Mapping the aliran of the academic discipline of entrepreneurship: A ...

3.1 Methodology
3.1.1 Position Statement
3.1.2 Foucauldian discourse analysis?
3.1.3 Phenomenology and hermeneutics
3.1.4 Mixed theories – justifying the lineage used
3.1.5 Time, three dimensionality and application issues
3.1.00 In this section I commence with a personal statement about the dissonance I
perceive in academia with the prevailing qualitative / quantitative dichotomy. Under this
dichotomy it could be assumed that, because I am using a Foucauldian discourse analysis,
that my methodology would be qualitative. However, I am using a mixed approach and
using mixed theories in my methodo logies. Aspects of lineage, as discussed in Part One,
link the mixed theories from Foucault and Heidegger and also provide the interlink
between their theories and the concepts of phenomenology and hermeneutics. These
sections end on a discussion of the aspect of time and the problem of applying
dimensionality to this work.
3.1.1 Position Statement
3.1.1.00 This section outlines a personal application to methodology and data collection
processes suggesting that for this investigation mixed methodologies are appropriate.
3.1.1.01 In my non academic life as a businessperson, I have found it useful, when trying
to come to terms with situations, where my own views may not be in conformity with that
of the majority, to write for myself a ‘position statement’. This statement assists not only to
clarify my own thinking but also serves as a platform to expand these views.
3.1.1.02 This dissertation can be described as having ‘mixed methodologies’. Yet that
term is in itself an inadequate description. I am mixing my data collection processes by
using quantitative data collection with a more qualitative analysis of such data. Yet on
another level I am mixing methodo logies on two planes. Firstly I am using philosophical
sources from two different European schools of thought associated with Foucault and
110