Mark McPherson
Introduction
This article reflects on the complexities, difficulties and successes of a qualitative research strategy adopted by an outsider (me), whilst investigating business practices of 48 first and second-generation male South Asian entrepreneurs within the Greater London area. Although I as the outsider share the same gender as the interviewees, our ethnic backgrounds could not be more diverse. For instance, in view of the ethnic dimension prominent throughout the investigation, an issue to impact on the study was the role of and interactions between a non-South Asian researcher (me) vis-à-vis South Asian informants. Put simply, the extent to which ethnicity/cultural background and any assumed pre-conceived notions of both the researcher and interviewee espouse a certain type of behaviour, attitude, and response - the impact of personal and structural power relations on the selected methodology.
The Study
The study selected 48 male, first and second-generation Sikh, Hindu and Pakistani Muslim entrepreneurs (representing 33 firms) from both family and non-family owned micro – small businesses situated within the Greater London. Using a semi-structured interview approach, informants consisted of 10 first -and 38 second-generation Sikh, Hindu and Pakistani Muslim entrepreneurs from both family and non-family owned businesses. In addition, 9 businesses from all 3 religious groups were selected to complete the case study stage of the research.
Interviewing all 48 informants was deemed necessary and considered a safety mechanism should the case study phase fail to materialise due to its aspect of ‘voluntary selection.’ Within the context of a family business there was a need to understand, whether the ‘father figure’ and ‘family’ informed business practices adopted by the said second-generation entrepreneurs. This notion was also explored with second-generation informants from non-family business backgrounds in order to establish whether the lack of influence from both family and father had a detrimental effect on business practices.
The interviewees appear to share not too dissimilar daily lives to each other in terms of education, family, religion, culture and locality. Whereas I am not from a South Asian background or from an ethnic-majority grouping, therefore, I display a number of personal and cultural characteristics different to that of the interviewees. For instance, (i) I am UK born, from Irish/Jamaican immigrant parentage, (ii) I did not (at the time) speak Punjabi, Urdu, or Hindi, (iii) I am not of the same religious background as any of the interviewees, (iv) I had very little knowledge pertaining to the communities, and (v) beyond a very small number of personal South Asian friends, I was not associated with any of the communities under investigation. However, a commonality I shared and understood all too well with the interviewees was that of the trial and tribulations of ethnic-minority status.
In essence, I was an outsider looking in, therefore, I needed a way to build a rapport, trust, confidence, and allay any misgivings with those under investigation. Equally, I had to decide if by going native would help me develop a clear understanding of any cultural / religious / community / family nuances particular to each research group. Finally, I had to ensure that the development, implementation and success of an outsider strategy did not compromise the overall integrity of the study.
Personal and Structural Power Relations
The notion of access to/recruitment of key informants, and personal and structural power relations, coupled with my outsider status, caused me to think long and hard in terms of an approach best suited to overcome any obstacles, and to help me react to [unforeseen] situations should they materialise. Consequently, to gain access to the communities/recruit informants, two techniques were used, purposive sampling and snowballing sampling. In addition, I used what is referred to as a bilateral strategy, namely networking via a combination of (i) personal contacts and (ii) professional/business contacts and referrals. As part of the ‘negotiating process’ I felt it was necessary to play a ‘bargaining card’ in the form of offering informants ‘free marketing and or business consultancy.’
Certainly, from the outset my credentials/approach helped overcome my ethnic-minority status and challenged any pre-conceived prejudices (of which diminished rapidly over the duration of the study) I may have held. Equally, due to my outside status, I was more than aware of the impact such credibility would have on personal and structural power relations. Therefore, I found that many aspects of my outsider status, coupled with my researcher credibility proved to be asset with some respondents, but a hindrance for others. For example, my minority status and educational/background had become an object of curiosity for the first-generation, and my consultancy/corporate experience more than anything else for the second-generation. In essence, I had taken time to understand my informants and their particular environment, be that Punjabi, Hindu or Pakistani, and the fact I had shown a genuine interest in the informants as individuals, interest in the study became self-generating. Very many informants wanted to tell their story (particularly the second-generation as they felt ignored by the research community as a whole), and were more than happy to have an outsider such as myself document their tale no matter how positive or negative it may appear. Thus, the silent had found their voice.
All informants within the study participated in a face-to-face semi-structured interview (consisting of eight broad themes with associated prompts). It was during the semi-structured interview process I noted such personal and structural power appeared to favour informants, rather than me, in slightly different ways. By this I mean, as a result of four key areas: personal circumstances (the push or pull of entrepreneurship), education, sectoral experience, and experiential learning, and the perceived importance placed on them by individual informants, had in fact (i) informed and motivated entry of informants into entrepreneurship, and (ii) influenced their approach to managing and making the business a success. Therefore, unlike a large majority of their second-generation counterparts, the first-generation were pushed into entrepreneurship - security and stability appear to be the over-riding motivation. Whereas, the second-generation informants considered entrepreneurship as a career rooted in autonomy.
The main conclusions I drew from my time with the informants were that the crux behind their display in power relations was the result of their personal journey. A journey that seemingly was no less stressful, fraught with uncertainty, and no easier than any ethnic group struggling to establish itself within an environment that appeared hostile toward them. In essence, these informants felt that they had proven themselves against all odds. Moreover, I could not help thinking throughout this phase, power stayed very much with the informant as they had perhaps earned the right, where I, as an outsider at this stage had not.
With regards to the case study firms, interestingly, my entry into family firms was initiated/driven by the son and not the father, as the latter did not appear to be particularly interested (in a nice way) in dealing with me beyond the semi-structured interview phase. In essence, my involvement within all case study firms found me becoming ‘a guest employee’ outside of my role as a researcher. Nonetheless, as time went by I became more embedded, and my role as guest-employee and researcher became increasingly blurred. Perhaps I was naïve about the prospect of this happening, or thought it would not happen to me despite my best efforts. However, the situation came about due to the notion of being a ‘safe pair of ears’ as informants started to open up to me much more. As a result, I found it difficult to separate my role and I became concerned as to the impact this may have on my relationship with informants and my study overall.
Interestingly, at the start of this phase, like the previous phase, power relations favoured the informant. However, unlike the interview phase, there was a noticeable shift from informant to me. In fact, as a researcher my list of issues with which I now needed to grapple, beyond my outsider status and power relations, included being a silent witness to family and business conflict, sibling rivalry, deal making, and internal power struggles. So much so, emotion and business became clouded and neither created transparency nor were ever fully resolved to a satisfactory level.
To sum up, where the researcher does not share the same ethnicity as the informants under investigation, there is a need to be aware of issues that may impact on the personal and structural power relations between researcher and interviewee. For instance, one needs to consider one’s own background/ the notion of credibility and how these maybe viewed by the targeted ethnic group. Not only viewed, but how they are handled by both researcher and informant. This is coupled also with researcher sensitivity to the ‘informants personal journey.’ Giving way to the informant should not be viewed as a sign of weakness by the researcher, on the contrary it should form part of any transition process from prospective informant to actual informant. Finally, the researcher should invest care, time and effort to ensure not only that s/he has grasped the essence of any cultural/religious/familial/cultural nuances that could impact on the study, but is able to deal with the notion of emotional management should it present itself once the study in is full flow.
Dr. Mark McPherson, Principal Lecturer, Middlesex University Business School