PROPAT methodology
Questionnaire design and scoring
To assess respondent’s characteristics PROPAT uses a series of statements to which respondents are asked to indicate the extent of their agreement, with most questions using a five-point Likert scale. The statements are designed to address the various characteristics identified in the research as being positively related to the propensity to form alliances. In an attempt to increase objectivity of replies the statements are presented in the questionnaire in one group with no direct indication of the characteristics to which they relate.
Responses are then assigned a numerical value depending on the nature and context of each response and resulting values for each statement / question are then totaled, giving a maximum value of 145, a mid-point (neutral) value of 81 and a minimum value of 26. Expressing these scores as a percentage of the maximum score results in 100% for maximum propensity, 56% for neutral propensity and 18% for minimum propensity. The neutral score can also be determined by averaging the minimum and maximum scores, which results in 59%. Using these scores as reference points the following scoring table was developed:
| Propensity to partner | Score | |
|---|---|---|
| From | To | |
| Very low propensity | 18% | 35% |
| Low propensity | 36% | 55% |
| Neutral | 56% | 59% |
| High propensity | 60% | 79% |
| Very high propensity | 80% | 100% |
Representing scores using the above scale is useful to make an assessment about overall propensity taking into consideration all the relevant characteristics. A useful analysis, however, can also be made by looking at scores under each individual characteristic to understand the make-up of the overall propensity.
Principle underlying empirical research
A reliable conclusion about the propensity to partner and the characteristics affecting this propensity cannot be made on the basis of abstract data. It is of limited use concluding that so many out of a certain sample demonstrated a higher propensity to partner unless these findings can be corroborated by factual occurrence.
The main principle applied in PROPAT's underlying research, therefore, is that the foremost indicator of the propensity to partner is evidence of prior alliance experience. For a reliable conclusion to be drawn about the characteristics which affect the propensity to partner it must be shown that entrepreneurs demonstrating these characteristics have in fact formed alliances in the past. Conversely, for the hypotheses to be valid, it must be shown that entrepreneurs who have never partnered with other firms do not possess these characteristics to the same extent. What is required therefore is evidence of the requisite characteristics and of prior alliance experience.
It must be noted that he propensity to partner (as well as the propensity not to) is, to quote Granovetter (1985), ‘embedded’ in historically and geographically specific institutions and cultural practices. This heightens the risk of circularity when establishing casual links between variables. Here the risk is that the characteristics exhibited by entrepreneurs with prior alliance experience may be themselves the product of the alliance experience, rather than the alliance having been induced by these personal characteristics. To rule this out completely further research will need to survey ‘young’ entrepreneurs with no prior alliance experience and re-visit the same entrepreneurs at a later point in time to examine which of these pursued the alliance option.
Notwithstanding the above, it is the proponent's opinion that the notion of circularity should not, in this case, significantly affect the validity of the PROPAT. The reason for this is that the potential effects of prior alliance experience on the seventeen characteristics measured in the survey could be negative as well as positive, thereby neutralizing the overall effect, at least to some degree. This argument is supported by the fact that the PROPAT's underlying survey considered all alliance attempts and not just those which were deemed successful.
Constraints and limitations
Research conducted through surveys is susceptible to certain limitations to which PROPAT is not immune.
The main limitation associated with questionnaires is the inability to confirm the accuracy and truthfulness of responses. Responses may be inaccurate simply because a respondent may not fully understand the questions being presented, perhaps due to a low standard of education. Even with the pilot testing which was carried out when PROPAT was developed to make sure that questions were as clear and simple as possible, it is unlikely that this problem was eliminated completely.
Ideally, research conducted through surveys should ,make use of stratified random sampling to ensure that the sample is truly representative of the actual distribution of this population across to relevant dimensions, in this case, prior alliance experience (allies/lone-rangers) and type of ownership (family/non-family). Statistical data in this format was not available and a sample had to be selected by resorting to convenience sampling. This notwithstanding, the objective of the survey was not to form conclusions relating to a larger population, but rather to draw comparisons between different groups of respondents within the sample. Therefore, given that the sample was large enough to produce a sufficient number of responses within each group outlined in the above table, this sub-optimal method of sample selection was not considered to be of major consequence for the purpose of the study.
It must be recognised that PROPAT is a generic tool and, while this may be of universal appeal, it is not guaranteed that its conclusions are of universal applicability or that they reflect individual circumstances.