international small business journal 2010 parry 378 97

7/30/2019 International Small Business Journal 2010 Parry 378 97

1/21

http://isb.sagepub.com/International Small Business Journal

http://isb.sagepub.com/content/28/4/378The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0266242610363528

2010 28: 378International Small Business JournalSimon Parry

Smalltalk: Rhetoric of control as a barrier to growth in artisan micro-firms

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:International Small Business JournalAdditional services and information for

http://isb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://isb.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://isb.sagepub.com/content/28/4/378.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Aug 26, 2010Version of Record>>

by Carlos G. Lopez on October 26, 2011isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://isb.sagepub.com/http://isb.sagepub.com/http://isb.sagepub.com/content/28/4/378http://isb.sagepub.com/content/28/4/378http://isb.sagepub.com/content/28/4/378http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://isb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://isb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://isb.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://isb.sagepub.com/content/28/4/378.refs.htmlhttp://isb.sagepub.com/content/28/4/378.refs.htmlhttp://isb.sagepub.com/content/28/4/378.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://isb.sagepub.com/content/28/4/378.full.pdfhttp://isb.sagepub.com/content/28/4/378.full.pdfhttp://isb.sagepub.com/http://isb.sagepub.com/http://isb.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://isb.sagepub.com/content/28/4/378.full.pdfhttp://isb.sagepub.com/content/28/4/378.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://isb.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://isb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://isb.sagepub.com/content/28/4/378http://isb.sagepub.com/


2/21

mall Firms

isbj

Article

mall Firms

isbj

Smalltalk: Rhetoric of control

as a barrier to growth in artisanmicro-firms

Simon ParryUniversity of Cumbria, UK

Abstract

This article reports on a study that uses discourse analysis to provide a social constructionistview of growth barriers in micro-level firms. Although barriers to growth have been thesubject of prior studies, no study to date has taken a linguistic-based interpretative approach

to understand the mechanisms by which such barriers arise. The study is based upon semi-structured interviews with owner-managers of 20 micro-level artisan businesses. The analysisfocuses on responses to questions concerning business growth. The analytical reading of these

responses highlights references to business control and shows how the way control is discursivelyconstructed influences management practices and in turn impacts on business growth. Thefindings suggest the need for a better understanding of the complex interrelationship between

micro-firm management practices and participants lived business reality. The article identifies

ways in which growth-barrier constructions arise and points to how they may be overcomethrough business intervention.

Keywords

artisans, discourse analysis, barriers to growth, micro-firm, social construction.

Introduction and rationale

This article reports on a study that uses discourse analysis to provide a social constructionist view

of barriers to growth in micro-level artisan businesses. By analysing the discursive mechanismsthrough which such barriers are socially constructed, the study provides a better understanding of

how they arise and points to how they may be overcome.

Previous research on growth and barriers

The question of what contributes to and what hinders small business growth lie at the heart of the

small business research agenda (OFarrell and Hitchens, 1988; Storey, 1994; Orser et al., 2000).

Corresponding author:Simon Parry, University of Cumbria, Fusehill Street, Carlisle, Cumbria CA1 2HH, UK

Email: [email protected]

International Small Business Journal

28(4) 378397

The Author(s) 2010

Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermission.navDOI: 10.1177/0266242610363528

isb.sagepub.com

http://isb.sagepub.com/http://isb.sagepub.com/http://isb.sagepub.com/http://isb.sagepub.com/


3/21

Parry 379

This agenda is driven by the acknowledged economic significance of the small business sector

(Wiklund et al., 2003; Berry et al., 2004) and the important contribution that small business

research makes to both policy development and business support (Curran et al., 1986).

Accordingly, economic significance is largely seen as being seated in the growth potential of

small firms and the job creation such growth brings (Scase and Goffee, 1987; Birch, 1990; Daviset al., 1993).

Researchers who have addressed the question of small firm growth have brought a wide range

of theories, perspectives and methodologies to bear on the subject. OFarrell and Hitchins (1988)

in a survey conducted 20 years ago identified five main perspectives in explaining small firm

growth: (1) an industrial economics perspective; (2) stochastic models; (3) stage models; (4) a stra-

tegic management perspective; and (5) social and personality approaches. More recently Orser et

al. (2000) determine four approaches: (1) biological models of growth; (2) growth and decision

making; (3) social psychology; and (4) integrative (multi-disciplinary) studies.

Grant and Perren (2002) surveyed and categorized articles on small business research published

in 2000 to provide a meta-theoretical analysis of contemporary research using Burrell and Morgans(1979) taxonomy of subjectiveobjective, radicalregulation paradigms. Their study highlights

how, despite the range of perspectives identified in the taxonomies above, the majority of small

business studies remain within a functionalist paradigm. Since Grant and Perrens survey, the

mainstream of research focusing on growth still remains within the functionalist paradigm. A pop-

ular approach is to correlate growth with institutional factors such as product innovation (Freel and

Robson, 2004), training (Bryan, 2006), business ownership (Van Stel and Carree, 2004) or struc-

ture (Ghobadian and ORegan, 2006). Other studies have looked at owner-manager characteristics

such as owner-manager age (Kangasharja, 2000), gender (Johnsen and McMahon, 2005; Roper and

Scott, 2009), education and previous experience (Richbell et al., 2006). Even though some studies

have been concerned with owner-manager attitudes to growth, they still tend towards a positivistmethodology (Wiklund et al., 2003).

Such studies are valuable and important in highlighting those factors associated with business

growth. However, Grant and Perren (2002) call for a broadening of perspectives in order to gener-

ate new theories and understandings in small business research. In particular, Doern (2009) sug-

gests a need for research which explores the meaning of growth barriers within the context in

which they are perceived. Furthermore, the methodologies associated with the functionalist para-

digm have been criticized as revealing little insight into the causality and processes of growth

(Gibb, 2000; Ekanem, 2007). There is therefore, a need for more interpretative research that

addresses the importance of understanding the motives of small business managers in order to

improve support and legislation (Culkin and Smith, 2000).

A linguistic turn

A number of researchers are answering this call and conducting studies that operate within

an interpretative paradigm (Rae, 2004; Cope, 2005; Ekanem, 2007). An important aspect of this

development is the linguistic turn which is already well established in other areas of organiza-

tional research (Hjorth and Steyaert, 2004). Linguistic-based methodologies are being recognized

as particularly well suited to researching owner-managed micro business (Parry, 2007). In particu-

lar, this approach has been found to provide a means of penetrating the often informal and idiosyn-

cratic world of the owner-manager (Johansson, 2004). Furthermore, storytelling is being recognizedas an important part of the entrepreneurial process (Rae, 2005). The stories that entrepreneurs tell

affect their behaviour and their interaction with others (Martens et al., 2007).



4/21

380 InternationalSmallBusinessJournal28(4)

Despite this acknowledged importance of owner-manager narratives, a linguistic approach has

not so far been used to explore the relationship between such narratives and small business growth.

This article therefore, seeks to address this gap by using discourse analysis to examine the relation-

ship between owner-managers discourse around growth and their business practice. The discourse

analysis approach places language at the forefront of meaning and value creation (Edley, 2001).Underpinning this is the understanding that the way meaning is created through language usage in

turn impacts on action (Willig, 2003). Such a perspective challenges the objective realist stance

adopted by functionalist studies and so, presumptions that the meaning of business practices pre-

exist their semantic content for the owner-manager. From the social constructionist viewpoint,

meaning is seen to be the product of the subjective experience of the owner-manager and their inter-

relations with others (Gergen, 1999). The owner-manager can be seen as constructing a story about

reality using such materials as interpretations of business activities and other facts as they find

them. This is not to imply that the world does not exist prior to this point. Rather, it recognizes that

owner-managers subjectively construct the facts about their businesses reality, even though they

may then go on to reify them and treat them as if they existed independently of their subjectivity(through processes which Berger and Luckmann [1966] call externalization, objectivation and

internalization).

Methodology

The data used in this study was collected through a series of semi-structured interviews with the

owner-managers of 20 artisan micro-businesses. It is generally agreed that the objectives of the

small business are synonymous with those of the owner (OFarrell and Hitchins, 1988). When

ownership and management reside in the same person, then future business goals are determined

not only by commercial considerations but also by the owner-managers personal lifestyle (Birleyand Westhead, 1990). It is for this reason that the study focuses particularly on artisan businesses;

such businesses might reasonably be expected to be the least business orientated and so, more

focused upon personal lifestyle goals (Smith, 1967).

Businesses were selected for the study based on size, age and main business activity. All were

at the micro level (DTI, 2005), ranging in size from one to eight employees, and varying time in

business from five to 29 years (see Appendix). The businesses were located around Cardiff in

South Wales and Bristol in the southwest of England. An artisan is interpreted as a skilful labourer

(Metcalf, 1997) or an individual practising a trade in which manual techniques take precedence

(Tregear, 2005). Choosing businesses that were at least five years old ensured that all businesses

sampled had survived the initial start-up period and had time in which to experience the opportu-nity for growth. Asking a question of growth therefore, puts the owner-manager in a defensive

position of justifying their lack of growth. Analysing responses to this question enables us to

understand how this justification is constructed.

The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. The transcriptions were then coded, starting

with a thematic reading of each interviewees response to a simple question of business growth:

Have you ever had any aspirations to grow your business beyond its current level? Examples of

initial themes arising out of the readings are: a distinction between management work and hands-

on artisan work; internal control requirements; and externally imposed business regulations that

prompted control responses. As new themes were identified in the transcripts, coding was refined

through reclassification and sub classification. This continued until no new coding nodes wereemerging and all responses had been coded to one or more node. This coding was done manually.

The coding and subsequent analysis was informed by Parkers (1992) steps in an analysis of discourse

http://isb.sagepub.com/http://isb.sagepub.com/http://isb.sagepub.com/


5/21

Parry 381

dynamics and is particularly influenced by the discussion and application of Parkers approach in

two studies by Willig (1998, 2003).

The thematic reading that produced the coding concentrated on the way in which issues of busi-

ness control were brought into the interviewees narrative on growth, either directly or indirectly.

This involved more than simply looking for key words or phrases. Each interview transcript wascarefully read to identify both explicit and implicit references to control. In this respect, it was

important to keep a broad interpretation of business control. It was also important to bear in mind

during the analytical reading how references to certain activities or aspects of the business infer

control. As pointed out by MacNaughten (1993), sometimes what is not said is as important as

what is said. The fact that a text does not contain a direct reference to a discursive object can reveal

a lot about how that object is constructed.

Once coding was completed, each of the coding nodes was scrutinized in terms of the meanings

that surrounded the way control was talked about within that particular theme. This discursive

psychology approach involves the use of four key concepts:

Discursive constructions are constructions of meaning around a discursive object, in this

case business control (Potter and Wetherell, 1987).

Action orientation describes what is achieved by a certain construction, for example a justi-

fication or a defence of a practice or action (Heritage, 1984).

Interpretative repertoires are coherent repertoires of terms or metaphors drawn upon to

characterize actions and events (Gilbert and Mulkay, 1984).

Subject position is a position within which a speaker locates themselves or others through the

use of certain discursive constructions and interpretative repertoires (Davies and Harr, 1991).

The analysis began by asking: How is business control discursively constructed by the inter-viewee? From this analysis the discursive constructions were established. As part of this analysis

the action orientation of the identified constructions was also examined. This was prompted by

asking: What is achieved for the interviewee by constructing control in this way? The next step

was to ask: What interpretative procedures are involved in the discursive construction of business

control? By addressing this question the analysis of the discursive constructions of control is fur-

ther developed by locating them within the interpretative repertoires used by the interviewee. The

analysis thereby related the interviewees talk of business control to a wider interpretation of their

social construction of the world. The third step was to ask: How does the way control is discur-

sively constructed position the owner-manager and thereby shape the owner-managers self-

identity? This stage of the analysis looked at how the various discursive constructions of controlpositioned the owner-manager in different ways as artisan and as businessperson. Finally the anal-

ysis focused on the possibilities for action made available by the owner-managers subject posi-

tioning, This analysis sought to reveal how not only the business practice, but also the psychological

and social reality of the owner-manager is shaped by the discursive construction of control, via its

influence on thesubject positions which he or she inhabits.

These analysis steps and the related research questions are set out in Figure 1.

Findings

This section outlines the results of the analysis described above and provides illustrative examplesfrom the interview transcripts to support that analysis. The interviewees, in each case being the

owner-manager of the business, are referred to as OM A, OM B, and so forth.



6/21


Discursiveconstructions

The construction of business control as a barrier to growth was found to arise in two distinct ways.

The first construction focused inwardly on the businesss own internal control mechanisms. The

second construction focused outwardly on the businesss external environment. Although these rep-

resent very different constructions of control as a barrier to growth, there are strong links between

the two. The barrier arises in each case because control is presented as preventing growth in a

gradual, continuous way.

Within the first construction, control is framed as something which is an important aspect of

running a business, and which cannot be neglected. So much so, that the business should not andcannot be expanded if it would mean that control would suffer. This is seen in extract A below,

where OM D (farrier) offers a cautionary tale of other owner-managers (certain people) losing

control of their business through expansion.

Discursive constructions

Interpretative repertoires

Subject positions

Legitimate practice Subjectivity

How do discursive constructions

of business control arise through

the owner-managers talk?

How do the constructions of

business control position the

speaker (the owner-manager)?

What are the possibilities for

action mapped out by the

constructions of control?

What ways of seeing the world

are made possible or not possible

by the interpretative repertoires

used by the owner-manager?

What linguistic resources does the

owner-manager draw upon in

his/her talk of business control?

Action orientation

What is gained from constructing

control in the particular ways used

by the owner-manager?

Figure 1. Steps in Data Analysis



7/21

Parry 383

ExtractA

Q: Have you ever had any aspirations to, to grow the business, you know, bigger than it is at the

moment?

OM D: Not really, because its nice to, erm, keep tabs on whats going on. You hear of certain people,erm, expanding their businesses and basically losing control of them. I feel as it is at the moment

that Im still in control. OK, I have to work 12 or 14 hours a day, erm, but Im in control, I know

whats going on. Erm, more of a feel for the business.

The keep tabs expressed here is a reference to control. The claim for the importance of such con-

trol might be sufficient in itself. However, the claim is reinforced here by an allegorical tale of

expansion that leads to loss of control. In telling this tale, the owner-manager positions control in

opposition to growth. He establishes that the two cannot be simultaneously achieved by equating

control with his time. He is already working 12 or 14 hours a day to keep control over the busi-

ness at its current level. This reference to the length of his working day serves a two-fold role. First,it provides a measure against which an addressee will have a sense of what is reasonable. But

equally, he provides as a measure of control a resource which is finite his time. Even with the best

will in the world, he could not work many more hours than he currently does. Hence he could not

expand his business much beyond its current level.

In extract B, OM A (electrical repair engineer) constructs control (in this case stock control) in

a similar way. As in extract A, control is equated with his time. The equation of control with the

owner-managers time is established in the clause but you cant be working and watching them.

ExtractB

Q: Have you ever had any aspirations to grow the business beyond? ...

OM A: We did, we did put our elbow in the water down that road. And er, and we, you know, you got a

van, you put a 1,000 worth of stock in it. Give somebody some jobs to do. And, knowing all the

tricks, because we worked for companies ourselves. We know exactly, and it was true to form. It

was one job for us, and it was one job for himself. So, well I mean, your spare parts are being

used fiddling, basically. So, unless youre prepared to to make a big step like employ maybe

three blokes. Then employ, or do it yourself, but you cant be working and watching them, and

employ a manager, to watch these guys, who are working for you, youve got no chance. So you

either go down the road of having quite a few people work for you, or you dont bother at all. So

after about a year and a half two years, we got fed up with it, and er, decided to keep the businesssmall. And efficient.

The construction in this text is achieved through three argumentative steps each of which builds

upon the last. First, the owner-manager offers a cautionary tale of growth that leads to loss of stock

control: So, well I mean, your spare parts are being used fiddling, basically. The validity of this

argument is reinforced by reference to his own previous experience: knowing all the tricks,

because we worked for companies ourselves. Stock control is then equated with management time.

In equating stock control with time, the owner-manager is able to construct a new argument. The

time spent in control must either be his own, or that of an employed supervisor. If he undertakes

the supervision himself, then it becomes a distraction from his own work. This leads to the thirdargument, which is that if a supervisor were employed, it would necessitate taking on several new

employees. Implicit within this argument is the suggestion that it would require contribution from

several employees to cover the additional overhead cost of a supervisor. The owner-manager is



8/21


then able to dismiss this course of action on the grounds that it requires a large step-increase in the

business size, rather than gradual growth: So you either go down the road of having quite a few

people work for you, or you dont bother at all. The either/or construction serves to emphasize the

dichotomous nature of the choice.

Despite having built up this complex three-stage argument the owner-manager then cites effi-ciency to further justify his position. In citing efficiency the owner-manager is drawing upon

another business discourse. The concept of efficiency has been a central tenet of management dis-

course reaching back to the early twentieth century (Taylor, 1903; Emerson, 1919; Harrison, 1930)

and has come to represent a positive and desirable attribute.

In both of the extracts cited above, business control is constructed as a barrier to growth in terms

of the distraction for the owner-manager; control is equated with the owner-managers direct atten-

tion and therefore, time. This can be seen in the further quotes presented in Table 1.

There also arises an entirely different second way of constructing control as a barrier to growth.

That is in terms of managing externally imposed factors, particularly tax and employment legisla-

tion. In extracts C and D below, OM E (musical instrument maker) constructs a barrier to growthin terms of managing turnover in relation to the VAT threshold.

ExtractC

Q: Have you ever had any aspirations to grow the business bigger than it is at the moment?

OM E: Hhh Yes. But its not practical, under the circumstances of this country, really. And the rules of

business. Er. Youve really you either go for twenty employees, or none, virtually. One or two, on

a really low wage is OK, I do it. But the move between turning over 50,000 and employing two

people, to anything bigger at all, has to be you have to double that just to get through the barrier,

because the costs are so much higher Its mostly the VAT problem. In that er, all our profits arebecause of our labour. So with our labour, we cant claim the VAT back on that. If we were just

retailers, wed buy in, pay the VAT, sell out, collect the VAT, do the swap, and by the time youve

added the motoring expenses and things like that in, its a dead breakeven job. All youre doing is

some extra bookwork. But from our point of view, the raw materials are about 15% of the end cost

of the product. So wed be claiming VAT back off 15% of what we were selling, and collecting VAT

for the government at 17% of 100%. Which is a very different figure.

The argument against growth is both textually and logically constructed in the same manner as OM As

argument in extract B. The owner-manager uses an either/or construction to create a dichotomous posi-

tion between substantial growth to twenty employees or no growth at all. The owner-manager devel-ops this argument by drawing upon an economic discourse in his use of the term breakeven. The

significance of the concept of breakeven is that it focuses attention on how costs change with levels of

activity. The owner-managers use of this concept reinforces his argument that the disadvantageous

differential between input and output VAT would become worse as turnover increased. This therefore

becomes a matter of control because the owner-managers response is to purposely keep his turnover

below the VAT threshold. He asserts that his business would grow if the barrier were not there:

ExtractD

OM E: Theres no problem. The orders are there. We can make much, much more than we are making.But we darent because as soon as we hit the VAT well be uncompetitive. So weve just got to

stay out of it.



9/21

Parry 385

The interviewee claims the orders are there for the business to grow. However, he then draws

upon a capitalist discourse of competition to frame growth in such circumstances as not making

good business sense because it would make the business uncompetitive. Further examples regard-

ing the management of externally imposed factors are presented in Table 1.

A common ingredient of the arguments analysed above is a reference to a need for a largeincrease in business. The owner-managers suggest that a gradual increase is not possible, but rather

a step-increase in business activity is required. This was a recurring theme in the interviewees

discussion of growth:

ExtractE

OM S: Er, and then of course, the government muddied the waters, as far as I was concerned, by

producing all the rules and regulations about employing five people or more. Whereby you have

to offer pensions for instance. And er, that was mooted a couple of years before it actually came

in. And I said well there are definitely no incentives, as far as I am concerned, to get involved inmore red tape. So, on that basis, I said we would stick at four people, and I still think we can

make it. I still think we can make a comfortable living at that. So the government was directly

responsible for me not doing any more, from that point of view.

Q: Have you at any time thought, that, despite these reservations, Ill still

OM S: No. If I went and did anything else, I might start up a, er, separate company, independent of this,

but also, er, keep it at less than five people. Because it simply doesnt by the time youve

probably got about twenty-five, its not so bad. That gap between five and twenty-five is a real

tough break.

In this extract, OM S (stationery printer) uses the same argument about the need for substantial, ratherthan gradual growth, which acts as a barrier to growth: by the time youve probably got about

twenty-five, its not so bad. That gap between five and twenty-five is a real tough break. The owner-

manager underlines that this is a business reality for him rather than an excuse for not growing by

suggesting that he might still pursue growth but by means of a separate business, also kept below five

employees. Further examples of this need for a step-increase in business size can be seen in Table 1.

Actionorientation

Bakhtin (1986) maintained that all utterances are dialogic. That is to say, their meaning should be

understood with reference to other utterances. In the extracts cited above the utterances are quiteobviously dialogic in nature as they are a direct response to a question concerning growth from the

interviewer. As the businesses studied were chosen for their lack of growth, then asking a question

of growth places the owner-manager in a defensive position of justifying his or her lack of growth.

In forming this justification, the owner-manager mobilizes aspects of business control, and through

control, a legitimate business reason, for the lack of growth. Hence, control is the vehicle for a

business-oriented legitimization of the owner-managers position.

The action orientation of the constructions of control as a barrier to growth can therefore, be

seen as forming part of the owner-managers justification for the continuing small size of his or her

business. In the interview extracts above, justification is made, in terms of business control, by

drawing upon various accepted business concepts such as efficiency, profit margins and breakevenpoints. In constructing such justifications the owner-manager positions the business as being nec-

essarily small. This necessity is framed in terms of what size the business must be to optimally



10/21


Table 1. Discursive Constructions

Internal control taking up time and distracting from hands-on work

OM C (basket maker)

Its got to a level now where, I mean, I dont have any plans to take, if I was to grow any bigger itwould mean taking somebody on. And, er, I dont feel like I want to do that at the moment. So Imquite happy to keep it ticking at its current level really. I may be just jiggle things around a bit, becauseIm at a point now where theres more work coming in than I can cope with. And trying to control thesort of level of work.

OM J (model maker)Oh, yes, Id definitely like to grow, but I wouldnt say that big. Seeing how, you know, one big company Iknow in particular is very er. Put it this way, its its not the most efficient of companies from, er, theyseem to waste a lot of money, where it especially, I think, on wages. I see a lot of people who arent reallypulling their weight. You know? And it could be streamlined a lot, more. And from that point of view, I dontthink I really want to grow that big.

OM K (painter and decorator)Theres some people thats suited to working on their own. And were not, I dont think, erm the type tobe employers. Er, and I think maybe that its the worry of the job. Then it would be the worry of the manseffort. Youve got to be pretty tough, I would say, you know, to keep maybe five or six men, working. Erm,having the responsibility of that.

OM O (artist/designer)People were saying you should really be getting offices and employing people to work for you, and you canthen, build up your turnover and that. Im not that sort of businessman. You know? I know that that job hasto be finished on that deadline. If I decide, its a sunny day and I want to lounge about in the garden or doanything, Ill work right the way through the night to do it. But the job is Ive never not hit a deadline. Youknow, if I had people working for me, and they were working from nine to five, you know, Id hate it. So, Imvery much, just on my tod.

OM Q (designer/printer)Yes, we certainly thought we would grow. If you told me once it started going, if you told me that at thistime thered still just be the two of us, Id have been quite surprised that we hadnt made it bigger .Yer.But we discovered that neither of us like managing really, very much. We dont like being Erm, dontparticularly like having people to manage.

External factors

OM C (basket maker)Theres so many I cant say really pressures thats the wrong word. Theres so many external influencesthat could steer you in all sorts of direction. Its just being aware of those deciding which way you want.

OM J (model maker)Its not in my interest to be registered for VAT or anything like that. Just because, you know, if I was to addseventeen percent onto my, er invoice every month, then Id be uncompetitive with everyone else.

OM M (furniture maker)Its grown so now Im employing three full-timers, as well as a couple of part-timers. We try and keepbelow the VAT threshold.

The need for a step-increase in business size

OM P (falconer)The problem is, when youre working for yourself, you can only take so much work on. You have peopleworking for you, you can only do so much. Unless you expand so big. And I mean if you expand so big you

could be on a loser like, you know, so. youve got to be careful, like if Im employing people, that Ive got tobe able to cover them. Know what I mean?

(Continued)



11/21

Parry 387

function as an artisan business, and in terms of what size it must be for him/her to maintain ade-

quate control, while maintaining a hands-on position of artisan owner-manager.

Interpretativerepertoires

The next step of analysis involved looking at the interpretative repertoires that underpin the con-

structions of business control identified above. The importance of such analysis lies in the way it

can provide a broader understanding of how a speakers actions and beliefs are portrayed through

the discursive constructions which they use. The concept of interpretative repertoire provides a

framework for understanding the impact which the constructions of control have on the social

positioning (and therefore, the identity) of the owner-manager, and the possibilities for business

practice which arise out of that positioning.

In the passage set out in extract B above, the owner-manager uses two different arguments

to justify the lack of growth in his business. In so doing, he draws upon two distinctly differ-ent interpretative repertoires. First, he suggests that what is needed is a big step like employ

maybe three blokes. In order to overcome the internal control barrier, growth would have to

be substantial in a big step. Lack of such substantial growth is easier to defend than a lack

of growth achieved gradually through taking on extra employees one at a time over an

extended period. Second, such substantial growth is far more likely to take the owner-man-

ager away from his preferred hands-on work. By using this two-fold argument, the owner-

manager justifies the lack of growth drawing upon both a business perspective (there are

good business reasons for not growing) and a personal perspective (there are good personal

reasons for not growing).

The construction in extract B could be described as psychological in basis. OM A talks interms of his distrust of employees and the resultant need to control stock. Thus, he is therefore

calling upon his psychological state in making the construction. In extract A, conversely, OM

D draws upon his physical state to make the construction. The barrier is in terms of the number

Table 1. (Continued)

OM M (furniture maker)And you know, talking to people, its just hassle, big business. If youve got over five people youve got healthand safety written policies. Youve got to just be a lot more onerous, its just a management job then really.

From what I perceive it to be anyway. Its bad enough being tax collector, VAT, PAYE and all that lark. I wantto do less of that, not more.

OM Q (designer/printer)Its a very big step up from doing what we do, to employing somebody because you need them. Youve gotto, pay somebody, you need probably to increase your turnover by something like twenty-five thousand ayear, just to pay somebody. Just to stand still. Otherwise, to make it worth the extra effort, youve maybegot to increase your turnover by thirty-five, forty thousand a year. To bring in that extra work, you alsoneed a bigger advertising budget. You probably also need secretarial help, which again has got to be paid for.So the whole thing, turns, just one employee, you know, turns into an increase in turnover by a hell of a lot.

OM R (graphic designer)I have been frantically busy, from time to time, over the years. But I have never felt confident enough, perhaps,

to take anybody on. Because taking somebody on will either mean them coming here to my home to work,or me having to get premises somewhere. Which is another big, you know, too big a step again for me to Im a very cautious and careful person when it comes to that. It is working totally against the er, the businessethic, I suppose, that I started with. To try and keep it small and to keep costs down. To be competitive.



12/21


of hours work he can fit into a day, which is a physical, or physiological basis to the construc-

tion. By introducing an allegorical tale that illustrates the adverse consequences of attempting

growth, the owner-manager is able to present his actions as being a good business decision in

comparison, and so defends his lack of growth against criticism. Thus, although the construc-

tion of his arguments are very different to those of OM A found in extract B, OM D also usestwo elements to his argument which in turn defend his lack of growth from within both the

personal and the business repertoires. The barrier of his time is a defence from within the per-

sonal repertoire; the allegorical tale of disastrous growth is a defence from within the business

repertoire.

Subjectpositioning

The analysis so far serves to illustrate how the construction of control as a barrier to growth

enables the owner-manager to legitimately justify a lack of growth in the business. This suggests

that the most significant barrier to growth for the artisan owner-manager lies in the way growththreatens self-identity as an artisan. If this self-identity is linked with the hands-on dimension of

artisan work and it is perceived that growth will take the owner-manager away from this activity,

they will be reluctant to grow the business. This is seen more explicitly in the following extract

from OM T (stained glass maker).

ExtractF

Q: Did you ever have any aspirations to grow the business bigger than it is?

OM T: I did in the late eighties. Erm. It was a sort of continued growth, erm, from starting off in

business. It was getting slowly busier and busier and I did, er, find myself employing, er, aboutsix people. Erm, but just found I was chasing work and organizing work. And it was, sort of,

taking me away from actually what I wanted to do. That was just to work with the glass, in a

creative way.

The owner-manager links his identity as artisan with a hands-on aspect of work that cannot be

maintained if the business grows. The continued connection with the hands-on aspect of the busi-

ness limits the owner-managers ability to manage, particularly staff. Consequently, this restricts

growth in terms of the number of employees. Beyond a certain number of employees, the owner-

manager must relinquish hands-on work to manage staff. His artisan ideology prevents this. This

would suggest that thesubject positions adopted by the owner-manager through his constructionsof control are not conducive to business growth. Positioning as artisan means that business growth

is neither easy to achieve nor desirable. It will take the owner-manager away from the hands-on

work that is the essence of the artisan existence. Further examples illustrating this positioning are

presented in Table 2.

As was shown in the analysis of interpretative repertoires, this positioning can present both

psychological and physiological barriers to growth. If these barriers to growth were simply issues

of positioning arising from the personal repertoire, they could be countered through appeal to busi-

ness principles via the business repertoire. However, the owner-manager also used the business

repertoire to justify the lack of growth in economic-rational terms. Concepts of efficiency and the

need for adequate business control are used to give a business rationale to the lack of growth (seeExtract B and Table 1).



13/21

Parry 389

Impactonbusinesspractice

The final step of the analysis explores how owner-managers talk about control and the implications

of this in terms of how the business is managed. A consequence of the personal repertoire with its

emphasis on the hands-on dimension of artisan work is that the owner-manager talks about busi-

ness control in those same hands-on terms. OM H (leather worker).

ExtractG

Q: So youve not been tempted to grow the business then?OM H: Ive always kept it under control. Weve always kept a long leash over it.

Q: Right. What do you mean by under control?

OM H: That it it was not to a point where I had to employ more than about four people.

In this passage, the owner-manager makes a connection between growth and control that is similar

to that seen in the extracts previously cited. The owner-manager uses a metaphor of direct physical

control when he says Weve always kept a long leash over it. The artisans vocabulary of physical

control and physical involvement in his craft extends to his talk of business management. Just as

the artisan is concerned with direct physical involvement in the work of his craft, this same concern

extends to control within the business. In particular, control is equated with the owner-managerstime and physical presence rather than a more abstract system of control. (See further examples in

Table 2. Subject Positioning

OM A (electrical repair engineer)I really enjoyed the tools, as opposed to the measuring up and writing it all out. Im more of a hands-onperson than an office person anyway. Even though I obviously had to do a lot of office work its not my

greatest pleasure. My biggest pleasure is to see something fixed after its broken down.OM C (basket maker)I think, well, one of my reasons for wanting to work for myself is, erm, is just kind of the directness of itreally. Ive done my share of I managed a team with six people. And although theres elements of it thatI love, I just know how much work that takes, managing a small team. I just know that taking someone onwith my willow it would be less time for me kind of hands on.

OM D (farrier)I enjoy the metalwork side of things practical side of things.

OM G (homoeopath)I do enjoy that variety in what I do. Erm, so again, thats not conducive to being a businessperson. I thinkthat because of the nature of homoeopathy, you know.

OM J (model maker)I wouldnt want to lose the hands-on sort of part of it and just have it as a business. You know, running itas a model making business. Because, to be honest, if I was just running a business, I could make a lot moremoney probably running a different type of business. What I enjoy is the hands-on model making side ofthings. Thats the reason I do it. So to lose that and just run it as a model making business from the officeand have other people doing all that, would be er, well it just wouldnt make sense really.

OM M (furniture maker)Its really difficult keeping up with things. The scale of the business could be much bigger, but I dont want itto be. I think it would probably become too stressful And to get bigger, employ more people...its kind oftaking me away from what I want to do. I dont want to just manage. I want to be part of this work.



14/21


Table 3.) This might be expected with very small businesses like that of OM H above, where the

owner-manager is very much involved with the day-to-day hands-on craft work. However, a

similar way of talking about control can also be seen in the larger businesses in the sample. For

example, OM N (foil printer) ran the largest business in the sample (eight employees) and was no

longer directly involved in the hands-on aspect of the businesss work. However he still talksabout business control in direct and physical terms:

ExtractH

Q: Whats the issue with not growing?

OM N: I like the control weve got. We we we see most of the customers. We know all the jobs that

are going through. So we see the customer and we might actually monitor the job as its going

through. So were controlling it all the way through. Whereas we find, larger printers, they have

a salesman that goes and picks the job up. Brings it back to the factory. Then they have a, you

know, manager who manages various parts of it. And er, quite often when were dealing withcompanies like that, and we phone then up to find out about, you know, the position of our job,

or whatever. Its you just get passed around. And we didnt want that to happen. We wanted

people to be able to phone us up and say hows the job and wed know straight away. Wed know

what was going on.

In this passage OM N equates control with his own time and direct involvement, rather than systems

and procedures. He thereby places a limit on his ability to control in terms of the time he has avail-

able and the amount of work he can personally track. Again, we see the use of an allegorical tale of

larger businesses losing that control. Control is equated with his having a feel for what is going on

in all areas of the business. There is a reluctance to delegate and to split control into different func-tion areas within the business (a salesman that goes and picks the job up. Brings it back to the fac-

tory; a manager who manages various parts of it). This illustrates how another artisan concern

of a holistic approach to work is reflected in management practice. The owner-manager is resistant

to a reductionist approach to business control in favour of personally overseeing a whole job.

In extract B, the interviewee made a similar link between his direct physical involvement and

control of stock. He linked control of employees, and in particular, control of employee use of

stock with direct physical control, in terms of being overseen by a manager. This way of seeing

control precludes any more abstract, systems-based method, which might enable the owner-man-

ager to maintain control of stock without the need for directly overseeing employees. In fact, the

same owner-manager goes on to talk about how he sees no need for stock accounting because whathe sells is his repair abilities.

ExtractI

OM A: Some stock might last for donkeys years and we never use it. But when we, when we need it,

my God, were thankful that weve got it. But we sell mainly, well, our knowledge. Our repair

abilities. You might use a starter or a valve, put some gas in, but youre not selling produce, and

making thats not you dont primarily make your profit on what you sell. You make most of

your profit on th- the labour that you charge for.

This passage suggests that a positioning as artisan worker means that the owner-manager sees

himself as primarily selling his skill. This has implications for what the owner-manager sees as



15/21

Parry 391

being important or unimportant in terms of control. OM A sees no need for stock accounting, even

though such a system might help with the control problem he discusses in extract B. In that passage

he complained of having to watch employees to ensure that stock is not misappropriated. An

adequate stock accounting system would keep control of stock parts without the need to direct

supervision. An irony in extract I is that it includes an admission of the importance of stock to the

business: But when we, when we need it, my God, were thankful that weve got it. The owner-

managers subsequent argument suggests that he does not see that without having the correct stock

in place, he might not be able to sell his skills.

Discussion

The analysis above has shown the way in which control is discursively constructed and so, influ-

ences the practices which constitute organisational life for the micro-firm owner-manager. It con-

tributes to the shaping of the owner-managers practice by establishing what constitutes normal or

appropriate practice. The discursive mechanisms employed in establishing appropriate behaviour

include the use of allegorical tales to define and illustrate inappropriate behaviour. The way con-

trol is constructed therefore, offers the owner-manager a means of defining both their behaviour

and that of others. This is seen to have a rhetorical function in that the owner-manager is able to

portray a particular version of events in a way that justifies their actions. Criticism and justification

are important features in the rhetorical shaping of business practice.Through the use of stories of inappropriate behaviour the owner-manager can construct his or

her own behaviour as appropriate or normal in comparison. The immediate rhetorical benefit is that

Table 3. Impact on Business Practices

OM B (carpenter)Basically, if you cant invoice the stock when you get it, in the month, then Im not getting it. I can manage itOK that way.

OM C (basket maker)So its entirely for selfish reasons that I dont want to be bigger. But, erm you know I feel like Ive workedquite hard to get the business to where I want it. I can keep a handle on things as they are now. Whychange it? Thats what I want to do.

OM F (aromatherapist)Physically, as you can imagine, I work from morning to night. I take my last client at eight oclock. So, I dontknow how I would do it without [husband] doing everything. I havent time to carry it all myself.

OM I (reflexologist)Erm, reflexology and reiki is just superb. Its such a brilliant way to work. To earn a living doing somethingthat you passionately enjoy. Its just fantastic. So it takes a life of its own. There is a danger that you becometoo involved and it takes over your whole life. So you have to section off Im trying to find space in my

life to actually, er, get the business side of things done.OM J (model maker)I dont think I ever it would ever be anything big. Just because I wouldnt want to lose that I alwayswant that hands-on, you know, Id always want to be making stuff anyway. Well, at the moment, thats howI feel. So if I was going to employ any people, it would only be two or three, just to help me sort of meetthe deadlines.

OM P (falconer)Theres certain things that I wont trust my lads to do. I handle it myself. Even though Im twice the friggingage of them, you know.



16/21


this serves to defend the owner-manager against criticism. However, a wider implication is that

such discursive activity reinforces the owner-managers existing behaviour and makes it more

difficult to change.

Practicalfindings:Barrierstogrowth

This article provides new insight into four important aspects of micro-firm growth barriers. First,

the article demonstrates how the artisan identity can in itself be a barrier to business growth.

Through its focus on linguistic constructions of control the analysis shows that the owner-managers

approach to control is not just a matter of an inability to delegate or operate more complex systems,

as has been suggested by some previous research (Bolton, 1971; Lang, 1973; Lewis and Toon,

1986; Storey et al., 1987). Rather, it is part of the lived reality of what the business is to the owner-

manager. That direct involvement in the running of the business is an integral part of what it is to

be an artisan. It is part of the owner-managers self-identity.

Second, the article demonstrates how owner-manager self-identity impacts upon the types ofmanagement practices adopted, and how these can have a knock-on effect on business growth. In

particular, the holistic, hands-on approach which is characteristic of artisan work is reflected in the

artisan management style. This holistic approach limits the level of growth in terms of span of

control and volume of activity.

Third, the article highlights how owner-managers address, or more importantly, fail to

address some of the real problems of breaking through the micro-firm barrier, particularly in

terms of management of additional employees and the legal and accounting burdens that such

growth brings.

Finally, the owner-managers discursive constructions are characterized by the frequent use of

allegorical tales drawn from the experiences of other similar businesses. These tales form animportant part of the mechanism for legitimization of the owner-managers actions, through their

reference to real-world evidence. This underlines the importance of story telling and shared experi-

ences, which in turn suggests the importance of mentoring and networking as elements of manager

learning and development.

Implicationsforpolicyandintervention

The findings of this study suggest that if the artisan owner-manager is to be engaged upon issues

of business practice, then this must be at the level of interpretative repertoire; that described in this

study can be seen to set certain parameters regarding what constitutes good business practice arti-san owner-managers. The influence of both business and personal repertoires must be recognized.

Business intervention is most likely to engage the owner-manager through the business repertoire.

However, the findings suggest that if this intervention is not sensitive to the ideological constraints

of the personal repertoire, it will not be successful. Intervention intended to stimulate business

growth is unlikely to engage the owner-manager if it conflicts with personal repertoire ideals. The

form that management control practices take within the artisan business is influenced by the com-

plexities of the interplay of the owner-managers interpretative repertoires and the expectations

which they convey.

The personal repertoire is of particular importance to those seeking to intervene, as this is the

repertoire most likely to prove problematic. The aim should be to integrate business control activi-ties into the owner-managers ideal of the artisan lifestyle. The challenge for change lies in finding



17/21

Parry 393

newsubject positions for the artisan owner-manager that are not so detrimental to business devel-

opment and growth.

One route to achieving such change is suggested in recent work on narratives and storytelling in

entrepreneurial research (Rae, 2004, 2005; Johansson, 2004; Downing, 2005). Rae (2004, 2005)

advocates the study of life story narratives as a means of better understanding the processes ofentrepreneurial learning. Downing (2005) suggests that an appreciation of narrative and dramatic

processes is important in understanding how organizational and personal identities are produced.

Such a methodology could be useful in understanding the personal repertoire and how it develops.

Johansson (2004) argues that the narrative approach to research enriches understanding of what

motivates entrepreneurs and the way they run their business.

In challenging the owner-managers discursive practices, we are also challenging associated

business practices. To become more growth oriented for the artisan owner-manager involves

more than an attempt to change the nature of his or her social interactions with the business world.

The absence of growth orientation and management focus from the personal repertoire means that

such a change would involve taking on new interpretative repertoires, or at least, substantiallychanging current interpretative repertoires.

These findings take understanding of owner-manager motivation beyond a simple recognition

that they often eschew growth in favour of other lifestyle rewards (Buttner and Moore, 1997).

Recognition of the issues set out above can help policy setters and business advisors acknowl-

edge the problems of change and can provide a basis for overcoming them. In particular, such

intervention practices should become more sensitive to how their actions reinforce or challenge

the subject positions adopted by the artisan owner-manager. Further, strategies can be devised

for moving unhelpful subject positions and creating new acceptable subject positions with dif-

ferent interpretative repertoires.

Conclusion

This article commenced by suggesting that small business research is driven by an agenda of sup-

port, intervention and policymaking aimed at encouraging growth. This agenda can be understood

in terms of a desire to achieve some sort of change in the small business, usually one of increased

investment, development and increased employment. The discourse analysis approach taken in this

study provides a framework for understanding and thus, enabling change through the recognition

of how the owner-managers discursive practices, and the subject positions that result, are shaping

the owner-managers business practices. By focusing on discursive constructions of control and the

context of their use, this study has highlighted the action orientation of those constructions andhence the pragmatic, contextual nature of control activities. This has provided new insights into

micro-firm growth barriers.

In terms of future research, these findings suggest the need for a better understanding of the

complex interrelationship between micro-firm management practices and participants lived busi-

ness reality. Through the adoption of a linguistic-based social construction lens this study has been

able to provide insight into micro-firm management activities within the context of the conditions

which have resulted in their emergence and development, and the forces that contribute to their

significance. Accordingly, the impact on business research goes beyond issues of growth barriers

upon artisan businesses. Any aspect of research into micro-businesses would benefit from a cogni-

sance of the role of interpretative repertoires in determining business practices. The article hasprovided pointers as to how that may be achieved.



18/21


For entrepreneurs and those directly involved in their support, the findings are emancipatory

in terms of understanding the interplay between business activities and self-identity. Effective

change is enabled through a better understanding of how current practices are formed and rein-

forced. The social construction lens allows an analysis that reveals the interrelatedness of busi-

ness control activities and organizational reality. This is in contrast to the more widely adoptedfunctionalist approach, which can obscure the pragmatic way that management actually occurs.

The article thereby provides new insight into why business intervention can fail. It also suggests

how networking and mentoring can be effective vehicles for changing discursive and hence,

business practices.

The contribution of this study has been underpinned by a use of discourse analysis that has made

visible aspects of the owner-managers world that are not revealed by other methodologies. By

moving the unit of analysis to language, it has become possible to examine the way in which dif-

ferent discursive constructions shape and limit the owner-managers understanding of their posi-

tion and practice. In particular, the study has provided a coherent framework which helps explain

and resolve some of the contradictions found in previous studies by revealing the why and howwhich lie behind the findings of studies which purely reveal what.

References

Bakhtin M (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. University of Texas Press.

Berger PL and Luckmann T (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise on the Sociology of

Knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Berry A, Grant P, and Jarvis R (2004) European bank lending to the UK SME sector: An investigation of

approaches adopted.International Small Business Journal22(2): 115131.

Birch D (1990) Who creates jobs? In: McMullan WE, Long WA (eds) Developing New Ventures, TheEntrepreneurial Option. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Birley S and Westhead P (1990) Growth and performance contrasts between types of small firm. Strategic

Management Journal11: 535557.

Bolton JE (1971)Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Small Firms. London: HMSO.

Bryan J (2006) Training and performance in small firms.International Small Business Journal24: 635660.

Burrell G and Morgan G (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. London: Heinemann

Educational Books.

Buttner EH and Moore DP (1997) Womens organisational exodus to entrepreneurship: Self-reported motiva-

tions and correlates with success.Journal of Small Business Management35(1): 3446.

Cope J (2005) Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory andPractice 29(4): 373398.

Culkin N and Smith D (2000) An emotional business: A guide to understanding the motives of small business

decision takers. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal3(3): 145157.

Curran J, Stanworth J, and Watkins D (eds) (1986) The Survival of the Small Firm, 1: The Economics of

Survival and Entrepreneurship. Aldershot: Gower.

Davies B and Harr R (1991) Positioning: The discursive production of self. Journal for the Theory of Social

Behaviour20(1): 4363.

Davis SJ, Haltiwanger J, and Schuh S (1993) Small business and job creation: Dissecting the myth and reas-

sessing the facts. University of Chicago Working Paper.

Doern R (2009) Investigating barriers to SME growth and development in transition environments.International Small Business Journal27(3): 275305.

Downing S (2005) The social construction of entrepreneurship: Narrative and dramatic processes in the co-

production of organizations and identities.Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 29(2): 185205.



19/21

Parry 395

DTI (2005) Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) Definitions. Department of Trade and Industry. Available

at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/SME4/define.htm (accessed 15 February 2005).

Edley N (2001) Analysing masculinity: Interpretative repertoires, ideological dilemmas and subject positions.

In Wetherell M, Taylor S, and Yates SJ (eds) Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. London: SAGE

Publications.Ekanem I (2007) Insider accounts: A qualitative research method for small forms. Journal of Small Business

and Enterprise Development14(1): 105117.

Emerson H (1919)Efficiency as a Basis for Operation and Wages. New York: Engineering Magazine Co.

Freel MS and Robson JA (2004) Small firm innovation, growth and performance: Evidence from Scotland

and Northern England.International Small Business Journal22: 561575.

Gergen KJ (1999)Invitation to Social Construction. London: SAGE Publications.

Ghobadian A, ORegan N (2006) The impact of ownership on small form behaviour and performance.

International Small Business Journal24: 555586.

Gibb A (2000) SME policy, academic research and the growth of ignorance, mythical concepts, myths,

assumptions, rituals and confusions.International Small Business Journal18(3): 1334.Gilbert N and Mulkay M (1984) Opening Pandoras Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists Discourse.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grant P and Perren L (2002) Small business and entrepreneurial research: Meta-theories, paradigms and

prejudices.International Small Business Journal20(2): 185210.

Harrison GC (1930) Standard Costing. New York: Ronald Press.

Heritage J (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.

Hjorth D and Steyaert C (2004) Narrative and Discursive Approaches in Entrepreneurship. Northampton,

MA: Elgar.

Johansson AW (2004) Narrating the entrepreneur.International Small Business Journal22: 273293.

Johnsen GJ and McMahon RGP (2005) Owner-manager gender, financial performance and businessgrowth amongst SMEs from Australias Business Longitude Survey. International Small Business

Journal23: 115142.

Kangasharja A (2000) Growth of the smallest: Determinants of small firm growth during strong macroeco-

nomic fluctuations.International Small Business Journal19: 2843.

Lang PW (1973) The commonsense of simple management accounting.Management Accounting83: 2123.

Lewis J and Toon K (1986) Accounting for Growth Small Firm Growth and the Accounting Profession.

London: The Small Business Research Trust.

MacNaughten P (1993) Discourses of nature: Argumentation and power. In Burman E, Parker I (eds)Discourse

Analytic Research: Repertoires and Readings of Text in Action. London: Routledge.

Martens ML, Jennings JE, and Jennings PD (2007) Do The stories they tell get them the money they need?The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource acquisition. Academy of Management Journal50(5):

11071132.

Metcalf B (1997) Craft and art, culture and biology. In: Dormer P (ed.) The Culture of Craft. Manchester:

Manchester University Press, 6782.

OFarrell PN and Hitchins DWN (1988) Alternative theories of small-firm growth: A critical review.

Environment and Planning20: 13651382.

Orser BJ, Hogarth-Scott S, and Riding AL (2000) Performance, firm size, and management problem solving.

Journal of Small Business Management38(4): 129146.

Parker I (1992)Discourse Dynamics: Critical Analysis for Social and Individual Psychology. London: Routledge.

Parry SN (2007) Accounting research in the micro-firm: Agendas, perspectives and methodologies. CyprusInternational Journal of Management12(1): 521.

Potter J, Wetherell M (1987)Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London:

SAGE Publications.



20/21


Rae D (2004) Practical theories from entrepreneurs stories: Discursive approaches to entrepreneurial learning.

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development11(2): 195202.

Rae D (2005) Entrepreneurial learning: A narrative-based conceptual model. Journal of Small Business and

Enterprise Development12(3): 323335.

Richbell SM, Watts HD, and Wardle P (2006) Owner-managers and business planning in the small firm.International Small Business Journal24: 496514.

Roper S and Scott JM (2009) Perceived financial barriers and the start-up decision. International Small

Business Journal27(2): 149171.

Scase R and Goffee R (1987) The Real World of the Business Owner, 2nd edn. London: Croom Helm.

Smith NR (1967) The Entrepreneur And His Firm: The Relationship Between Type Of Man And Type Of

Company. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Storey D, Keasey K, Watson R, et al. (1987) The Performance of Small Firms. London: Croom Helm.

Storey DJ (1994) Understanding the Small Business Sector. London: International Thomson Business Press.

Taylor FW (1903) Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Paper 1003 14: 1337456.

Tregear A (2005) Lifestyle, growth, or community involvement? The balance of goals of UK artisan foodproducers.Entrepreneurship Regional Development17: 115.

Van Stel A, Carree M (2004) Business ownership and sectoral growth: An empirical analysis of 21 OECD

countries.International Small Business Journal22: 389419.

Wiklund J, Davidsson P, and Delmar F (2003) What do they think and feel about growth? An expectancy-

value approach to small business managers attitude towards growth. Entrepreneurship: Theory and

Practice 27(3): 247271.

Willig C (1998) Constructions of sexual activity and their implications for sexual practice. Journal of Health

Psychology 3(3): 383392.

Willig C (2003) Discourse analysis. In: Smith JA (ed.) Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research

Methods. London: SAGE Publications.

Simon Parry is a Senior Lecturer in accounting and finance at the University of Cumbria. He is a Chartered

Accountant who has spent 25 years working with small businesses, including two of his own. He holds a BA

in philosophy from Reading University, an MBA from the University of Cumbria and a PhD in the role of

accounting in micro businesses from the University of Brighton. His main research interests focus on issues

of small firm development, including issues of accounting, management and social responsibility. He is a

member of the Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship.



21/21

Parry 397

Table A1. Summary of Businesses Sampled

Business/Owner-manager

Reference

Business Activity OM Gender Number of

Employees(IncludingOwner-manager)

Age of

Business(Years)

A Electrical repair engineer M 3 23B Carpenter M 2 14C Basket maker M 1 8D Farrier M 5 26E Musical instrument maker M 4 25F Aromatherapist F 2 5G Homoeopath F 1 9H Leather worker M 2 29

I Reflexologist F 2 8J Model maker M 1 7K Painter and decorator M 1 23L Joiner M 1 5M Furniture maker M 7 12N Foil printer M 8 24O Artist/Designer M 1 15P Falconer M 3 8Q Designer/printer M 2 19R Graphic designer M 1 11S Stationery printer M 4 12

T Stained glass maker M 1 20

Appendix

international small business journal 2010 parry 378 97

Documents