Sustainable entrepreneurial processes explored in this dissertation are a phenomenon situated at the intersection of SE and grassroots entrepreneurship. Within the grassroots entrepreneurship literature, the focus is specifically on grassroots entrepreneurial opportunities and BOP business models. The distinctiveness of the phenomenon stems from the fact that it is situated within the social and business context boundaries of SSA, which is an institutional context described as having relatively higher resource constraints (George et al., 2016).
Resources are broadly conceptualised as financial, human and technical skills and intellectual, social, physical, network and organisational capital required for the establishment and growth of an enterprise (Clough et al., 2019). These resources are hardly available for entrepreneurs in SSA, and as a result entrepreneurial activity is negatively affected to the degree that it becomes less structured (Manolova et al., 2008).
While acknowledging that every entrepreneur in any context has to contend with some form of resource constraints, scholars have argued that levels of resource constraints are relatively higher in SSA (George et al., 2016) coupled with the extreme poverty level. Drawing from the necessity and opportunity entrepreneurship dichotomies, it can be argued that sustainable entrepreneurs and their activities in SSA are quite distinctive. This is because of the constraining institutional environment, high poverty levels (Littlewood & Holt, 2015) and the fact that successful integration of SE goals is mired with ambiguity and complexity (Hahn et al., 2018), while creation of sustainable value is said to require more resources (Kesidou &
Demirel, 2012). The following sections show how this study is situated within each of the literature streams, as well as how the theoretical lens employed contributes to the topic of this study. First, the SE literature sets and directs the research agenda and the research questions. It acts as the ‘gateway’ into the processes explored in this dissertation as it offers a succinct understanding of related topics such as founder identity in SE, business models for sustainable innovation, embeddedness in sustainable entrepreneurial processes and resource mobilisation in SE. Resultantly, the SE literature connects with all the specific research questions explored in each publication.
Second, grassroots entrepreneurial opportunities set the context of the study and situate the SE phenomenon in context. As a result, this literature connects with both SE and BOP business model literature streams as these are explored in context. Still on that note, this study explored the SE and innovation activities of entrepreneurs foreign to the cultural and institutional context of SSA. Together with SE and BOP business models literature, grassroots entrepreneurial opportunities literature offers insights on business models for sustainable innovation and
2.4 Theoretical framework of the study 49 embeddedness in entrepreneurial processes at the BOP. Thus, the grassroots entrepreneurial opportunities relate to sub-questions SQ1-SQ6. This stream of literature together with identity, bricolage and effectuation theories allow conceptual interpretation of SE and BOP business models in context. Third, BOP business models literature provides insights on business models for sustainable innovation and embedded business models in SE processes. Therefore, it equally connects with SE and grassroots innovation literature and relates to sub-questions SQ3, SQ4 and SQ5.
In this study, bricolage theory is employed to allow interpretation of how entrepreneurs engaged in SE in the resource-constrained SSA institutional context manage to achieve the TBL of social, economic and environmental goals. As earlier highlighted, extant entrepreneurship literature highlights three courses of action available for entrepreneurs faced with resource challenges and constraining institutional contexts. First, they seek for standard resources through their networks and stakeholders. Second, they avoid new challenges and exploring new opportunities. Third, they employ bricolage to develop something from nothing (Baker &
Nelson, 2005). Hence, the bricolage theory offers theoretical insights that are key in explaining the course of action taken by sustainable entrepreneurs in SSA and the mechanisms through which they manage to create something from nothing when innovating for social and environmental sustainability.
Equally, effectuation theory provides the basis for explaining the ‘available means’
(Sarasvathy, 2001) of the created and emergent SE activity as well as associated business models, while social embeddedness theory allows the interpretation of entrepreneurial activities as embedded socio-economic activities. Identity theory is applied to understand and interpret self-categorisation by entrepreneurs, and these self-categorisations relate to the recognition, evaluation and scaling of SE opportunities. Figure 3 shows the theoretical framework for this study.
2 Theoretical background
Figure 3. Theoretical framework for SE at the BOP, key theories, related literature and fit of research questions
51
3 Research methods
This section presents the methodological choices followed when conducting this study. The choices are in regard to the research paradigm, consisting of the ontological and epistemological assumptions and how the assumptions connect to the methodology and methods. Thus, the ontological and epistemological assumptions are reflected in this research methods section and further reflected in the findings.
3.1
Research approachesThe journey started with a specific focus on low-income individuals engaging in entrepreneurial activities to achieve the TBL of social, environmental and economic goals. Literature on SE exists, but mainly from the perspective of advanced economies’ entrepreneurs (Hall et al., 2010). Similarly, in low-income contexts, prior studies tended to focus on entrepreneurship as a solution to poverty (Bruton et al., 2013); therefore, the economic, social and environmental dimensions have been less addressed jointly through the perspective of entrepreneurship. Due to these gaps, the extant literature is devoid of a framework for SE in resource-constrained settings. This dissertation aims at developing concepts and frameworks that foster an understanding of engaging in entrepreneurial activities to achieve the TBL of social, environmental and economic goals in impoverished settings. Pursuant to this objective, the study is largely exploratory in nature and wholly employs multiple qualitative methods. The qualitative methods used for each publication are discussed later. Empirical evidence is drawn from cases in three SSA countries, namely Kenya, Zambia and South Africa.
Given the specific focus of this study and the nature of the phenomenon, social constructivist ontological and epistemological assumptions and beliefs informed the approaches and choices to the research design, subsequent collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. The dissertation’s guiding research question is divided into two research questions (RQs) that are answered through four publications, with each publication addressing a specific sub-question(s). Ontology, epistemology, methodology and methods are important philosophical concepts in social sciences (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The concepts combined form the research paradigm. According to Guba & Lincoln (1994, p. 105) a research paradigm is a basic belief system or worldview that fundamentally guides the investigator in methodological choices ontologically and epistemologically.
Ontology relates to the study of being. It concerns clarification of the nature of reality and what can be known about it (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). In other words, it focusses on the existence of the ‘real’ world and the social entities within it and how they work (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The ontological position of social constructionism, which this thesis adopts, is that of relativism. The assumption in this ontological viewpoint is that reality is subjective and therefore varies from one person to the next (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 110).
Our realities are mediated by our senses and without consciousness the world is formless. In this regard, Crotty (1998, p. 43) highlights that reality emerges when consciousness engages with objects that are already filled with meaning. Reality is therefore individually constructed through social interactions (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, pp. 13–15). The assumption of subjective constructionism is evident, for example, in sub-question one of Publication I, which set the research agenda for this dissertation. In Publication I, founders of sustainable enterprises
3 Research methods 52
are assumed to self-categorise based on an understanding of oneself that is formed and sustained through social interaction. The way each enterprise founder categorises themselves and the roles they adopt ultimately determines their behaviour in the SE process. Enterprise founders are therefore seen as creating reality in their sustainable enterprise creation process. In the relativist ontological assumptions of subjective social constructionism, realities are apprehendable in the form of multiple, impalpable mental constructions that by nature are social and experience based, local and idiosyncratic (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, pp. 110–111). The specific focus of this dissertation is SE in impoverished BOP settings. Therefore, the meaning of SE is socially constructed and so are the activities and processes therein, while resource constraints or impoverishment as a specific empirical setting is an experienced reality.
Accordingly, reality is very situational and elements of it are created and shared through history, experience and communication among many individuals and across cultures (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Locke, 2001).
Epistemology deals with the fundamental question of the nature and forms of knowledge and the limitations associated with it (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008, p. 14). Epistemological assumptions are concerned with how knowledge can be created, acquired and communicated—
what it means to know (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, pp. 110–111). Epistemology thus asks the question of ‘What is the nature of the relationship between the would-be-knower and what can be known?’ (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 111). This dissertation leans on the epistemological assumptions of subjectivism, which is an aspect of social constructivism. In subjective social constructivism, each actor creates their own reality and apportions meaning to its experiences (Creswell, 2013, p. 25). This suggests meaning is not discovered but is constructed by the mind through conscious-world interactions (Crotty, 1998, p. 44; Schwandt, 2003). As constructions are simply more or less informed and/or sophisticated, they are not more or less ‘true’ in any absolute sense (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 111). Resultantly, the aim of this study is not to attempt to state the very ‘truth’ about SE in BOP markets, but instead to share the subjective reality of those experiencing and living it, while bringing into consciousness hidden social forces and structures.
Different meanings may be constructed by people regarding the same phenomenon (Crotty, 1998, p. 9). For example, individuals in resource-constrained SSA may have created different meanings about SE and the SE process, hence the choice of strong reliance on case studies and interviews to capture these meanings, while relying on grounded theory and thematic analysis to analyse and interpret the meanings. In grounded theory, knowledge is understood as beliefs in which people are reasonably confident and have a common sense of understanding and consensual belief as to what constitutes knowledge (Andrews, 2012). Knowledge is said to have the key feature of being culturally acquired and historically positioned. According to Crotty (1998, p. 42), meaningful reality and knowledge are created in and around human-world interactions and developed and transmitted in a social context. Therefore, the social world can only be understood from the perspective of individuals participating in it (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 19). Again, this supports the choice of relying on interviews and case studies to understand SE under resource constraints as a lived reality and experience of the individuals participating in that context. The objective of this dissertation is to construct the reality of SE at the BOP as a lived experience of individuals participating in it and equally, as interpreted by the researcher.
In this case, the researcher and the researched are assumed to be iteratively connected, in that
3.1 Research approaches 53 the findings were created and interpreted as the research process progressed (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 111).
Methodology refers to a collection of rules by which a particular piece of research is undertaken and the principles and values that guide the research process and underpin a particular approach to research (Somekh & Lewin, 2005, p. 346). According to Walter (2006, p. 35), methodology is the frame of reference for the researcher. The research paradigm in which the researcher’s theoretical perspective is situated or developed influences the methodology. Hence, methodology is the overarching approach to research linked to the theoretical framework.
Methods are specific systematic modes and procedures used for the collection and analysis of data (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008, p. 16). Methodology in social constructivism is aimed at understanding a phenomenon from an individual’s perspective based on their lived experiences and investigating interactions amongst individuals in the historical and cultural contexts in which the people live (Creswell, 2009, p. 8). The close interaction between the researcher and research participants results in the elicitation and understanding of individual constructions (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 111), with much reliance on the research participants (Creswell, 2009, p. 8). In this case, events and activities underlying the phenomenon are not scaled down to simplistic interpretations but new layers of understanding are uncovered as phenomena and densely described.
This dissertation adopts the case study and interview methods supported by secondary material.
In line with its philosophical foundations, the dissertation follows inductive and deductive qualitative research with the grounded theory and thematic analysis approaches. The methodology and methods are later explained in detail. Proponents of social constructionism acknowledge that value-free knowledge is almost impossible; for example, researchers assert their personal values and beliefs in the choice of research, in the process of conducting the research and in the interpretation of the data (Edge & Richards, 1998, p. 336). Values and beliefs may lead to bias in the research. As a result, the question of how observations and findings are a true reflection of the world that is observed becomes pertinent (Andrews, 2012).
To that end, potential biases as they relate to this dissertation are discussed later in this chapter.
Social constructivist methods, which are interpretive in nature, are key in yielding insights, understanding behaviour and explaining action from the viewpoint of the participants. Table 2 shows a summary of the research designs used per each publication.
54 Table 2. Research designs per publication
Publication Question and role in the
dissertation Data used Analysis methods
Publication I: articles resulting in 11 pages of news articles and blogs and 121 minutes of online videos and founders over a period of two years (2018–2020). Secondary
55