Minutes

October 19-21, 2003

Des Moines, Iowa

Members present: Margaret Fitzgerald, Diane Masuo, Grace Fong, Yoon Lee, Glenn Muske, Cynthia Jasper, Ramona Heck, George Haynes, Mary Winter, Alma Owen, Sharon Danes, Linda Niehm (ISU), Kay Obendorf, Administrative Advisor. Ohio, Illinois, Arkansas were not able to be present.

The meeting began at noon on Sunday, October 19, 2003 with a welcome by Mary Winter and explanation of local arrangements.

Minutes

Minutes of the 2002 meeting (Madison, WI) were official 30 days after posting. The minutes were officially approved.

Agenda

Agenda approval moved by Margaret, seconded by Grace. Approved.

Administrative Advisor Report

Project continuation has been approved by NE Directors for one year, rather than the two years we requested. Therefore, a new project, in another region must be requested. Kay gave us information about the NC region and outlined several possibilities for us to consider. (Members: see handout for NC region portfolio)

Kay will be on sabbatical in San Diego during spring semester. She plans to continue reading her e-mail. Gret will still be in the office. We will not need an interim administrative advisor.

Financial Report.  

The ISU lab has been paid, and Warren Brown, has been paid for the first agreement plus $2,000 supplement, plus consultant (Mack Shelley) the remaining balance $4,500. (EC had authorized the payments to Warren Brown and Mack Shelley prior to this meeting.)

Miscellaneous Reports

Baruch next conference: Fall 2004 focus on women entrepreneurs. Fewer NE-167 members involved.

Tools monograph (from Baruch, Spring 2003 conference) should be printed and in the mail by the end of the year. Book or binder format to be determined.

Whether or not to do another tools monograph on the larger sample (N=673) (not just the home-based sample) was discussed. Baruch probably won’t have the money to publish it. Cost is not just printing, but also editing, formatting, pulling it together. Sharon has published her data already and raised questions about how she might publish it yet again. The model might be the Auburn book where many tables were sourced back to the original publication. Some chapters might be reprinted by permission. Rewrites could be changed (review of lit should be family business rather than home-based). The tool would be the same, the rest of the article would not (except possibly Sharon’s since she has already published the 673 data).  Could also focus on the instrument and then not include the review of literature.  Diane and Grace have their tool on the website at

·        Article: www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/ctahr2001/PIO/FreePubs/pdf/ET-5.pdf

·        Article: www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/ET-5.pdf

·        Tools: www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/sp-web/estimator

Grace reminded us that it costs money to put it into lay format and interactive. No decision was reached.

State Reports

The committee worked on completing an accomplishments grid for each objective. Accomplishments for the grid were defined as PUBLISHED work (i.e. page and volume numbers are known), journals and proceedings, books, book chapters, and any articles that fit the objectives.

What to report. Moved by Diane, seconded by Ramona and Sharon, to include in the NE-167 annual report to the directors, any related published works (between Oct 1, 2002 to Sept. 30, 2003) as long as they address the objectives of NE-167. The motion carried.

How much the states report to NE-167. Question: should “in press”, non-archival presentations, pipeline work, etc. be included?  Glenn moved that we report in our annual reports to NE-167, publications in progress, in press, things working on. Seconded by Sharon and Grace. The motion carried.

How much NE-167 reports in its annual progress report to the directors: accomplishments, outputs, milestones, impacts. Therefore, papers reported should be only what is DONE and the real importance is not on the publications.

Data Sharing

Minority data collected by Baruch. Greenpoint money plus new Kauffman grant of $150,000 for two waves of minority samples. Minority data set (African-American and white) based on a survey in Florida, by a private survey company. George is developing a code book for his use, data won’t have weights. Korean data not yet at this stage. Questionnaires are the same, but the proposal content comes from Lee and Rogoff.

Discussed process for sharing the data. Baruch has put in 300K, and knows that data, and has added variables, so its position is that NE -167 members must co-author with Baruch faculty. Alma raised the question about the conditions under which the agreement was first arranged between Baruch and NE-167. Alma gave Rogoff the proposal, bibliography, questionnaire, etc. so believes the intellectual capital is heavily NE-167 and that new conditions are therefore disappointing to her. Alma’s understanding is that NE-167 would have access to this data (minority data) in the same way as we (and Baruch) have access to NE-167. However, according to Ramona, Baruch has put in the money and has added some intellectual capital. (Which of course is the case for NE-167 data as well.) Mary proposed a letter to Baruch outlining our original understanding and our proposal for use of the data in light of that. Lee and Rogoff of Baruch were made members of the NE-167 committee with a letter of agreement and have the same right to our data. Baruch’s contribution was to get the money, ours was the intellectual capital and the money used for the NE-167 data set. The use of “Baruch” data would be under the same rules at that of NE-167. (Minnesota meeting minutes)

A committee will confirm procedures and policies and data sets included and draft a letter of clarification to Rogoff and Lee to restate the policies to be sure they understand what they committed themselves to. (This applies to the African-American and white data, but not the Korean data.) Mary, Diane, and Cindy volunteered to work on the letter before the end of this meeting. They will go back thru minutes, original letter, policies, etc.

The committee discussed a plan for conference presentations.

Use of the Website

Kay reminded the committee members to get abstracts (for those items that were published or in press, in HTML) up on the website. Abstracts should be included at the time state reports are submitted. Sharon and Margaret are submitting them with their annual reports. The rest of us need to do them too. Yoon will take a state report and forward the abstracts (only) to Gret. The committee agreed to send abstracts from 1997 onward to be posted on the website.

Declarations on the listserve need to be acted on before they can be posted. Declarations are not posted (on the website) for at least 30 days after they are posted to the listserve, to give time for comments and action. The chair and co-chair should notify the author and the administrative advisor that it is approved (and can therefore go on the website). Declarations with no objections for 30 days are automatically approved. So, the issue is who sends it to Gret and how does she know it is approved? It must be explicitly clear to Gret.

The current process is outlined in the Policy Handbook, Section 6a, p. 3. What is on the website needs to be reviewed; it apparently is not updated since May 12, 2000. Cindy and Yoon will work to get the current stuff up to Gret for posting.

Questionnaires are in hard copy and the 1997 data is also on 24 reels of microfilm. The 2000 data is not in hard copy and is only in an electronic file. Mary will forward the 2000 data to all in electronic form. For safety, Purdue will house the 1997 data hard copy (6 file drawers). Every state bought the earlier home-based data, so this is not an issue for storage.

2000 Data

The committee discussed use of the 2000 data set. The syntax is not the same as that used in 1997, so it is important to review the 2000 data before beginning over-time analyses.  Respondents in the 1997 data are not necessarily still there in 2000, or they may no longer be classified the same (e.g. continuing copreneurs, new copreneurs, existing businesses no longer with copreneurs, or defunct copreneur businesses). In addition, some syntax (IF statements) will have to be written to get the sub-samples; it isn’t in the data set in the same way as it was in the 1997 data. Committee members will need to collaborate and share what works to select particular sub-samples.  Data in the 2000 data set is identified by variable NAMES instead of questionnaire NUMBERS. The variable number is included in the SPSS-X extended variable name for the 2000 data.  What is difficult is not identification of the sub-sample, but in following it from 1997 to 2000.

Mack Shelley of Iowa State University presented Longitudinal Panel Data Analysis to assist us in analyzing our data longitudinally. (Members: see the PowerPoint handout for details.)

Project Objectives

Accomplishment of project objectives was reviewed based on what is published and what is in the pipeline.

Objective 1a.

Most of the published work has been done on 1a, but not OVERTIME. There is one paper forthcoming, the methods paper by Winter, Danes, et al. J of Bus Venturing coming out soon. Requires the use of both 1997 and 2000 data.

Objective 1b.

Little or no work done on 1b, esp. OVERTIME.

Objective 2.

Little work so far.

Objective 3.

Nothing published overtime as yet since we still need the economic vulnerability data to proceed.

What is in the pipeline?

Items done but not yet “out” are starred (*); the rest are ideas and/ or in progress.

Objective 1a.

*Mary and Sharon (1a) - Tracking f b and their owners over time, attrition demise.

Sharon (1a) - 2 declarations:

·        Predicting total tensions in 2000 using 1997 predictor variables;

·        Effect of tensions and business success/existence.

Sharon, Virginia, Karen, Trish?, Kay?) - Sustainability overtime of family and business.

Margaret & Glenn (1a) – Copreneurs.

*Yoon (1a) - Predictors of business success in 2000.

Holly and Alma and ? - Predictors of business attrition (static).

Holly and Alma and Yoon - Predictors of business success (over time).

Ramona, Sharon, Virginia, Karen D., Kay, Trish - Sustainability of FB over time.

Objective 1b.

Margaret and Angela (Margaret’s graduate student).

Objective 2.

George, Glenn, Margaret and Grace:

·        Economic vulnerability scale;

·        Subjectives vulnerability scale.

Margaret and Angela - Community variable and business success (2000).

Objective 3.

Ramona and Kay - Economic contributions of family businesses.

Bibliographic Compendium of NE-167 Publications

Holly reported on the bibliographic compendium of NE-167 output.

·        Up-to-date as of April, 2003. All citations are based on review of hard copy, and should now be correct. No changes were made that couldn’t be verified by hard copy.

·        There are missing items that were on previous state or committee reports that could not be verified, and therefore were not included for now. Additions can be made by sending a hard copy of the published work to Holly.

·        What next? Each state needs to get its 2002-2003 report on the listserv, new additions will be added based on the individual state reports, and then a new update will be sent out on the listserve.

Economic Vulnerability Scale

George reported on the status of the objective economic vulnerability scale. He provided a handout which described the process of establishing the scale. The work generated so far will be developed further into a paper within the next month. The current scale has 18 variables (of the original 21) plus 11 added.

The CD disks have the merged data set, plus the evalnew scale, plus the raw data from Norman Brown for every county for the United States (by FIPS codes), plus a code book.

Margaret reported on the subjective vulnerability data (already included in the data set).

·        Subjective perceptions HCG1a-h (household manager perceptions of quality of schools, etc). They hang together as a scale with reliability of .82. A paper will be developed.  A grad student is using the scale to predict family and business success.

·        The BZH1 series and BZH3 series are a little messier. BZH4 how involved in the community. They haven’t had to hang together in the past. Don’t necessarily factor together neatly, but will work it out and put it in the conceptual paper as well.

There was a presentation by Dr. Cornelia Butler Flora, Director of North Central Regional Center for Regional Development. Dr. Flora commented on the committee’s work, and will assist with getting the economic vulnerability work “out there”.

Elections

Election of new chair: Glenn and Diane’s terms run out as soon as they have finished the annual report. Nominations for chair: Cindy nominated Glenn and Diane to continue for an additional year. Holly seconded. The motion carried.

Proposal for NCT Status

The possibility of a future proposal for NCT committee status was discussed. Mary will check with the NCA-5 chairperson about a possible application to be submitted this fall for review by NCA-5 at their January meeting or whether it needs to be submitted after NE status has expired. New proposal ideas were generated. (Members can find the list in the working minutes.) Holly and Ramona were designated to write the proposal if it will be submitted for the January, 2004 meeting of NCA-5.

The next meeting is scheduled for May 22, 23, and 24, 2004 in Columbus, Ohio. The meeting will be devoted to completion of the objectives, and for generating ideas for a new proposal.

Adjourned at 11:35a.m. on Tuesday.

Respectfully submitted,

Holly Schrank

NE-167 Project Secretary