Advertisement

Exploring Complex Phenomena with Qualitative Research Methods: An Examination of Strategic Innovation Trajectories in Haute Cuisine

Chapter
Part of the FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship book series (FGFS)

Abstract

Whereas qualitative research methods have become increasingly popular in the broader social sciences, they remain less prominent in entrepreneurship, innovation, and technology research. In the face of increased complexity of empirical phenomena in these fields of research, we make the case for qualitative research methods as one valuable methodological option for researchers to gain a better understanding of complex phenomena. By unbundling the challenges that the empirical examination of complex phenomena imposes on researchers, we outline that qualitative research methods are particularly well-suited to cope with these challenges. To shed more light on how researchers may use qualitative data to draw theoretical inferences, we propose an analytical approach for the examination of complex phenomena that systematically discloses the inner logic of these phenomena in a step-wise process. In a case study of strategic innovation trajectories in haute cuisine restaurants, we illustrate how researchers may apply this analytical procedure ‘in practice.’ Our illustrative analysis indicates that, despite the severe challenges that researchers face when exploring complex phenomena, the proposed analytical procedure provides a practical and helpful guide for researchers to gain a better theoretical understanding of complex phenomena based on qualitative data.

Keywords

Analytical technique Complex phenomena Haute cuisine Methodological challenges Qualitative research 

References

  1. Alvarez, S., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2014). Habitat and habitus: Boxed-in versus box-breaking research. Organization Studies, 35(7), 967–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antonacopoulou, E., & Tsoukas, H. (2002). Time and reflexivity in organization studies: An introduction. Organization Studies, 23(6), 857–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black, L. J., Carlile, P. R., & Repenning, N. P. (2004). A dynamic theory of expertise and occupational boundaries in new technology implementation: Building on Barley’s study of CT scanning. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(4), 572–607.Google Scholar
  6. Bouty, I., & Gomez, M.-L. (2010). Dishing up individual and collective dimensions in organizational knowing. Management Learning, 41(5), 545–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouty, I., & Gomez, M.-L. (2013). Creativity in haute cuisine: Strategic knowledge and practice in gourmet kitchens. Journal of Culinary Science and Technology, 11(1), 80–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunsson, N. (1989). The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions, and actions in organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Burgelman, R. A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cunliffe, A. L. (2010). Retelling tales of the field: In search of organizational ethnography 20 years on. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 224–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Danneels, E. (2007). The process of technology competence leveraging. Strategic Management Journal, 28(5), 511–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Di Stefano, G., King, A. A., & Verona, G. (2014). Kitchen confidential? Norms for the use of transferred knowledge in gourmet cuisine. Strategic Management Journal, 35(11), 1645–1670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Di Stefano, G., King, A. A., & Verona, G. (2015). Sanctioning in the wild: Rational calculus and retributive instincts in gourmet cuisine. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 906–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Durand, R., Rao, H., & Monin, P. (2007). Code and conduct in French cuisine: Impact of code changes in external evaluations. Strategic Management Journal, 28(5), 455–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Easterby-Smith, M., Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. (2008). Working with pluralism: Determining quality in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theory from case-study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  17. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory-building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fauchart, E., & von Hippel, E. (2008). Norms-based intellectual property systems: The case of French chefs. Organization Science, 19(2), 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretative theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.Google Scholar
  22. Hendry, J., & Seidl, D. (2003). The structure and significance of strategic episodes: Social systems theory and the routine practices of strategic change. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hibbert, P., Sillince, J., Diefenbach, T., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2014). Relationally reflexive practice: A generative approach to theory development in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 17(3), 278–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoon, C. (2013). Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies: An approach to theory-building. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 522–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klag, M., & Langley, A. (2013). Approaching the conceptual leap in qualitative research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(2), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koch, J. (2008). Strategic paths and media management: A path dependency analysis of the German newspaper branch of high quality journalism. Schmalenbach Business Review, 60(1), 51–74.Google Scholar
  27. Koch, J. (2011). Inscribed strategies: Exploring the organizational nature of strategic lock-in. Organization Studies, 32(3), 337–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuckertz, A., Kothamäki, M., & Droege gen. Körber, C. (2010). The fast eat the slow – The impact of strategy and innovation timing on the success of technology-oriented ventures. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(1–2), 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lampel, J., Lant, T., & Shamsie, J. (2000). Balancing act: Learning from organizing practices in cultural industries. Organization Science, 11(3), 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.Google Scholar
  31. Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leitch, C. M., Hill, F. M., & Harrison, R. T. (2010). The philosophy and practice of interpretivist research in entrepreneurship: Quality, validation, and trust. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leitch, C. M., McMullan, C., & Harrison, R. T. (2013). The development of entrepreneurial leadership: The role of human, social and institutional capital. British Journal of Management, 24(3), 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levy, D. (1994). Chaos theory and strategy: Theory, application, and managerial implications. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. McKelvey, B. (1999). Avoiding complexity catastrophe in coevolutionary pockets: Strategies for rugged landscapes. Organization Science, 10(3), 294–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Savino, T. (2014). Search, recombination, and innovation: Lessons from haute cuisine. Long Range Planning, 47(4), 224–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mirabeau, L., & Maguire, S. (2014). From autonomous strategic behavior to emergent strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 35(8), 1202–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nadkarni, S., & Chen, J. (2014). Bridging yesterday, today, and tomorrow: CEO temporal focus, environmental dynamism, and rate of new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1810–1833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Neergard, H., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2008). Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  43. Ottenbacher, M., & Harrington, R. J. (2007a). The culinary innovation process. Journal of Culinary Science and Technology, 5(4), 9–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ottenbacher, M., & Harrington, R. J. (2007b). The innovation development process of Michelin-starred chefs. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(6), 444–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating the processes of social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Prasad, A., & Prasad, P. (2002). The coming of age of interpretive organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1), 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pratt, M. G. (2008). Fitting oval pegs into round holes: Tensions in evaluating and publishing qualitative research in top-tier North American journals. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 481–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rothmann, W., Wenzel, M., & Wagner, H.-T. (2014). Alternating forms of lock-in: Publishing digital news in the path of a free content culture. Proceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv, Israel.Google Scholar
  49. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.Google Scholar
  50. Schreyögg, G., & Kliesch-Eberl, M. (2007). How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual-process model of capability dynamization. Strategic Management Journal, 28(9), 913–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Senf, N., Koch, J., & Rothmann, W. (2014). Ingenuity as creative unfolding: Framing the frame in haute cuisine. In B. Honig, J. Lampel, & I. Drori (Eds.), Handbook of organizational and entrepreneurial ingenuity (pp. 182–202). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  52. Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of past, present, and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., & Ireland, R. D. (2010). Research methods in entrepreneurship: Opportunities and challenges. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sirén, C. A., Kothamäki, M., & Kuckertz, A. (2012). Exploration and exploitation strategies, profit performance, and the mediating role of strategic learning: Escaping the exploitation trap. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(1), 18–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stierand, M., Dörfler, V., & MacBryde, J. C. (2009). Innovation of extraordinary chefs: Development process or systemic phenomenon. Proceedings of British Academy of Management Conference, Brighton, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  57. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Svejenova, S., Planellas, M., & Vives, L. (2010). An individual business model in the making: A chef’s quest for creative freedom. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 408–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Teece, D. J. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1395–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vaara, E., & Durand, R. (2012). How to connect strategy research with broader issues that matter? Strategic Organization, 10(3), 248–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Van Maanen, J. (1979). The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 539–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Maanen, J. (1995). Style as theory. Organization Science, 6(1), 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van Maanen, J. (2015). The present of things past: Ethnography and career studies. Human Relations, 68(1), 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. von Foerster, H. (1984). Observing systems. Seaside, CA: Intersystems Publications.Google Scholar
  67. von Foerster, H. (1985). Sicht und Einsicht: Versuche zu einer operativen Erkenntnistheorie. Braunschweig, Germany: Vieweg & Sohn.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. von Foerster, H. (1991). Through the eyes of the other. In F. Steiner (Ed.), Research and reflectivity (pp. 63–75). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. von Foerster, H. (1993). Wissen und Gewissen: Versuch einer Brücke. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  70. von Foerster, H. (2003). Understanding understanding: Essays on cybernethics and cognition. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  72. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wenzel, M. (in press). Path dependence and the stabilization of strategic premises: How the funeral industry buries itself. Business Research. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40685-015-0021-4
  74. Wenzel, M., Rothmann, W., & Koch, J. (2014). Tight-loose coupling of bundled capabilities: The imbalanced utilization of emerging digital technologies in newspaper businesses. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  75. Wenzel, M., Wagner, D., Wagner, H.-T., & Koch, J. (2015). Digitization and path disruption: An examination in the funeral industry. Proceedings of the 23rd European Conference on Information Systems, Münster, Germany.Google Scholar
  76. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  77. Zolin, R., Kuckertz, A., & Kautonen, T. (2011). Human resource flexibility and entrepreneurial team formation. Journal of Business Research, 64(10), 1097–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European University ViadrinaFrankfurt (Oder)Germany

Personalised recommendations