7.3 HONEY’S CONTENT ANALYSIS

К оглавлению
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 

We seem to have solved the problem outlined at the start of this chapter: how

to say something about the different meanings being expressed in a set of

grids, making general statements about the sample as a whole, while reflecting

the particular meanings being offered by individual interviewees as they

express their personal and, at times, idiosyncratic knowledge.

But we’ve done so at a cost. We haven’t been able to use any of the ratings of

elements on constructs available in the original grids. Somewhere in the whole

set, we’ve retained each person’s constructs; but we’ve lost what each person

was telling us about the topic by means of those personal constructs. This is

the price we’ve paid for starting with individuals’ constructs, rather than

using a standard set of constructs supplied to all the interviewees on which

Table 7.7 Categories summarising factors assessed in venture

capital decision-making

Constructs No.

Management

Personal traits of the proposer

Experience of the proposer

Management team characteristics 22

Continuity of the company/market

Unique opportunity

Product-market uniqueness 9

Appropriate return

Funding base and risk 5

Other

The proposal itself

Use of technology 9

Market location

Total 45

Source: Reproduced by permission Hisrich & Jankowicz (1990).

ratings could be taken, totalled, averaged, and so on. We’ve lost a considerable

amount of the information available in each grid.