(ii) Interview Apart from the questionnaire, personal structured interviews were held with thirty six (36) women entrepreneurs who were purposively selected. The women entrepreneurs selected for the interview are women that are well known in the area of their businesses. The selection was made based on the recommendations the researcher received from the states’ NAWE. The names of their businesses are listed in appendix C. An interview schedule was used to provide a framework for the sessions with the respondents. The interview was based on categorical and open –ended questions (not “yes” or “no” answers) and no pre-set range of responses. This methodology allowed the respondents to convey their views and to elaborate on their answers in their own terms, permitting the emergence of new themes (Strauss and Corbin, 1989). This helped the researcher to have on-the- spot assessment and a better understanding of the motivations, characteristics, performances, challenges and reasons for the choice of business ownership of the respondents. This is necessary so as to confirm the responses given by the women entrepreneurs in the questionnaire and to capture some other information which the questionnaire may be unable to capture.
Interview according to Osuagwu (2002) is also necessary in order to purify and improve the quality of the research questionnaire. The researcher conducted one-on-one interview using a structured interview guide. Though the guide provided a format, the researcher in several occasions expanded the questions so as to get more detailed information from the respondents. The interviews were conducted in English language and the interview time ranged from approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour. Interview questions were also prepared from previous researches (Olutunla, 2001; Ogundele and Opeifa, 2003; Brunstein and Maier, 2005; Gelin, 2005; GEM, 2005; Minnit et al 2006) and these centered on issues of the factors that motivated women for entering into entrepreneurial ventures, their performances, challenges and other related questions.
3.10 Measurement of Variables
Questions were written mainly to assess the factors that motivate women entrepreneurs to start business and the effects of these factors on their performances, challenges, type of business ownership and environmental factors. The items were derived from a careful review of the entrepreneurship literature on women’s entrepreneurial motivation. Some items found to be relevant to motivational factors of women studies include Hisrich and Brush (1986); Denison and Alexandar (1987); Dubini (1988); Scheinberg and MacMillian (1988); Rosin and Korabik (1990); Shane, Kolvereid and Westhead (1991); Ogundele and Opeifa (2003). Among the factors they identified in their studies are social, financial, psychological and environmental factors. These items were compiled and unrelated items were deleted. The items frequently cited as reasons for starting a business were added in the questionnaire. Others include issues like combining family responsibilities with business, glass ceiling, and coping with inadequate resources etc. which were observed to be very peculiar to women entrepreneurs. Other items used as independent variables include family influence, internal locus of control, desire for achievement, risk taking propensity and personal dissatisfaction. The writers behind these studies include Dunkelberg and Cooper (1982); Brockhaus (1986) and Timmons (1978).
Financial factors on the other hand were measured with index of capital adequacy or adequate funds for commencement and expansion of such business and lack of tax reduction and relief (Bannock, 1981; Otokiti, 1987). Another variable used for measuring women entrepreneurship is performance. Measures of performance were both qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative measures covered respondent’s perceptual evaluation of the degree of effectiveness of the entrepreneurs’ business strategies using performance measures such as revenue from entrepreneurial activities, market share, employees’ and customers’ satisfaction in capturing this variable as were identified by Brockhaus and Horwatz (1986); Mokry (1988). On the other hand, quantitative performance measures were provided by the respondents’ income, profitability (profit after tax), number of employees and turnover/sales. These variables are the usual measures of business quantitative performance identified by Hisrich and Brush (1986) Miskin and Rose (1990). Environmental factors took into consideration variables such as government policy, community support, availability of infrastructure and accessibility to suppliers and consumers and we depended extensively on the works of Ronstadt (1984); Keeble and Walker (1994); Otokiti, (1987); Ogundele and Opeifa, (2003).
The tables below which shows how variables used in the study of the motivational patterns of women entrepreneurs in SMEs were constructed and measured was developed from the questionnaire items. See Appendix A.
Table 34: Measurement of Variables - Part 1- Section A
Respondents’ Personal Bio dataVariables DescriptionSexSingle item: Women EntrepreneursMarital StatusFour items: single, married, divorced, windowAgeFive items: 15-20, 21-26, 31-35, 40-45, 46 and aboveEducational BackgroundFive items: WASC, OND, HND/BSc, MSc and othersReligionTwo items: Christianity, othersNature of BusinessFour items: Agric, Manufacturing, Service and TradeStructure of BusinessThree items: Sole trade, Partnership, CompanyStarting the BusinessFour items: From the Scratch, Purchased, Inherited, Joined someoneSource: Field Survey, 2007
Table 35: Measurement of Variables - Section B
Entrepreneurs’ Background Characteristics:
Respondents were asked questions on their entrepreneurial characteristics. These questions include; their position in their nuclear family, educational background, if they have worked before, if their former boss is a man, if they are the breadwinner of their business, if they started business because they needed extra income, if the business is a family business, if they have done the type of business they are doing before, if their parents are in business and they started business because they were sacked in their former place of work. The rating scale ranges from 1-yes and 2- No Entrepreneurs’ Perception
Respondents were presented with questions on entrepreneurs’ perception. These questions include their opinion on; risk taking, pursuit of moderate goals, tolerance of ambiguity, energy and strength for running a business, creative and innovation, self-confidence, self-esteem, need for independence, self-achievement, gender discrimination, social recognition, desire for extra income, desire for freedom and independence. The rating scale ranges from 5-strongly agrees, 4- agrees, 3-undediced, 2-disagree to 1-strongly disagree.Table 36: Measurement of Variables - Part 2
Entrepreneurs and Motivational Factors-
Respondents were asked to examine the relationship between entrepreneurial motivations and environmental factors; business performance; challenges they face in business and type of business ownership. The rating scale ranges from 5-strongly agrees, 4- agrees, 3-undediced, 2-disagree to 1-strongly disagreeEnvironmental FactorsAmong the environmental indicators that usually contribute towards the decision for business venturing may include factors such as accessibility to finance, accessibility to labour, accessibility to market, accessibility of customers, accessibility to suppliers, accessibility to transport, availability of supporting service, new technology development, accessibility to electricity, and living condition (scales 5 to 1)Challenges face in BusinessVariables used in measuring challenges women entrepreneurs face in business include; combining family responsibilities, lack of access to finance, lack of support from spouse, customers’ complaints, sexual harassment, coping with competition, lack of power supply, high tenement rates, gender discrimination, lack of training and information (scales 5 to 1).Type of Business OwnershipVariables used in measuring choice of business ownership include; achievement of self-independence, involvement in family decision making, government support, low capital requirement, convenience, low risk involvement, improvement in quality of life (scales 5 to 1).Psychological FactorsVariables used in measuring psychological factors include; risk-taking propensity, internal locus of control, need for achievement, tolerance of ambiguity, self-esteem, proactive-ness (scales 5 to 1). Financial FactorsVariables used in measuring financial factors include; lack of adequate finance for the initial start-up and subsequent expansion, incentive and disincentives of tax system, effects of financial institution regulations an restrictions, government policy on financing SMEs (scales 5 to 1).Family Influence FactorsVariables used in measuring family influence include; marital status, number of children, number of dependant, year of marriage, family business, business of the spouse, breadwinner of the family, position in the family, participate in the family business ( scales Yes and No ).Source: Field Survey, 2007
Table 37: Measurement of Variables - Part 3
Business Performance Variables used in measuring business performance include; sales volume, business profitability, share earnings, market, products quality, efficiency, competitiveness, personal income, business revenue, business assets, investment in equipment, no. of employees at start and currently derving (scales 5 to 1). Source: Field Survey, 2007
Women Entrepreneurial Motivation Rating Scale (WEMRS)
Women Entrepreneurial Motivation Rating Scale (WEMRS) developed by the researcher from the works of Scott (1986); Sarri and Trihopoulou, (2005); Minnit et al, (2006) which was used to measure the motivational patterns of women entrepreneurs in the South-West Nigeria. The scale includes the following sub-scales: (i) Nature of Business; (ii) Entrepreneur’s characteristics; (iii) Entrepreneur’s Perception; (iv) Entrepreneur’s Business Environment; (v) Motivation and Business Performance; (vi) Challenges to Women Entrepreneurs; (vii) Motivation and Entrepreneur’s Choice of Business Ownership; (viii) Entrepreneur Opinion on Business and (ix) Business Performance
The nature of business has six items that emphasized the business location, structure of business, characteristic of the business, number of the employees and number of branches established by the entrepreneur. Entrepreneur’s characteristics have eighteen items and some of these items include family influence, education, personal dissatisfaction, role model etc. Entrepreneur’s perception has thirty items and these include risk taking propensity, goal setting, creativity and innovation, desire for achievement, proactiveness, competitiveness, access to required capital, self esteem, need for independence, desire for self fulfillment, desire for extra income, desire for change of career etc. Entrepreneur and environmental factors have twenty items which include accessibility to labour, supplier, market, customers, electricity, transportation, network, government policy, migration to the city etc. Business performance has twelve items and this include return on market share, cost consciousness, putting of more time, business profitability, business revenues, estimated value of capital, turnover, investment, total fixed assets, total expenditure etc.
Challenges of women entrepreneurs has eighteen items which specifically include combining family responsibility with business, financial problem, lack of family support, customers complaints, gender discrimination, unfavourable economic conditions, lack of power supply, inadequate level of information and technology etc.
In a similar vein, the choice of business ownership has fourteen items which include; business that requires small amount of capital, small risk, convenient business, business being supported by the government, business that is peculiar to family, business that requires easy registration process etc.
Entrepreneur’s opinion on business has four items that are mainly open ended questions such as business challenges face by women and factors that can motivate women into entrepreneurship.
3.11 Validity of the Research Instrument
Validity test was carried out so as to ensure that the research instrument measured what it was supposed to measure. The four methods of measuring external validity are: face validity (Selltiz et al, 1976; Phillips, 1976 and Bailey, 1987); content validity (Goode and Hatt, 1952; Kerlinger, 1964; Bailey, 1987; Singleton et al, 1993); criterion validity (Phillips 1976; Selltiz et al 1976; and Bailey 1987) and construct validity (Stevens 1951, Kerlinger 1964 and Bailey 1987, Singleton et al, 1993). Face and content validity were carried out on this work. Content validity measures the appropriateness of the wording of the instrument and the objectives of the study while the face validity enables the researcher to make an assertion to claim to have measured what he or she intended to measure (Stevens, 1951). The validity measurement of this study was justified using the works of Levine (1981), Kerlinger (1983), Bailey 1987, Ekpo-Ufot (1992), Singleton et al, (1993). To ensure face and content validity of the instrument (content-related evidence), senior academics on entrepreneurship and enterprise development studies, specialists and experts on the topic of research measured by the instrument were asked to make their inputs and judge the appropriateness of the items on the instrument. This is to find out if the instrument covered the breath of the content area (and to ascertain if the instrument contains a representative sample of the content being assessed). The researcher also confirmed if the format used in designing the instrument is appropriate for obtaining the information required from the respondents.
3.12 Reliability of the Research Instrument
Reliability test ensures that the instrument measures consistently as required by this work. It also shows the extent to which the researcher can confidently rely on the information obtained through the use of the instrument adopted to gather data for the research work. Consequently, data collected were subjected to reliability analysis to establish the reliability of the measures and ensuring consistent measurement among the various items in the instrument (Goode and Hatt, 1952, Kerlinger, 1964, Phillips, 1976, Selltiz et al, 1976, Bailey, 1987, Singleton et al, 1993). Analysis to the reliability of coefficient showed that Cronbach Alpha for all variables under revalidation and this met Nunally’s (1978) suggestion of 0.50 or above criterion. The reliability measures were justified using the works of Goode and Hatt (1952) and Zikmund (1994). Three major categories of reliability test were carried out to ensure the reliability of the instrument. These include test-retest, equivalent form, and internal consistency. Each of these reliability test measures consistency a bit differently. For instance, test-retest measures consistency from one time to the next. Equivalent-form measures consistency between two versions of an instrument. Internal-consistency measures consistency within the instrument (consistency among the questions).
(i) To ensure test-retest, the instrument was given the second time to the same group of respondents, reliability was confirmed through the correlation between the scores on the two independent instruments. The purpose of test-retest reliability is to determine the period of time to wait between the two administrations. In fact, we waited long enough to ensure that the subjects do not remember how they responded the first time they completed the instrument and also ensure that it was not too long a time to influence change in the knowledge of the material being measured. In fact the test-retest was carried out within one month interval. This was calculated using Crobanch Alpha with Statiscal Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and the result yielded r = 0.67
(ii) To ensure equivalent-form (parallel or alternate-form) validity, two different versions of the instrument were created. Apart from administering the instrument to the women entrepreneurs, the same instrument was administered to some men entrepreneurs. The researchers assumed that the two instruments measure the same thing. The respondents completed the instruments during the same time period. The scores on the two instruments were correlated to calculate the consistency between the two forms of instruments and the result yielded r=0.64 using Cronbach Alpha with SPSS.
(iii) The internal-consistency of the instrument or split half method was also used. The total score for the odd number statements was correlated with the total score for the even number statements. The Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula was applied to the correlation to determine the reliability. Cronbach's Alpha was equally used because the items on the instrument were not scored as “right versus wrong”. Cronbach's alpha is often used to measure the internal consistency. This was calculated with SPSS and the result yielded r= 0.70
3.13 Method of Data Analysis
Data collected were analyzed with both manual and electronics based methods using a data preparation grid and SPSS. The utilization of structured grids allowed specific responses to be located with relative ease and facilitate the identification of emerging patterns (Munn and Drever, 1990). Descriptive, statistical and content analyses were used in analyzing the collected data (Asika, 2001; Osuagwu, 2002; Otokiti, Olateju and Adejumo, 2007). Using descriptive analysis we were able to calculate; the mean, frequency distribution and percentage analysis of the study. Statistically, the researcher was able to utlized the following statistical tools: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Chi-square, correlation coefficient and factor analysis in testing stated hypotheses. For example, (i) ANOVA: The Analysis of Variance was used in testing the hypothesis one. This enabled the researcher to analyze the degree of variance between two variables (independent and dependent variables) of the tabulated data. The total variance is partitioned into the variance which can be explained by the groups of independent variables (Between) and the variance which can be explained by all the units of the independent variables (Within) and the Sums of Squares for the Between and Within add up to the Total, reflecting the fact that the Total is partitioned into Between and Within variance. Sums of Squares are usually associated with the three sources of variance, Total, Between and Within. Degree of freedom is associated with the sources of variance. The total variance has N-1 degree(s) of freedom. The between degree of freedom corresponds to the number of groups minus 1 (K-1). In this case, it is 4-1 (since there were 4 independent variables). The Within degrees of freedom is the ‘df total’ minus the ‘df between’. Mean Square is the Sum of Squares divided by their respective ‘df’. These are computed so as to find the F-ratio, dividing the Mean Square between by the Mean Square within to test the significance of the independent variables on dependent variables.
(ii) Similarly, Chi-square was considered appropriate for the analysis of the study. This became necessary for multinomial probability in which the sample size of the study was randomly selected to establish the relationship between women motivational factors and their performance in business. This was used in analyzing hypothsis two. (iii) Coefficient correlation which measures the relationship between two variables was used in testing hypotheses one, two, three, four and five. The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) is a measure of the degree of linear relationship between two variables, usually labeled independent and dependent. In correlation, the emphasis is on the degree to which a linear model may describe the relationship between two variables and the interest is non-directional, the relationship is the critical aspect. The coefficient of correlation can vary from positive one (indicating a perfect positive relationship) through zero (indicating the absence of a relationship) to negative one (indicating a perfect negative relationship).
Motivation and variables such as business performance, type of business ownership, challenges women face in business and environmental factors were tested using the correlation analysis. (iv) Factor analysis was also used to reduce the volume of the questions in the questionnaire into a smaller unit for easy usage in the analysis. This technique requires a large sample size before their stabilility can be managed. This is based on the report of Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). Factor analysis was used to reduce the factors motivating women entrepreneurs into four (social, psychological, financial and environmental). Factor analysis is a method of data reduction. It does this by seeking underlying unobservable (latent) variables that are reflected in the observed variables (manifest variables). There are many different methods that can be used to conduct a Factor Analysis (such as principal axis factor, maximum likelihood, generalized least squares and unweighted least squares). There are also many different types of rotations that can be done after the initial extraction of factors, including orthogonal rotations, such as varimax and equimax, which impose the restriction that the factors cannot be correlated, and oblique rotations, such as promax, which allow the factors to be correlated with one another.
This study also adopted the usage of the Lorenz Curve to determine the degree of concentration and diversification in the spread of entrepreneurship. This technique was propounded by Lorenz (1905). It was used in economics and ecology to describe inequality in wealth distribution (Kotz et al, 1983). It can also be used to determine the nature or size of industrial concentration and diversification (Otokiti, 2005). The Lorenz Curve functioned as the cumulative proportion of ordered individuals mapped into the corresponding cumulative proportion of their size. Through its graphical representation of the proportionality of a distribution (the cumulative percentage of the values) all the elements of a distribution were ordered from the most important to the least important. Then, each element plotted according to their cumulative percentage in a graph of X and Y, X being the cumulative percentage of elements and Y being their cumulative importance. In this study, Lorenz Curve was used to determine the concentration or otherwise of women entrepreneurs in the three states used as the case study of this research work.
References Amit, R., Glosten, L. and Muller, E.(1993) “Challenges to Theory of in Entrepreneurship
Research”. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30:5, 815-833.
Asika, N. (1991). Research Methodology in the Behavioural Sciences. Ibadan: Longman
Bailey, K.D. (1987). Methods of Social Research. 3rd Edition, New York: The Free Press.
Bannock, G. (1981). The Economics of Small Firms: Return from the Wilderness, Basil
Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W. and Higgins, C. C (2001). Organizational Research:
Determining Appropriate Sample Size in Survey Research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring, 43-50
Brockhaus, R. H. (1986). “Risk Taking Propensity of Entrepreneurship”. Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3.
Brockhaus, R.H. and Horwitz, P.S. (1986). The Psychology of the Entrepreneur In D.L.
Sexton, and R.W. Similor (EDs), Women-owned Business, New York, Praeger, Pp. 55-75.
Brunstein, J. C., and Maier, G. W. (2005). “Implicit and self-attributed motives to
Chein, I. (1981). An Introduction to Sampling. In Research Methods in Social Relations,
4th ed., L. H. Kidder. New York: Holt, Rinechart and Winston.
Czaja, R. (1998). “Questionnaire Pretesting Comes of Age”, Marketing Bulletin, Vol. 9,
Denison, D. and Alexander, J. (1987). "Patterns and Profiles of Entrepreneurs:
Data from Entrepreneurship Forums". Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Ed. Robert Ronstadt, Robert Hornday, Rein Peterson, and Karl Vesper. Wellesley, Mass.: Babson Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, 578-593.
Dubini, P. (1988). "The Influence of Motivations and Environment on Business Startups:
Some Hints for Public Policies". Journal of Business Venturing 4, 11-26.
Dunkelberg, W. C. and A. C. Cooper (1982). Entrepreneurial typologies. In K. Vesper (Ed), Frontiers of entrepreneurship, Wellesley, MA: Babson Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, 1-15.
Ekpo-Ufot, A. (1992). The State of the Arts of Finance-Accounting Management in
Some Lagos Organizations in the Chemical Industry: An Exploratory Study, in Ojo, J. A. T. (ed.), Business Performance Improvement Through Cost Management, Lagos: University of Lagos Press.
Gartner, W. B., Mitchell, T. M. and Vesper, K. H. (1989). A Taxonomy of New Business
Ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 4, No. 3, 169-186.
Gelin, M. (2005). “The Importance of Gender in Starting and Managing a Small
Business”. Houston Psychiatric Society, June.
Goode, W. J. and Hatt, P.K. (1952). Methods in Social Research. New York: McGraw-
GEM, (2005). “Report on Women and Entrepreneurship”, Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor. Hisrich, R. D. and C. Brush (1986) “Characteristics of the Minority Entrepreneurs”,
Journal of Small Management, Vol. 24.
Hisrich, R. D., Micheal P. P. and Shepherd, D. A. (2005). Entrepreneurship,
International. Ed., Boston: McGraw-Hill,
Holton, E. H., & Burnett, M. B. (1997). Qualitative Research Methods. In R. A.
Swanson, & E. F. Holton (Eds.), Human Resource Development Research Handbook: Linking Research and Practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Keeble, D., and Walker, S. (1994). “New Firms, Small Firms and Dead Firms: Spatial
Patterns and Determinants in the United Kingdom”, Journal ofReligious Studies,, Vol. 28, No 4.
Kerlinger, F. (1983). Foundations of Behavioural Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart
Kotz, S., Johnson, N. L. and Read, C. B. (1983). Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.
New York: Wiley.
Levine, R.J. (1981). Ethics and Regulations of Clinical Research. Baltimore: Urban and
Lorenz, M. O. (1905). Methods for Measuring the Concentration of Wealth. Amer. Stat.
2005 Report on Women and Entrepreneurship”. GEM Publication.
Miskin, V:, and Rose, J. (1990). Women Entrepreneurs: Factors Related to Success.
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1990. Gender, Work and Organization, 6(4), 224–235.
Mokry, B.W., (1988), “Entrepreneurship and Public Policy: Can Government
Stimulate Start ups?” Quorum Books, New York.
Munn, P. and Drever, E. (1990). Using Questionnaires in Small-Scale Research: A
Teacher's Guide. Loanhead: Macdonald Lindsay Pinder.
Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory, 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw Hill.
Ogundele, O. J and Opeifa, A. Z. (2003). “Factors that Influence the Emergence,
Behaviour and Performance of Entrepreneurs in Nigeria”, The Abuja Management Review, Vol.1, Issue No. 2, June.
Ojo, J.A.T. (2006). “Using SMEs To Achieve Millennium Development Goals:
Challenges and Prospects”. Covenant Journal of Business and Social Sciences,
Vol. No 1, December, 20-35
Olutunla, G. T.(2001). “Entrepreneurship for Economic Development:. Inaugural
Lecture Series 27, Delivered at the Federal University of Technology, Akure, Thursday, 26th April.
Orhan, M. and Scolt, D. (2001). “Why women enter into Entrepreneurship: An
Explanatory Model”. Women in Management Review, August, Vol. 16, Issue 5.
Otokiti, S. O. (1987). “High Technology in Small Scale Industries: A Comparative Study
of Nigeria and Industrialized Countries”. Ph.D. Thesis submitted to University of Delhi, New Delhi, India.
Otokiti, S. O. (2005). Methodologies and Mechanics of Computational System. New
Delhi India, Sultan Chand and Sons.
Otokiti, S.O., Olateju, O. and Adejumo, O. (2007). Contemporary Statistical Methods.
Lagos: Vantage Publication Company.
Osuagwu, L. (2002). “The Marketing Research Practices of Nigerian Companies: An
Exploratory Study”, Journal of African Business, Vol. 3(1), Pp. 81-107.
Oyo State of Nigeria, (2005). “Statistical Year Book 2003-2005, Department of
Macrostatistics and Research, Ministry of Finance, Budget and Planning Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. 1-105.
Phillips, B. S. (1976). Social Research: Strategy and Tactics. 2nd Ed. New York:
Ronstadt, R. (1984). “The Corridor Principle”. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. Pp.
Rosin, H. and Korabit, K. (1990). "Marital and Family Correlates of Women Managers'
Attrition from Organizations”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 104-120.
Ryna, R. M. and Deci, E. (2002). “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: Class Definitions
and New Directions, Contemporary Educational Psychology”. Vol. 25, Issue 1,
Sarri, K., and A. Trihopoulou (2005). "Female Entrepreneurs' Personal Characteristics
and Motivation: A Review of the Greek Situation," Women in Management Review Vol.20(1), Pp.24-36.