Research summary Although the study of entrepreneurs' stress has encompassed nearly 40 years, the literature to date is marked by ambiguity, conflicting results, and the absence of a cohesive theoretical framework with which to describe stress phenomena. In response, the current investigation extends the challenge hindrance stressor framework to the context of entrepreneurship, testing how challenge and hindrance stressors impact entrepreneurs' well‐being and performance. Our meta‐analytic results show that challenge stressors enhance entrepreneurs' performance, but hindrance stressors harm entrepreneurs' well‐being. Additionally, comparison of our meta‐analytic results with findings on nonentrepreneurs suggests that entrepreneurs experience better outcomes from challenge and hindrance stressors than do nonentrepreneurs. Our findings have important implications for the utility of measuring and categorizing specific stressors and the value of individual‐level characteristics in coping with stressors. Managerial summary Entrepreneurs face many stressors as they start and run their ventures. However, prior research provides conflicting evidence regarding the impact of stressors on entrepreneurs and on the performance of their ventures. To address this conflicting evidence, we theorize that entrepreneurs' stressors can be categorized as either challenges (i.e., those that promote growth or mastery) or hindrances (i.e., those that promote loss or prevent mastery) and that each category of stressor differentially influences entrepreneurs' well‐being and venture performance. Using meta‐analysis, we found that challenge stressors increase performance whereas hindrance stressors had no significant effects on performance. Further, challenge stressors had no significant effects on well‐being, whereas hindrance stressors negatively affected well‐being. Finally, we identify important differences in these relationships between entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs.

Many scholars have called for qualitative research to demonstrate transparency and trustworthiness in the data analysis process. Yet these processes, particularly within inductive research, often remain shrouded in mystery. We suggest that computer-aided/assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) can support qualitative researchers in their efforts to present their analysis and findings in a transparent way, thus enhancing trustworthiness. To this end, we propose, describe, and illustrate working examples of six CAQDAS building blocks, three combined CAQDAS techniques, and two coder consistency checks. We argue that these techniques give researchers the language to write about their methods and findings in a transparent manner and that their appropriate use enhances a research project’s trustworthiness. Specific CAQDAS techniques are rarely discussed across an array of inductive research processes. Thus, we see this article as the beginning of a conversation about the utility of CAQDAS to support inductive qualitative research.

No abstract

Well-accepted methodological practices require thoughtful and appropriate use to avoid becoming mindlessly applied and distorted. We review how ideas from Langley’s (1999) process data analysis article have been used in practice. By closely analyzing 176 empirical articles in management and organization journals from 1999 to 2019, we highlight how Langley’s ideas have been applied in exemplary ways and adapted through bricolage (a central concept in qualitative methods). In many instances, we found that Langley’s ideas have been given a cursory nod or have even been distorted (what we label as considerations); thus, we recommend how to avoid replicating these applications. We discuss process data analysis tools from Langley’s article that have been underused (labeled overlooked) but that may be valuable in future process studies. Through our deep reading and review, we highlight how using Langley’s ideas can enhance the transparency and trustworthiness of a qualitative process study and mitigate her ideas’ movement toward a mindless template application.

No abstract