Fluent Essays

From the A GEM of A Study case, answer the following questions:1. What are the independent and dependent variables in this study?2. What are some of the intervening, extraneous, and moderating variables that the study attempted to control with its 10-nation design?3. Can you do a causal study without controlling intervening, extraneous, and moderating variables?4. What is the impact on study results of using national experts (key informants) to identify and weigh entrepreneurial framework conditions?5. Can you do a causal study when much of the primary data collected is descriptive opinion and ordinal or interval data?MUST BE AT LEAST 800 WORDSEach question response must be supported with at least 1 peer-reviewed source. Each thread must also include 1 biblical application/integration.The biblical application/ integration cannot be more than 10% of the thread. BUSI 600 Discussion Tips and Examples The Discussion questions are based upon a different case study each module and analyze the case scenario/research through a series of questions. The overall structure of each case is similar in that each case begins with an abstract followed by a description of the scenario/research and concludes with a discussion about the situation. The discussion is simply a series of unique questions about each case scenario that you will answer as part of the discussion. As you work on these discussions, remember the Liberty University Online Honor Code. You Part 1: Thread The primary goal of the thread is to thoroughly answer each of the case study questions. Some answers may require a paragraph-style response, whereas others will be best answered with a table or bulleted points. Use the response style that is most appropriate to answer the individual question while ensuring the following are met: · Each thread will consist of 800 - 1000 words that answer all the assigned case study questions, include 1 biblical application/integration (no more than 10% of the total response) and across all the questions use at least 5 different peer reviewed sources. · Each case has multiple questions and each question response must be supported with at least 1 peer-reviewed source. · Use proper grammar and current APA format. Part 2: Two Replies The primary goal of the replies is to discuss the threads by offering analysis and critiques to include specific strengths and weaknesses and other insights for consideration. Ensure the following are met: · Reply to at least 2 different peer threads and address at least 1 strength and 1 weakness per reply. · Each reply must be supported with at least 2 peer-reviewed sources and include 1 biblical application/integration (no more than 10% of the total response). · Each reply must be 450–600 words · Use proper grammar and current APA formatting. · Do not submit the discussion posts as Microsoft Word documents. Instead post the primary content of your posts into the body of the discussion area since opening files is an inconvenience when the same information can be reviewed within the discussion. Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler 1 >cases In periods of economic downturn, government leaders try to stimulate entrepreneurship activity. Project directors of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, partnered with the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership of Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the London School of Business and Babson College,designed a research study to add insight to what activities would be most likely to stimulate entreprenship activities. >Abstract >The Scenario What government policies and initiatives are most likely to generate high levels of entrepreneurial activity? Which are positively correlated with the economic well-being of a country as measured by growth in GDP and job formation? Project directors of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), who define entrepreneurship as “any attempt at new business or new venture creation, such as self-employment, a new business organi- zation, or the expansion of an existing business, by an individual, a team of individuals, or an established business,” suggest the following: • Promoting entrepreneurship, especially outside the most active age group (25– 44), with specific programs that support entrepreneurial activity. • Facilitating the availability of resources to women to participate in the entre- preneurial process. • Committing to long-term, substantial postsecondary education, including training programs designed to develop skills required to start a business. • Emphasis on developing an individual’s capacity to recognize and pursue new opportunities. • Developing the capacity of a society to accommodate the higher levels of income disparity associated with entrepreneurial activity. • Creating a culture that validates and promotes entrepreneurship throughout society. Researchers at the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership (Babson College) and the London Business School revealed these propositions based on a study designed to prove a causal relationship between factors that affect entrepreneurial opportunities and potential, to business dynamics and national economic growth and well-being. The research design compensated for lack of control of extraneous variables by using data from 10 nations “with diversity in framework conditions, entrepreneurial sectors, business dynamics, and economic growth.” The longitudinal study proposed to prove or disprove a new conceptual model of cultural, economic, physical, and political factors to predict economic growth (Exhibit C-GEM 1–1). A GEM of a Study >The Research 704 A GEM of a Study What government policies and initiatives are most likely to generate high levels of entrepreneurial activity? Which are positively correlated with the economic well-being of a country as measured by growth in GDP and job formation? Project directors of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), who define entrepreneurship as “any attempt at new business or new venture creation, such as self-employment, a new business orga- nization, or the expansion of an existing business, by an individual, a team of individu- als, or an established business,” suggest the following: • Promoting entrepreneurship, especially outside the most active age group (25–44), with specific programs that support entrepreneurial activity. General National Framework Conditions Openness Government Financial markets Technology, R & D Infrastructure Management (skills) Labor markets Institutions • • • • • • • • Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions Financial Government policies Government programs Education & training R & D transfer Commercial, legal infrastructure Internal market openness Access to physical infrastructure Cultural, social norms • • • • • • • • • Business Dynamics (firms, jobs) • • • • Births Expansion Deaths Contraction Entrepreneurial Opportunities Entrepreneurial Capacity Economic Growth (GDP, jobs) Social, Cultural, Political Context Existence Perception • • Skills Motivation • • EXHIBIT C-GEM 1–1 Conceptual Model: The Entrepreneurial Sector and Economic Growth coo98706_cases.qxd 6/9/02 2:05 PM Page 704 • Facilitating the availability of resources to women to participate in the entrepre- neurial process. • Committing to long-term, substantial postsecondary education, including training programs designed to develop skills required to start a business. • Emphasis on developing an individual’s capacity to recognize and pursue new opportunities. • Developing the capacity of a society to accommodate the higher levels of income disparity associated with entrepreneurial activity. • Creating a culture that validates and promotes entrepreneurship throughout society. Researchers at the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership (Babson Col- lege) and the London Business School revealed these propositions based on a study designed to prove a causal relationship between factors that affect entrepreneurial opportunities and potential, to business dynamics and national economic growth and well-being. The research design compensated for lack of control of extraneous vari- ables by using data from 10 nations “with diversity in framework conditions, entrepre- neurial sectors, business dynamics, and economic growth.” The longitudinal study proposed to prove or disprove a new conceptual model of cultural, economic, physical, and political factors to predict economic growth (Exhibit C-GEM 1–1). CASES 705 Culture Favorable Neutral Unfavorable 0.8 0.15 0.34 –0.07 –0.2 –0.09 –0.92 –0.65 –0.36 0.87 U.S. Canada Israel U.K. Germany Denmark France Japan Finland Correlation to Start-Up Rate 1.23 0.55 –0.06 0.17 –0.22 –0.3 –1.01 0.29 –0.94 0.79 0.44 0 –0.97 –0.03 –0.21 –0.56 –0.81 –0.52 –0.33 0.58 0.21 –0.12 0.29 –0.02 0.03 –0.12 –0.23 –0.39 –0.1 0.69 –0.46 –0.28 –0.26 –0.97 –1.24 –0.52 –1.21 –1.06 –0.94 0.65 0.8 0.22 0.04 0.08 0.15 0.39 –0.1 –0.68 –0.22 0.71 0.88 0.86 0.67 0.57 0.29 0.33 –0.49 –0.61 1.03 0.55 Equity Debt R&D Education Subcontractor Legal, Banking EXHIBIT C-GEM 1–2 Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions: Cross-National Comparisons of Key Informant Multi-Item Indexes coo98706_cases.qxd 6/9/02 2:05 PM Page 705 Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler 4 >Sources Various data collection methods were employed, including: • Promoting entrepreneurship, especially outside the most active age group (25– 44), with specific programs that support entrepreneurial activity. • Current, nonstandardized data collected by each national research team. • Two rounds of adult population surveys (1,000 randomly selected adults per country) to measure entrepreneurial activity and attitude, completed and coordinated by an international market survey firm by phone—or face-to-face in Japan. (Market Facts [Arlington, VA] did the first round of data collection in June 1998 [Canada, Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States]. Audience Selection, Ltd. [London] conducted the second round in March 1999 from all 10 countries.) • Hour-long personal interviews with 4 to 39 experts (key informants) in each country. • Detailed 12-page questionnaire completed by each key informant. The perception of opportunity (.79) and the two measures of entrepreneurial potential of the population—capacity (.64) and motivation (.93)—positively correlate with business start-up rates. And start-up rates positively correlate with growth in GDP (.60) and level of employ- ment (.47). While many cross-sectional measures still remain in this ongoing study, study directors claim, “The support for the conceptual model is encouraging, although clearly not conclu- sive. GEM provides a robust framework within which national governments can evolve a set of effective policies for enhancing entrepreneurship.” 1. What are the independent and dependent variables in this study? 2. What are some of the intervening, extraneous, and moderating variables that the study attempted to control with its 10-nation design? 3. Can you do a causal study without controlling intervening, extraneous, and moderating variables? 4. What is the impact on study results of using national experts (key informants) to identify and weigh entrepreneurial framework conditions? 5. Can you do a causal study when much of the primary data collected is descriptive opinion and ordinal or interval data? • Developed for Business Research Methods, 7e. Used with permission of Pamela S. Schindler and Donald R. Cooper. © 2001 • Global Entrepreneurship Assessment: National Entrepreneurship Assessment, UK, 1999 Executive Report. Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership of Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 1999. • Reynolds, P., M. Hay, and M. Camp. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 1999 Executive Report. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership of Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 1999. • Reynolds, P., J. Levie, and E. Autio. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor:1999 Data Collection- Analysis Strategies Operations Manual. Babson College and the London Business School, 1999. • Reynolds, P., J. Levie, E. Autio, M. Hay, and B. Bygrave. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 1999 Research Report: Entrepreneurship and National Economic Well-Being. Babson College and the London Business School, 1999. • Zacharakis, A., P. Reynolds, and W. Bygrave. Global Entrepreneurship Assessment: National Entrepreneurship Assessment, United States of America, 1999 Executive Report. Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership of Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 1999. A GEM of a Study >>>>>Discussion