USING ONLINE INSTRUMENTS TO STUDY “HARD TO INVOLVE” POPULATIONS IN SOCIAL RESEARCH

1. USING ONLINE INSTRUMENTS TO STUDY “HARD TO INVOLVE” POPULATIONS IN SOCIAL RESEARCH FabiolaBaltar Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata Mar del Plata- Argentina fabaltar@mdp.edu.ar Aleix Gregori Universitat Rovira i Virgili Tarragona- Spain aleix.gregori@urv.cat VIRTUAL PRESENTATION

2. INTRODUCTION • In business research field, researchers are frequently confronted by the need to collect substantial quantities of empirical data, often from a reluctant population. • Although many authors have discussed about the importance of methodological issues concerning with data collection process to study SMEs, there is not a substantial advance in the application of new technologies, specifically Web 2.0 frame, to reach and research entrepreneurs and small firms. • Thus, we formulate the following exploratory questions:

3. INTRODUCTION • QUESTIONS • Is it possible to integrate Web 2.0 technology as a research tool to improve the data collection process in small business research field? • Which are the main attributes of those technologies that favour the involvement of the entrepreneurs in business surveys? • OBJECTIVE • The aim of the study is to explore the advantages and disadvantages of using new technologies for data collection to study SMEs.

4. LITERATURE REVIEW • METHODOLOGICAL CONCERNS IN BUSINESS SURVEYS • The literature concentrates on the followings topics: • The attention seeking strategy applied to increase the response rate, such as telephone pre-notifications and personalised strategies. • Strategies applied for questionnaire completion such as the use of university sponsorship, anonymity guarantees, the survey´s format. • Strategies to improve questionnaire returns with follow up techniques. • The relation between incentives and response rate (e.g. monetary, non-monetary and the offer of results).

5. LITERATURE REVIEW • RECRUITMENT USING WEB 2.0 FRAME • Ball (2010) found, using a survey sent by Facebook, Twiter and email, that SME´s owners indicate Facebook as the first networking site to develop their businesses. • Social Networking Sites (SNSs) can be an accurate space to improve the results in business surveys. Entrepreneurs who are familiarized with the technology can minimize time costs and increase trust because of the accessibility of the researcher profile and its network. • Virtual snowball sampling not only facilitates the access to “hard to involve” population but also can expand sample size and the scope of the study.

6. LITERATURE REVIEW • ADVANTAGES OF ONLINE SURVEYS • Flexibility (e.g. language) and time-efficiency (collect/process data). • Questionnaires are more attractive and easier to use. • Respondents can answer at a convenient time for themselves. • Researcher instantaneously has all the data stored in a data base. • Surveys can include all kinds of questions (dichotomous, scales). • Lower costs. • It is easier to follow-up non respondents. • Respondents answer in the order intended by the study designer. • Respondents answer only questions that are specifically design to • them.

7. LITERATURE REVIEW • DISADVANTAGES OF ONLINE SURVEYS • The perception that the mail is a “spam”, which increases the non response rate. • Selection bias concerning internet population (gender, age, education level, socioeconomic level, etc). • The sample selection methods are “volunteer” samples. • Respondent lack of online experience. • Unclear answering instructions because online questionnaires are self-administered. • Impersonal. There is usually no human contact in online surveys. • Privacy related with how data will be used. • Some studies reflect that there is a low response rate of many online surveys.

8. METHODOLOGY • We explored 52 virtual groups. • We contacted their members sending them private messages. • We extended the sample size, asking each member if they knew anyone else (online or offline contact). • We obtained 1103 responses (53.2%), of which 343 were entrepreneurs (31%). • An online questionnaire was sent to these entrepreneurs, of whom 218 answered (63.5%).

9. RESULTS a) PROFILES OF SMEs OWNERS Profiles of entrepreneurs according to age, education and sex variables Source: Self-elaboration In the sample obtained with Facebook we could identify four heterogeneous groups basically defined by sex and education level.

10. RESULTS B) THE ENVIRONMENT OF SURVEY ADMINISTRATION Comparison of surveys completed in working hours vs. spare time hours Source: Self-elaboration 56.2% of entrepreneurs have completed the survey in their spare time. Furthermore, 83.5% have completed them the first time they entered to the survey. In this regard, we consider that this is a good contribution of Facebook as a contact space because people mainly use it in their free time. For example, lunch time, early morning and late night are the most common moments used to complete them. It is interesting to remark that women have a greater propensity to answer the survey in their working hours than male entrepreneurs.

11. RESULTS C) PROFILES OF THE ENTREPRENEURS AND DATA QUALITY The entrepreneurs profile and the quality of response Source: Self-elaboration Differences in the level of response are not statistically significant among groups. However, the quality of information is higher in questionnaires sent by highly educated young entrepreneurs than in other groups. Even though results confirm that there is a propensity to make a better use of these technologies in a targeted population, they do not constitute a technological barrier for the rest (81.2% of the questionnaires have been completed successfully in at least 85% of the questions).

12. RESULTS D) THE TYPE OF FIRMS AND DATA QUALITY Comparison of time spent to complete the survey according to the type of business Source: Self-elaboration. * X2: 18.640; df:10; Asymp sig: 0.045. Al 95% This result shows that there are statistical differences between the minutes spent answering by technology-based firms and that spent by traditional ones. However this variable does not affect the quality of data because the level of non response rate and not finished questionnaires are similar in both groups.

13. CONCLUSIONS • The level of non response rate is lower than the average rate presented in business studies. • Although we found that young entrepreneurs with high education level and operating in technology based-sectors are more familiarised with the use of online technologies, there are not statistical differences with the rest in terms of quality of the information and the level of non response rate among groups. • The main attribute that favours involvement of this reluctant population is the close relation reached using Facebook as the environment of contact, especially avoiding intermediation and allowing entrepreneurs to access in their free time. • Facebook can increase the level of confidence because entrepreneurs can access to private information of the researcher and his network (age, university and workplace). • However, we consider that many issues associated with external validity of results must be considered and further explored.

14. BIBLIOGRAPHY • Ball, L. (2010), “How small business owners use Facebook”, [online]:http://www.roundpeg. biz/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/FrontPage4.pdf. • Baruch,Y. and Holtom, B. (2008), “Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research”, Human Relations, 61(8): 1139-1160. • Bavdaz, M.; Drnovsek, M. and LotricDolinar, A. (2009), “Achieving a response from fast-growing companies: The case of Slovenian gazelles”, Economic and Business Review, 11 (3): 187-203. • Cycyota, C.S. and Harrison, D.A. (2006), “What (not) to expect when surveying executives”, Organizational Research Methods, 9: 133-160. • Dennis, W. J. (2003), “Raising Response Rates in Mail Surveys of Small Business Owners: Results of an Experiment”, Journal of Small Business Management, 41: 278-295. • Greer, T. V.; Chuchinprakam, N. and Seshadri, S. (2000),“Likelihood of Participating in Mail Survey Research: Business Respondents’ Perspective”, Industrial Marketing Management, 29(2): 97-109. • Newby, R., Watson, J. and Woodliff, D. (2003), “SME Survey Methodology: Response Rates, Data Quality, and Cost Effectiveness”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28: 163–172. • Porter, S.R. (2004), “Raising response rates: What works?”, New Directions for Institutional Research, 121: 5–21. • Simsek, Z. and Veiga, J.F. (2001), “A primer on internet organizational surveys”, Organizational Research Methods, 4: 218-35.

15. THANK YOU FOR THE ATTENTION