Volume 11
Seeding Event: Creating and Developing Spaces of Entrepreneurial Freedom...
Gaëtan Mourmant, IESEG School of Management Abstract This paper addresses the question of initiating, fostering and growing a vibrant economy by developing Spaces of Entrepreneurial Freedom (SoEF). Establishing and developing the SoEF is explained by a seeding event which is the core category of this grounded theory. In short, a seeding event leads to the patching of a potential, structural “hole”, which may prove valuable to an entrepreneurial network. Seeding events are started by an initiator who will recognize a network opportunity and exploit it. After event designing, the initiators implement the event through bold experimentation and using an adaptive structure. If the event is considered successful, the next stages are refining, growing, templating and finally replicating; these stages may occur one after the other or simultaneously. Through the development of SoEF, we suggest that entrepreneurs, governments, universities, large companies, and other players in the business world can improve the development of entrepreneurship at their respective levels. Introduction Creating, developing and promoting a vibrant entrepreneurial economy is a key challenge for any economy looking for value and wealth creation, in other words, for economic development and vitality. This challenge is even more important in the current economic crisis. This concern is present for various entities, not only for entrepreneurs or governments, but also for CEOs and managers of large companies who want to promote intrapreneurship (Pinchot, 1985) and innovation in their companies. We introduce the core category of seeding event to resolve the main concern of our interviewees: how to create, develop and promote spaces of entrepreneurial freedom and, ultimately, a vibrant economy. In short, a seeding event leads to the patching of a valuable structural hole (Burt, 2002, 2004; Walker, Kogut, & Shan, 1997) identified in an entrepreneurial network; such patching concurs to the creation and/or development of spaces of entrepreneurial freedom. Seeding events are started by initiators who recognize a network opportunity and exploit it. After event designing, the initiators start the implementation of the initial event through bold experimentation, using an adaptive structure. If the event is evaluated by the initiators and the participants as a success or potential success, the initiators embark in the next stages: refining, growing, templating, and finally replicating. These stages may not occur only one after the other, but also simultaneously and iteratively; for instance, replicating leads to growing. Methodology We follow a qualitative classic grounded theory methodology, (Glaser, 1978, 1998, 2011, 2012; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In particular, we iteratively use the following tools: open, selective and theoretical coding; memoing; memo sorting; constant comparison; writing up; and theoretical sampling in order to reach theoretical saturation. First, spaces of entrepreneurial freedom emerged from the analysis of the first set of interviews with Entrepreneurs, CIOs, and IT employees. The interviews were conducted in France, China (Shanghai), Canada and the United States. Each interview started with an open question related to the intensification of entrepreneurship (N=14). Second, we re-analyzed and selectively recoded previous interviews while conducting and analyzing additional interviews (N=10) around the concept of SoEF. In agreement with “All is data” and theoretical sampling, we also coded and analyzed the book “Startup Community” which analyzed the creation and development of startup communities in the city of Boulder (Feld, 2012). We then proceeded to perform memo sorting (over 60 memos) and writing up, which lead us to a temporary theoretical development around spaces of entrepreneurial freedom. While this development was interesting, the core category seeding event (we are indebted to the first reviewer...Editorial
Astrid Gynnild To provide new knowledge is a basic aim of academic research. This task seems to be so self-evident that underlying cognitive aspects of knowledge acquisition are often taken for granted. Nevertheless, in order to produce credible, relevant and unbiased research results, the greatest challenge of any researcher is probably that of handling one’s own preconceptions. When grounded theory was generated by Glaser and Strauss 45 years ago, they aimed to provide an inductive methodology that cut across preformed research investigations and the testing of irrelevant hypotheses with little grounding in empirical data. In grounded theory literature, getting open to what the data tells you and implicitly how to minimize personal and professional preconceptions, is a recurring topic. And yet we know from everyday life and from research in general how easy it is to slip into forming opinions beforehand without adequate evidence. In this issue, we are happy to publish the first chapter of Barney G. Glaser’s latest book, in which many aspects of preconceptions are discussed in detail. In his chapter, Dr. Glaser points out how the no preconception dictum in grounded theory applies to the general research problem and the specific participants’ problem. By stating that by staying open to the emergent, the researcher cannot preconceive what he or she will discover, he touches an apparent research paradox. Glaser’s theoretical discussion is based on data from a number of experienced grounded theorists and on data from his many years of discovering and developing grounded theories. The chapter and the succeeding book will fill a void in the research literature. Even though the quest for professional curiosity and openness is a prevalent aspect of any research approach, its cognitive and practical implications are rarely analyzed. In this issue, I am also happy to present two new grounded theories, in two different publishing formats. Anna Sandgren from Sweden has developed a full format substantive theory about deciphering unwritten rules. Her theory is based on a secondary analysis of data from three former studies in palliative care. The concept of deciphering unwritten rules explains how patients, relatives and nurses in palliative cancer care handle the uncertainties of how to act and behave in different situations. The theory clearly demonstrates the importance of uncovering and talking about unwritten rules, and the importance of knowledge and counseling for all involved. Gaetan Mormant’s theory within the field of management introduces a new format in the Grounded Theory Review, namely shorter conceptual discussions. In less than six pages, or approximately 3000 words, Mormant presents a rich grounded theory about seeding events as a resolution to the main concern of developing spaces of entrepreneurial freedom (SoEF). His paper addresses the question of initiating, fostering and growing vibrant economies by establishing and developing the SoEF. In the time to come, our goal is to present more theories in both the full format and the shorter format. Since grounded theories are conceptually written, the length of the theories can be scaled up and down as time and place allows. We believe that this new opportunity to present short form grounded theories, or parts thereof, will inspire more researchers to submit their work even if their theories are not fully developed. The shorter format helps in funneling down the essentials of a theory. In turn, this write-up practice might save both time and confusion, since the researcher will get valuable feedback by experienced reviewers during the theory generation process. The paper written by Kim Kwok and...Surviving Grounded Theory Research Method in an Academic World: Proposal Writing and Theoretical Frameworks...
Naomi Elliott, Trinity College Dublin Agnes Higgins, Trinity College Dublin Abstract Grounded theory research students are frequently faced with the challenge of writing a research proposal and using a theoretical framework as part of the academic requirements for a degree programme. Drawing from personal experiences of two PhD graduates who used classic grounded theory in two different universities, this paper highlights key lessons learnt which may help future students who are setting out to use grounded theory method. It identifies key discussion points that students may find useful when engaging with critical audiences, and defending their grounded theory thesis at final examination. Key discussion points included are: the difference between inductive and deductive inquiry; how grounded theory method of data gathering and analysis provide researchers with a viable means of generating new theory; the primacy of the questions used in data gathering and data analysis; and, the research-theory link as opposed to the theory-research link. Introduction The aim of this paper is to help grounded theory research students deal with challenges arising from doing grounded theory research within an academic context and meeting the requirements of their degree programmes. The status of grounded theory research method in academia is contested (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007); insofar as it is considered that some aspects of grounded theory method do not conform to traditional conventions of academic research. Although each grounded theory research project gives rise to a unique set of challenges, when working in an academic environment that is unfamiliar with grounded theory, there are common problems that many students and researchers experience. Two recurring problems experienced by numerous grounded theory students across Canada and Europe (Luckerhoff & Guillemette, 2011; Walls, Parahoo, & Fleming, 2010) relate to the initial literature review and use of a theoretical framework. For students, these are key issues, not only at the start of their research project, but at the end stage when defending their grounded theory thesis at final examination. Drawing from personal experiences of two PhD graduates who used classic grounded theory in two universities, one UK (Queen’s University, Belfast) and one Irish (Trinity College Dublin), this paper highlights key lessons learned that may help students who are setting out to use grounded theory method. Key discussion points are also identified that students may use when engaging with critical audiences when discussing grounded theory method with other researchers, writing up the thesis, defending at viva or doing conference presentations. Tensions between Grounded Theory and Traditional Research Approaches Since its introduction by Glaser and Strauss in 1967, grounded theory is increasingly being used as a research method in diverse areas. It provides a viable means for scholars and participants to generate a new and emic perspective, and to generate theory that is grounded in the realities of the participants’ daily life experiences. However, the hegemony of traditional research approach gives rise to difficulties for those researchers who wish to pursue an approach that is outside the traditional research conventions. Many of the tensions between grounded theory and traditional research stem from differences that are rooted in the differences between inductive and deductive enquiry. A key feature of grounded theory is it provides for inductive enquiry, a means of generating new theory and new understandings, and requires researchers to identify the research problem from the research participants’ perspectives. By contrast, traditional research provides for deductive enquiry, a means of proving or disproving existing theory and requires researchers to identify the research problem from the extant literature. ...Working Through Preconception: Moving from Forcing to Emergence
Kim Kwok, AUT University Antoinette McCallin, AUT University Geoff Dickson, AUT University Abstract Much has been written about grounded theory and the processes of theory generation. Less is written about managing the problem of preconception, which has the potential to undermine the openness and emergence that are fundamental to classic grounded theory. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the practical realities of managing preconception, and to draw attention to less well recognised factors that contribute to forcing. The topic interest, tactical innovation in rugby, is introduced. Researcher motivation and the management of preconception are discussed. The example used is the theory of developing, which explains how rugby coaches in New Zealand manage the problem of winning games. The research demonstrates how the novice grounded theory researcher who is prepared to follow the method and trust the process can produce a rigorous grounded theory that makes a meaningful contribution to rugby coaches, players and their administrators. Introduction Grounded theory research begins, as all research does, with a general area of interest (Glaser, 1978, 1998). Grounded theory is unique, however, in that the research problem is unknown at the beginning of a study and will be defined in the early interviews by participants rather than the researcher. Ideally, the researcher begins a study without any preconceptions. This means that there should not be any expectations about what might be happening in an area of interest. If the researcher is to be open to the problems and solutions that participants use to manage particular situations, he or she must put to one side personal and professional values, beliefs, knowledge, and experience (Holton, 2007). Grounded theory stands out from other methodologies, as there is an expectation that the researcher does not pre-empt participant understanding and assume that he or she knows what is going on in the topic area. It is this issue of managing preconception that makes the difference between forcing a theory in a particular direction, following existing knowledge, or explaining the hidden patterns of social behaviour (Glaser, 1992). This initial positioning challenges novice researchers, who may have been taught that typically, research begins with a review of the literature (McCallin, 2006). The traditional view of research design is that the research problem is defined from the literature (Robson, 2011). Robson also acknowledges that “in real world research literature provides a background resource rather than an essential starting point for research” (p. 50). However, literature is a resource that needs to be treated with caution in the current environment where researchers and participants work more closely together. Literature has much to offer those wanting to know more about the key concepts in an area. Whether concepts are relevant or meaningful for people managing problems in a particular situation is another matter altogether (Glaser, 1978, 1998). While a novice researcher commonly, and sometimes necessarily, begins a study with preconceptions, if he or she follows the grounded theory method, forcing gives way to emergence. The real challenge for the researcher is to be prepared to let go of preconceptions: As a grounded theory grows it undoes forcing as moot….pet concepts, pet theory bits, and pet preconceptions just disappear as discovery enhances the drive to keep moving with what is going on. Grounded theory has such impactful conceptual power, that forcing becomes “silly” and preconceptions are given up without notice (Glaser, 1998, p. 99). Moving beyond preconception, however, is not as easy as it sounds. Few researchers enter the field as vague...No Preconception: The Dictum
Barney Glaser, PhD, Hon. PhD I would like to begin and introduce this book on “no preconceptions” when doing grounded theory (GT) with a short trip of 45 years into the past by quoting the reasoning source of the no preconceptions dictum as first laid out in 1967 in the Discovery of Grounded Theory, by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. The sources where (1) the zeal for verification of conjectured hypotheses research and (2) to explain the findings with theoretical capitalists demanding and commanding conjecture seldom if ever tapping the reality of what was really going on. Grounding induced theory in research data was what was needed. Our first paragraph in Discovery reads as follows: “Most writing on sociological method has been concerned with how accurate facts can be obtained and how theory can thereby be more rigorously tested. In this book we address ourselves to the equally important enterprise of how the discovery of theory from data – systematically obtained and analyzed in social research – can be furthered, We believe that the discovery of theory from data – which we shall call grounded theory – is a major task confronting sociology today, because as we shall try to show, such a theory “fits” empirical situations and is relevant with understanding to sociologist and layman alike. Most important, it (GT) works by providing us with relevant predictions, explanations, interpretations and applications. To achieve this goal we generated a methodology which we called grounded theory methodology which had, and still does have, many rigorous steps to achieve grounding. One aspect of GT was to stop hypothesis testing that was irrelevant and drew on conjectural theory explanations, by grand theorists – theoretical capitalists. These irrelevant preconceived tests yielded the dictum that No preconceptions were allowed. This dictum applies to the general research problem, the specific participant problem, what pre research conjectured theoretical categories and their connections would apply, and thus will provide the preformed explanations and in what theoretical shape. And preconceptions get even more subtle based on theoretical perspective assumptions and remodeled GT methods. I will lay out many of these utilities in this book. I saw many a research fail in those days because preconceived research and theory yielded no theory and findings of fit and relevance and workability. As the reader knows, this position taken 45 years ago has flowered and boomed. Grounded theory today is used all over the world, principally for PhD theses and then in subsequent research of those GT PhD’s. We were sufficiently correct to open up a whole new world of theory generation no matter what the latent theoretical perspective of GT researchers have as academics in health, management, social work, political science, business and sociology. No preconceived research works as GT. But the world wide use of GT or supposed GT versions has increased our knowledge of the subtlties of requiring no preconception or giving the arguments for preconceiving research aspects in some ways. I hope to detail many of these subtleties in this book so the reader can be aware of what it means to suspend preconceptions in service of emergent generating of theory. As we said in Discovery of GT, part of the trend (in 1960’s) toward emphasizing verification was the assumption by many sociologists that our “great men” and theorist forefathers (Weber, Durkheim, Simmel, Marx, Veblen, Cooley, Mead, Park etc) had generated a sufficient number of outstanding theories on enough areas of social life to last for a long...