries. The correlation between the measures was .40 (p<.01). In fact, the results of previous research suggest that subjective measures of performance can accurately reflect objective measures (Lumpkin & Dess 2001).
Entrepreneurial orientation was conceptualized as consisting of the dimensions of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking. The measure was adapted from Naman and Slevin (1993), and Wiklund (1998), which were based on measures developed in Covin and Slevin (1988) and Miller and Friesen (1982). Pretests were conducted, after which some original items were dropped and new ones generated on the basis of previous studies on firm-level entrepreneurship. The measure included nine items, which were assessed on a scale from one to seven (see Appendix). The three dimensions are closely related, so a composite measure was constructed as an average of all nine items, resulting in a reliability coefficient of .74, which is satisfactory according to the guidelines presented in Nunnally (1978).
There are firm-specific and external factors that may affect a firm’s international performance, regardless of its strategic orientation (Lumpkin & Dess 1996) or its renewal capability. We therefore controlled for firm size, experience in international operations, and environmental dynamism.
Firm size is normally operationalized as the number of employees and/or amount of annual sales. It is assumed to affect international performance positively, as a larger firm has a larger pool of resources to exploit and the possibility to achieve advantages of scale in its international operations. In order to avoid problems of multicollinearity in the hypothesis testing, we only used annual sales turnover (reported in million €) as an indicator of firm size. The sales were log-transformed to correct for positive skewness.
Significance a p < .05, b p < .01
Kun syöt illalla ulkona, niin syötkö silloin tällöin samassa paikassa?
____ kyllä ___ en
Mistä yleensä ostat suurimman osan vaatteistasi? __________________
Mikä olisi mielestäsi sopiva vuokra yksiöstä?
____ 200-300 € _____ 300-400 € _____ yli 500 €
Luettele aikakauslehdet, joita luet säännöllisesti. (Lukemisella tarkoitetaan joko lukemista tai selailua; säännöllisesti tarkoittaa melkein joka kerta kun se ilmestyy)
Kuinka monta prosenttia työajastasi kuluu siihen että kysyt tietoa muilta työntekijöiltä organisaatiossasi?
Milloin aloit ensimmäisen kerran syödä purukumia?