Category

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The Research onion by Saunders (2007) appears beneficial for the researcher to design a research study. It enables the researcher to investigate carefully the desired specific research methods and tools that best suits the  the aims and objectives of the research and to perform data analysis with accuracy. Application of correct research methods is crucial for social research, as it affects the reliability as well as the validity of the research variables (Bryman, 2015).

Research Philosophy

Research philosophy involves generation of knowledge through understanding the concepts of the research. Tsang, (2014, p.174) examined the types of research philosophies and they include positivism, interpretivism and realism. The positivism philosophy involves the collection of factual knowledge through the application of the statistical tests and analysis. Packard (2017) explained that the interpretivism philosophy on the other hand is based on the interaction of the researcher and generating inferences based on the new theories and concepts. Packard (2017) explained the realism philosophy which was based on the scientific approach that was involved in the development of knowledge and understanding about the process.

The study herein applied the positivism philosophy as the researcher collected the information through a questionnaire and conducted a detailed statistical analysis generating facts and figures. This philosophy was selected mainly because it enabled the researcher to accomplish the aims and objectives of the research through generation of factual knowledge.

Research Approach

Bryman and Bell (2015) investigated research approaches that appeared beneficial in generating inferences and conclusion regarding the study. There are two commonly used research approaches namely deductive as well as inductive approach. The inductive approach involves the collection of information from the participants and conducting an in depth analysis of the study variables. The researcher collects the information to accomplish the aims and objectives of the research. According to Bryman and Bell (2015) the inductive approach enables the researcher to generate new theories and ideas not presented previously.

The other approach namely deductive approach however, involves the collection of information from past research or tests already existing theories and concepts (Packard, 2017). The researcher under deductive approach may collect the information from survey questionnaire and then conduct statistical analysis to accomplish the purpose of the research. The deductive approach is used within the positivism philosophy while the inductive approach was used under the interpretivism philosophy (Packard, 2017).

The study herein was based on the statistical analysis of the collected information

thus, researcher utilised the deductive approach as part of this study. This enabled the researcher to derive inferences regarding the study topic and generate the statistical data based on the research hypothesis.

Research Design

Mertens (2014) examined the research designs and found three types of research designs namely; quantitative, qualitative and mixed method design. The qualitative design is used by the researcher when he is aimed at conducting interviews from the respondents and generating new inferences and conclusions. This type of research design does not involve testing through statistical analysis. According to Creswell, (2013) the quantitative research design is used to collect the data through surveys and test them through the statistical software. Quantitative research involves testing of the existing theories and concepts and generates results that could be presented in charts or graphs.

 The third type of research design is the mixed method design that incorporates both the qualitative as well as the quantitative designs. The study herein involved the quantitative research design that involved the collection of data in the form of the survey questionnaire and then tested through the statistical software. The quantitative research approach was helpful for the researcher in order to understand the concept of social enterprise and the awareness among the young generation through the survey questionnaire.

Data collection

Bryman and Bell (2015) explained two types of data collection methods including primary and secondary data collection as part of quantitative research design. The primary data collection is based on the collection of the data by the researcher himself. The data is in the raw form and not published elsewhere. However, the secondary data collection is based on the collection of the data from the past researches in order to understand the concept of the study and study variables. The data collected from the authentic journals, e-websites, magazines, newspapers and annual reports as part of the government and non-governmental organizations. The work of the researchers was then referenced in order to acknowledge their work.

The researcher used survey questionnaire for data collection from the respondents. The questionnaire was self-administered questionnaire. The Bristol Online survey was used as a tool to collect the information from the respondents (Fuller et al., 2015). This tool is mainly designed for the university students. The questions as part of this research were mostly based on the likert scale and closed ended questions in which the participant was supposed to click the right option. A few questions were open ended in cases when the information was other than the closed ended questions options available.

The collection of the data through survey questionnaires enables the researcher to save time and resources in comparison to other research methods ( Bryman, 2015). The other advantage of the survey questionnaire was that it provides the opportunity to collect quantifiable data that generates quantifiable and reliable results through the statistical analysis (Fowler, 2013). This also increases the reliability and validity of the research.

Sampling Technique

Uprichard (2013, p.2), examined the different types of sampling techniques and divided them into two broad categories namely probability and non-probability sampling techniques. In probability sampling technique the respondents have an equal opportunity for being chosen. However, in non-probability sampling the researcher does not get an equal opportunity for being selected. The researcher selected the snowball sampling technique as part of the non-probability sampling technique. The researcher distributed the questionnaires through different social media platforms including Facebook, LinkedIn, Gmail and WhatsAap. The questionnaires were sent through personal messaging across these networks and as part of snow ball sampling the researcher get the questionnaire filled through support of friends and acquaintances. They spread the questionnaires across their social networks and in this way the survey got filled by huge number of individuals. There were certain accessibility issues and time limitation and the convenient sampling technique serves best.

Sample size

According to Schonbrod and Perugini (2013, p.609), it is difficult to collect information from the huge population as the researcher has limited resources while conducting research. Also, it is difficult to access the entire population. Thus, the researcher collects the information in the form of sample. The sample is inclusive of the study characteristics and representative of the entire population.

The target population selected for the study was 100 young Indonesian students. The researcher conducted an extensive literature review and found that the social entrepreneurs were now investing on young students in order to gain their stance on the activities that were in the favour of the society. Students play a critical role in the societal good by playing their part and there exist an association between the social entrepreneurship with the young enthusiastic students who were aimed at accomplishing social and economic development of the society (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014, p.102). For this purpose, these students were chosen for the study.

Expected Outcome

There were a number of outcomes expected by the researcher while designing the research aims and objectives. Primarily, the researcher was focused at assessing the level of awareness about the concept of social enterprise in Indonesia especially among the young students, as per the efforts of the governments. Next, the researcher aimed at understanding the efforts of the government in promoting the concepts of social enterprise.

Furthermore, this research looked to explore the level and extent of the motivation and will among young students in order to establish the social enterprise for their future endeavours. The researcher had the perception that the level of the awareness as well as the motivation among young students was reflective of the effectiveness of Government policies. Lastly, the research was aimed at developing recommendations and solutions for the policy makers in order to optimise the governmental efforts in the promotion of social enterprise in Indonesia.

Data Analysis Plan

The survey questionnaire was inclusive of various sections on demographic characteristics, awareness regarding social entrepreneurship, and motivation level among students in order to establish social entrepreneurs in future endeavours. The questionnaire was designed on the likert scale having closed ended questions format, however some of the questions were different from the likert scale but closed ended in order to understand opinions of the students (Schmidt and Hunter, 2014). Survey questionnaire is a commonly used method to collect valuable information from the respondents. The researcher utilized the descriptive statistical analysis technique in order to generate quantifiable results. After the quantitative data analysis the results were displayed in form of tables and graphs. The demonstration of the data through the quantitative descriptive and statistical analysis enables the researcher to derive inferences and conclusion accomplishing the objectives of the research. As part of the quantitative analysis the researcher analysed the study variables and applied the correlation and regression analysis. The correlation analysis was conducted in order to evaluate the association between the role of the Indonesian government and the promotion of the social entrepreneurship. A regression analysis was performed in order to investigate the dependent variable relationship with the independent variable.

Ethical Consideration

For a researcher, it is essential to work under ethical rules and conduct. While conducting primary research the researcher collected the information from the respondents under the consent form while asking them to fill the Bristol online survey questionnaire. They were ensured that their confidentiality will be maintained and the collected information will not be used for the commercial purposes. This was crucial in order to avoid any sort of biasness in the research and collect reliable and valuable information from the respondents. Next, the researcher collected the information from the secondary sources in order to understand the study variables. The work of the authors was acknowledged through proper referencing and to work under all the ethical rules and conduct.

References

Abereijo, I.O., 2016. Ensuring environmental sustainability through sustainable entrepreneurship. Economic modeling, analysis, and policy for sustainability, pp.234-249.

Acs, Z.J., Autio, E. and Szerb, L., 2014. National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy43(3), pp.476-494.

Almeida, P.I., Ahmetoglu, G. and Chamorro-Premuzic, T., 2014. Who wants to be an entrepreneur? The relationship between vocational interests and individual differences in entrepreneurship. Journal of Career Assessment22(1), pp.102-112.

Anggadwita, G. and Dhewanto, W., 2016. The influence of personal attitude and social perception on women entrepreneurial intentions in micro and small enterprises in Indonesia. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business27(2-3), pp.131-148.

Bacq, S., Hartog, C. and Hoogendoorn, B., 2013. A quantitative comparison of social and commercial entrepreneurship: Toward a more nuanced understanding of social entrepreneurship organizations in context. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship4(1), pp.40-68.

Bae, T.J., Qian, S., Miao, C. and Fiet, J.O., 2014. The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta‐analytic review. Entrepreneurship theory and practice38(2), pp.217-254.

Becker, G.S., 2013. The economic approach to human behavior. University of Chicago press.

British Council. 2017. UK launches international social investment strategy. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.britishcouncil.org/society/social-enterprise/news-events/news-uk-international-social-investment-strategy. [Accessed 31 July 2017].

Bromley, P. and Meyer, J.W., 2014. “They Are All Organizations” The Cultural Roots of Blurring Between the Nonprofit, Business, and Government Sectors. Administration & Society.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E., 2015. Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA.

Bryman, A., 2015. Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Choi, N. and Majumdar, S., 2014. Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing29(3), pp.363-376.

Choi, N. and Majumdar, S., 2014. Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing29(3), pp.363-376.

Cotterrell, R., 2013. Law, culture and society: Legal ideas in the mirror of social theory. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..

Covaleski, M.A., Dirsmith, M.W. and Weiss, J.M., 2013. The social construction, challenge and transformation of a budgetary regime: The endogenization of welfare regulation by institutional entrepreneurs. Accounting, Organizations and Society38(5), pp.333-364.

Creswell, J.W., 2013. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

Di Zhang, D. and Swanson, L.A., 2013. Social entrepreneurship in nonprofit organizations: An empirical investigation of the synergy between social and business objectives. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing25(1), pp.105-125.

Fowler Jr, F.J., 2013. Survey research methods. Sage publications.

Frynas, J.G. and Stephens, S., 2015. Political corporate social responsibility: Reviewing theories and setting new agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews17(4), pp.483-509.

Fuller, T., Pearson, M., Peters, J. and Anderson, R., 2015. What affects authors’ and editors’ use of reporting guidelines? Findings from an online survey and qualitative interviews. PloS one10(4), p.e0121585.

Giddens, A., 2013. The third way: The renewal of social democracy. John Wiley & Sons.

Hayllar, M.R. and Wettenhall, R., 2013. As public goes private, social emerges: The rise of social enterprise. Public Organization Review13(2), p.207.

Idris, A. and Hijrah Hati, R., 2013. Social entrepreneurship in Indonesia: Lessons from the past. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship4(3), pp.277-301.

Jain, R. and Ali, S.W., 2013. A review of facilitators, barriers and gateways to entrepreneurship: directions for future research. South Asian Journal of Management20(3), p.122.

Kickul, J. and Lyons, T.S., 2016. Understanding social entrepreneurship: The relentless pursuit of mission in an ever changing world. Routledge.

Kostetska, I. and Berezyak, I., 2014. Social entrepreneurship as an innovative solution mechanism of social problems of society. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development36(3), pp.569-577.

Latchem, C.R., 2014. Informal learning and non-formal education for development. Journal of Learning for Development-JL4D1(1).

Lee, I., 2015. A social enterprise business model for social entrepreneurs: theoretical foundations and model development. International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation3(4), pp.269-301.

Leitch, C.M., McMullan, C. and Harrison, R.T., 2013. The development of entrepreneurial leadership: The role of human, social and institutional capital. British Journal of Management24(3), pp.347-366.

Leonardi, P.M., Huysman, M. and Steinfield, C., 2013. Enterprise social media: Definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication19(1), pp.1-19.

Lombard, A., 2014. Entrepreneurship In Africa: Social Work Challenges For Human, Social And Economic Development. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk39(3).

Macmillan, R., 2013. ‘Distinction’in the third sector. Voluntary Sector Review4(1), pp.39-54.

Mazzucato, M., 2015. The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths (Vol. 1). Anthem Press.

Mertens, D.M., 2014. Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Sage publications.

Nandan, M., London, M. and Blum, T.C., 2014. Community practice social entrepreneurship: an interdisciplinary approach to graduate education. International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation3(1), pp.51-70.

Osburg, T. and Schmidpeter, R., 2013. Social innovation. Solutions for a sustainable future. Springer.

Packard, M.D., 2017. Where did interpretivism go in the theory of entrepreneurship?. Journal of Business Venturing.

Payumo, J.G., Arasu, P., Fauzi, A.M., Siregar, I.Z. and Noviana, D., 2014. An entrepreneurial, research-based university model focused on intellectual property management for economic development in emerging economies: The case of Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia. World patent information36, pp.22-31.

Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’Regan, N. and James, P., 2015. Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group & Organization Management40(3), pp.428-461.

Razafindrambinina, D. and Sabran, A., 2014. The impact of strategic corporate social responsibility on operating performance: An Investigation Using Data Envelopment Analysis In Indonesia. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly6(1), p.68.

Razafindrambinina, D. and Sabran, A., 2014. The impact of strategic corporate social responsibility on operating performance: An Investigation Using Data Envelopment Analysis In Indonesia. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly6(1), p.68.

Ridley-Duff, R. and Bull, M., 2015. Understanding social enterprise: Theory and practice. Sage.

Roth, S., 2014. The eye-patch of the beholder: introduction to entrepreneurship and piracy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business22(4), pp.399-407.

Roumboutsos, A. and Pantelias, A., 2015. Allocating revenue risk in transport infrastructure public private partnership projects: How it matters. Transport Reviews35(2), pp.183-203.

Salamon, L.M. and Sokolowski, S.W., 2016. Beyond nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the third sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations27(4), pp.1515-1545.

Sánchez, J.C., 2013. The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on entrepreneurial competencies and intention. Journal of Small Business Management51(3), pp.447-465.

Scaffa, M.E. and Reitz, S.M., 2013. Occupational therapy community-based practice settings. FA Davis.

Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E., 2014. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage publications.

Schönbrodt, F.D. and Perugini, M., 2013. At what sample size do correlations stabilize?. Journal of Research in Personality47(5), pp.609-612.

Sekliuckiene, J. and Kisielius, E., 2015. Development of social entrepreneurship initiatives: a theoretical framework. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences213, pp.1015-1019.

Tsang, E.W., 2014. Case studies and generalization in information systems research: A critical realist perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems23(2), pp.174-186.

Turner, S., 2013. Indonesia’s small entrepreneurs: Trading on the margins. Routledge.

Uprichard, E., 2013. Sampling: bridging probability and non-probability designs. International Journal of Social Research Methodology16(1), pp.1-11.

Vanevenhoven, J. and Liguori, E., 2013. The impact of entrepreneurship education: Introducing the entrepreneurship education project. Journal of small business management51(3), pp.315-328.

Vickers, I. and Lyon, F., 2014. Beyond green niches? Growth strategies of environmentally-motivated social enterprises. International Small Business Journal32(4), pp.449-470.

Wiguna, A.B. and Manzilati, A., 2014. Social Entrepreneurship and Socio-entrepreneurship: A Study with Economic and Social Perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences115, pp.12-18.

Wilson, F. and Post, J.E., 2013. Business models for people, planet (& profits): exploring the phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation. Small Business Economics, pp.1-23.

Zahra, S.A. and Wright, M., 2016. Understanding the social role of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies53(4), pp.610-629.

Zahra, S.A., Newey, L.R. and Li, Y., 2014. On the frontiers: The implications of social entrepreneurship for international entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice38(1), pp.137-158.

Appendix-1

Questionnaire

Participants Information Sheet

The following questionnaire has been designed in order to assess the role of government in promoting social enterprise among students in Indonesia. 

Gender 

  •  Male
  •  Female

Age 

  •  18 – 21
  •  22 – 25
  •  26 – 30
  •  31 – 34
  •  35 +

Questions

  1. Which one of the following statements best matches your understanding of social entrepreneurship? 

Individuals with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems

Social enterprises are a charity that uses social media for fundraising

Independent business individuals that act as agents of change for the environment

Social enterprises are about looking for solutions to poor people problems

  1. Are you interested in being a Social Entrepreneurship? 
  •  Very Interested
  •  Interested
  •  Neutral
  •  Not Interested
  •  Very Not Interested
  1. Which sectors are you interested if you become a Social Entrepreneur in Indonesia?  
  • Agriculture
  • Poverty
  • Healthcare
  • Education
  • Fishery
  • Not Interesting in Social Entrepreneurship
  • Other

If you selected Other, please specify: 

Your answer should be no more than 100 characters long.

__________________________________________________________________

  1. What do you think is the most common challenge faced by Social Entrepreneurship? 
  • Funds
  • Lack of Entrepreneurship Education
  • Strategy
  • Other

If you selected Other, please specify: 

Your answer should be no more than 100 characters long.

__________________________________________________________________

  1. If you are interested in becoming a Social Entrepreneurship in the future, what kind of support do you expecting from the Indonesian Government? 
  • Funds
  • Education about Social Entrepreneurship
  • Ease in Obtaining Formal Legality
  • Guarantee of Intellectual Property
  • Continuity of Business
  • Other

If you selected other, please specify: 

Your answer should be no more than 100 characters long.

__________________________________________________________________

How much do you agree with each following questions

  • Indonesian Government provides adequate management consultancy and legal counseling  
  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know

7. Indonesian Government provides adequate marketing support in terms of Social Entrepreneurship  

  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know
  1. Indonesian Government provides adequate financial support in terms of Social Entrepreneurship  
  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know
  1. Social enterprises play an important role as an economic agent for Indonesia  
  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know
  1. Regulatory environments and bureaucratic procedures are favourable in Indonesia for Social Entrepreneurs  
  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know
  1. Social Entrepreneurs have adequate capacities to facilitate governmental procedures  
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  • Do Not Know
  1. The government assist in providing new sources of funding for the social entrepreneurship  
  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know
  1. Government assesses the performance of social entrepreneurs’ businesses to support if the business deficient in certain way  
  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know
  1. The government continue to boost the access of funding for the social entrepreneurs  
  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know
  1. Government also promotes the idea of innovation to the social entrepreneurs  
  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know