Poststructuralism, qualitative methodology, and public health : research methods as a legitimization strategy for knowledge

The appearance of poststructuralism as a research methodology in public health literature raises questions about the history and purpose of this research. We examine (a) some aspects of the history of qualitative methods and their place within larger social and research domains, and (b) the purposes of a public health research that employs poststructuralist philosophy delineating the methodological issues that require consideration in positing a poststructural analysis. We argue against poststructuralism becoming a research methodology deployed to seize the pubic health debate, rather than being employed for its own particular critical strengths.

Business planning in emerging firms : do nascent and young firms use business planning differently

Previous research suggested that due to the uncertainties surrounding the venture creation process, planning activities may be more valuable for already operating firms than for emerging ventures (McGrath and MacMillan, 1995). Business planning may serve different purposes during the early stages of the venture development process. Early planning during the nascent stage may be used to marshal the resources toward the achievement of preliminary goals (Locke and Latham, 2000), to gain external legitimization and funding (Karlssson & Honig, 2009; Stinchcombe, 1965). Planning may reduce the risk of future failure by facilitating the decision making process of launching -or not- the venture (Chwolka & Raith, 2011) by analysing the opportunity and its market potential (Boyd, 1991; Delmar & Shane, 2003). In later stages, planning may have a more internal role and may act as a strategic implementation tool (Brews & Hunt, 1999). However, if the reasons why ventures should engage (Frese, 2009) –or not- (Honig, 2004) in business planning have been investigated quite extensively (Brinckmann et al., 2010), how business plans are actually used over time by new ventures at different stages of their development and how these uses impact the performance of the firms are still unclear.

Business planning, idea change, flexibility and performance: the best of both worlds?

The relationships between business planning and performance have divided the entrepreneurship research community for decades (Brinckmann et al, 2010). One side of this debate is the assumption that business plans may lock the firm in a specific direction early on, impede the firm to adapt to the changing market conditions (Dencker et al., 2009) and eventually, cause escalation of commitments by introducing rigidity (Vesper, 1993). Conversely, feedback received from the production and presentation of business plans may also lead the firm to take corrective actions. However, the mechanisms underlying the relationships between changes in business ideas, business plans and the performance of nascent firms are still largely unknown. While too many business idea changes may confuse stakeholders, exhaust the firm’s resources and hinder the undergoing legitimization process, some flexibility during the early stages of the venture may be beneficial to cope with the uncertainties surrounding new venture creation (Knight, 1921; March, 1982; Stinchcombe, 1965; Weick, 1979). Previous research has emphasized adaptability and flexibility as key success factors through effectual logic and interaction with the market (Sarasvathy, 2001; 2007) or improvisation and trial-and-error (Miner et al, 2001). However, those studies did not specifically investigate the role of business planning. Our objective is to reconcile those seemingly opposing views (flexibility versus rigidity) by undertaking a more fine-grained analysis at the relationships between business planning and changes in business ideas on a large longitudinal sample of nascent firms.

The underlying rationale for planning: do nascent and young firms do what they say they do?

Previous studies investigating the relationships between business planning and performance have led to inconclusive results (Brinckmann et al., 2010; Delmar & Shane, 2003; Frese, 2009; Gruber, 2007; Honig & Karlsson, 2004). Institutional theory argues that firms develop business plans as an answer to external and internal pressures to gain legitimization (Delmar & Shane, 2004) and funding from different stakeholders (Karlsson & Honig, 2009). Action theory suggests that planning will pave the new venture creation journey by providing milestones and a program to implement (Frese, 2009). However, studies with an institutional perspective imply that nascent firms are either conforming to or looking for the benefits of these external or internal pressures (Karlsson & Honig, 2009) while action theory assumes that the plans will be implemented (Frese, 2009). This paper attempts to (i) investigate if the intended uses of the business plans provided by nascent and young firms match their actual uses during their venture creation process and (ii) to examine how the types of uses of business plans impact the firms’ outcomes over three years.