dissertation in pdf-format - Aalto-yliopisto

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3 Research methodology concluded that the problems of representation and integration in mixed methods research imply the need to identify specific legitimation issues that are not associated with mono-method research designs but could be used in combined quantitative and qualitative investigations. They also identified the following nine legitimation types: 1. Sample integration 2. Inside-outside 3. Weakness minimization 4. Sequential 5. Conversion 6. Paradigmatic mixing 7. Commensurability 8. Multiple validities 9. Political Sample integration shows the relationship between quantitative and qualitative sampling designs that yield possible quality meta-inferences. The inside-outside type refers to accurate presentation and appropriate utilization of insiders’ and observers’ views of the purposes (description and explanation) of the research. Weakness minimization refers to the compensation of weaknesses of one approach by the strengths of the other approaches. Sequential legitimation is based on the extent to which one has minimized the potential problem of meta-inferences being affected by reversing the sequence of the quantitative and qualitative phases. Conversion is related to the extent to which the quantitizing or qualititizing yields quality meta-inferences. Paradigmatic mixing is based on the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, axiological, methodological and rhetorical beliefs underlying the quantitative and qualitative approaches that are successfully combined or blended into a usable package. Commensurability is based on the meta-inferences made to reflect a mixed worldview based on the cognitive process of switching and integration. Multiple validities address the legitimation of the quantitative and qualitative components of the results from the use of quantitative, qualitative and mixed validity types, yielding high quality meta-inferences. Political in this context refers to the consumers of mixed methods research who value the meta-interferences stemming from both the quantitative and qualitative components of the study. Validity and quality criteria are examined here, and in the underlying studies, following the recommendation by Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003) that interference quality should be used as the mixed research term for 46
47 3 Research methodology validity. They conceptualized inference quality as being associated with two research components: design quality and interpretative rigour. To achieve good design quality for the studies several items have been considered. To ensure within-design consistency the methodological rules and guidance for conducting such research have been strictly followed. Possible methodological issues of the studies have been discussed in the research community and corrections have been made based on referees’ comments about Articles I-IV. The designs of the four research constructs have been approved by the international referees, implicitly accepting that the methods applied in the studies are appropriate for addressing the research questions/hypotheses and that the design of each framework is consistent with the research questions/hypotheses. The possible assumptions and problems with the methods used in the sampling, data gathering and analytical procedures have been acknowledged. The quality of the data has been improved by acquiring new data to fill gaps, and refining the data according to the research aims and possibility to answer the research questions and test the hypotheses. Interpretative rigour refers to the standards for evaluating the validity of conclusions of a study. In the studies this dissertation is based upon, interpretations of diverse results of applied constructs have been agreed, but the interpretations of the results of the whole study have not been agreed. This seems to be an important issue when evaluating the interpretative agreement of the results. Other issues associated with evaluating the validity are the fit with multiple interferences based on the findings, and whether the interferences are consistent with theory and current knowledge of the characteristics of IHGS SMEs.
Page 3 and 4:
Aalto University publication series
Page 5: Author Tomi Heimonen Name of the do
Page 9 and 10: Acknowledgements This dissertation
Page 11 and 12: CONTENTS PART 1: Overview of the di
Page 13: List of Articles This thesis is bas
Page 16 and 17: 1 Introduction Some scholars claim
Page 18 and 19: 1 Introduction In addition, the dur
Page 20 and 21: 1 Introduction Figure 1: Framework
Page 22 and 23: 1 Introduction factors that affect
Page 24 and 25: 1 Introduction 1.4 Key concepts and
Page 26 and 27: 2 Literature review and conceptual
Page 46 and 47: 3 Research methodology Constructivi
Page 48 and 49: 3 Research methodology and the meth
Page 50 and 51: 3 Research methodology The data use
Page 52 and 53: 3 Research methodology 3.4 Models a
Page 54 and 55: 3 Research methodology reliable. Se
Page 58 and 59: 4 Results, evaluation of the studie
Page 70 and 71: References Abetti, P. A. (2001). Ac
Page 72 and 73: References Bhide, A. (2000). The or
Page 74 and 75: References Creswell, J. W. (2003).
Page 76 and 77: References Golafshani, N. (2003). U
Page 78 and 79: References Leitch, C., Hill, F., an
Page 80 and 81: References Pellikka, J. and Laurone
Page 82 and 83: References Storper, M. (1992). The
Page 84 and 85: Appendixes Overview: Appendix 1: Ke
Page 86 and 87: Appendixes High growth When examini
Page 88 and 89: Appendixes profitability, liquidity
Page 90 and 91: Appendixes Appendix 1 Continued (Ke
Page 92 and 93: Appendixes Appendix 2 Construction
Page 94 and 95: Appendixes Appendix 2 Continued (Co
Page 96 and 97: not increased compared to Eastern F
Page 98 and 99: ___________________________________
Page 100 and 101: propensity for risk taking (Covin a
Page 102 and 103: 2. Former studies and derivation of
Page 104 and 105: firm’s annual sales growth (Arund
Page 106 and 107:
H4. Firm success has an impact on t
Page 108 and 109:
other branches in which employment
Page 110 and 111:
and Rao, 2008). Because of the unev
Page 112 and 113:
Table 1. Characteristics of the dat
Page 114 and 115:
firms from other firms. The data in
Page 116 and 117:
Table 2. Logistic Regression analys
Page 118 and 119:
Public R&D funding was shown to inc
Page 120 and 121:
References Achtenhagen, L., Naldi,
Page 122 and 123:
Kanter, R. (1985), “Supporting in
Page 124 and 125:
Appendix 1. Corporate population ch
Page 126 and 127:
Appendix 3. Distribution of personn
Page 128 and 129:
12 Int. J. Business and Globalisati
Page 130 and 131:
14 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen we u
Page 132 and 133:
16 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen suff
Page 134 and 135:
18 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen Glan
Page 136 and 137:
20 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen 3.2.
Page 138 and 139:
22 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen diff
Page 140 and 141:
24 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen sepa
Page 142 and 143:
26 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen Tabl
Page 144 and 145:
28 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen All
Page 146 and 147:
30 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen 5.2
Page 148 and 149:
32 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen Tabl
Page 150 and 151:
34 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen The
Page 152 and 153:
36 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen Davi
Page 154 and 155:
38 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen Appe
Page 156 and 157:
40 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen 100
Page 158 and 159:
___________________________________
Page 160 and 161:
412 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen “
Page 162 and 163:
414 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen gro
Page 164 and 165:
416 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen 6 f
Page 166 and 167:
418 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen Fig
Page 168 and 169:
420 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen The
Page 170 and 171:
422 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen the
Page 172 and 173:
424 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen 4.6
Page 174 and 175:
426 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen exc
Page 176 and 177:
428 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen Dav
Page 178 and 179:
430 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen The
Page 180 and 181:
432 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen Cha
Page 182 and 183:
392 Int. J. Entrepreneurial Venturi
Page 184 and 185:
394 J. Siikonen et al. firms’ gro
Page 186 and 187:
396 J. Siikonen et al. generally re
Page 188 and 189:
398 J. Siikonen et al. determinants
Page 190 and 191:
400 J. Siikonen et al. 3.1 National
Page 192 and 193:
402 J. Siikonen et al. 2 the firm
Page 194 and 195:
404 J. Siikonen et al. 4 Results 4.
Page 196 and 197:
406 J. Siikonen et al. innovation a
Page 198 and 199:
408 J. Siikonen et al. the responde
Page 200 and 201:
410 J. Siikonen et al. activities i
Page 202 and 203:
412 J. Siikonen et al. Eastern Finl
Page 204 and 205:
414 J. Siikonen et al. Delmar, F.,
Page 206 and 207:
416 J. Siikonen et al. Oerlemans, L
Page 208 and 209:
418 J. Siikonen et al. Appendix 1 V
Page 211:
9HSTFMG*afacab+
show all

dissertation in pdf-format - Aalto-yliopisto

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?