Anita Ustrup Lise Refslund
Cand. Soc. Management of Creative Business Processes (CBP
Counsellor : Eva Boxenbaum Institute: IOA October 3, 2008 Number of strokes (with spaces and models): 273.979
= 120,43 pages
InWear’s Quest for Legitimacy
in the Danish Fashion Field
This thesis has been constructed on the basis of finding legitimisation processes in relation to InWear’s agency in the Danish fashion industry. The case of InWear was found particularly
interesting, as the company has had a long-standing and changeable existence in Danish fashion. In 2008, yet another attempt to reposition InWear was initiated, which at this point has not reached the desired outcome.
Institutional theory was employed in order to investigate patterns of events within the Danish fashion industry and InWear. In order to determine field dynamics in the Danish fashion industry, the analysis of the field is divided into the three periods. The process of legitimisation was sought through field construction of classification hierarchies, which stem from opposing logics. From this, a classification of agents in the field and in relation to various positions in the field was found. It was established that legitimacy can be gained both in relation to a central position through conformity to popular business practices and in a peripheral position through innovative design. It was found that the logics art and commerce were the principles that pattern the practices in the fashion field in Denmark. It was found that the manner in which legitimacy is gained is context specific. In the first period of analysis, it was establish that InWear gained legitimate by employing outsourcing practices in combination with a design focus. In the second period, InWear attained legitimacy by conforming to the following practices: conducting a long standing campaign, increased level of outsourcing and higher formalisation in organising outsourcing. InWear non-actions in the third period in terms of failure to conform to artistic pressures lead them to reposition the brand. Thus, InWear tries to conform by adopting a higher design focus. This conformity was not fully recognised and therefore, InWear did not gain the desired level of legitimacy needed. For InWear to be successful in their repositioning, they need obtain a higher level of legitimacy and construct optimal distinctiveness, the following was recommended:
Change in structure at IC Companys by moving InWear into the ‘new brands’ category
Find optimal distinctiveness in the field through conformity and differentiation
Optimise communications in terms of articles in trade magazines, direct mail campaigns and storytelling
Conduct a fashion show
Chapter 1 – Introduction...3
Chapter 2 – Theory ...7
2.1 Field... 8
2.2 Logics...10
2.3 Legitimacy ...11
2.3.1 Cognitive Legitimacy ...15
2.3.2 Legitimisation Strategies...16
2.4 The Interrelation of Legitimacy, Reputation, and Status...18
2.5 Linking Legitimacy and Corporate Identity...19
2.6 Brands as institutions ...21
2.7 Discussion ... 22
Chapter 3 – Methodology ... 24
3.1 Stakeholders...24
3.2 Paradigm...24
3.3 Approach...26
3.4 Data...27
3.4.1 Data Collection...27
3.4.2 Data Sources ...28
3.4.3 Coding of Data ...28
3.5 Contribution ...29
3.6 Delimitation ...30
Chapter 4 – Fashion Field ... 32
4.1 Definition of Fashion...32
4.2 Gatekeepers in the Fashion Field...34
4.3 Fashion Systems...35
4.4 General Logics in the Fashion Industry...37
4.5 The Danish Fashion Field ...38
Chapter 5 – Results and Analysis ... 39
5.1 Analysis of Period 1 (1950-1987) ...40
5.1.1 Industry Period 1 ...41
5.1.2 InWear Period 1...47
5.1.3 Discussion of Period 1...51
5.1.3.1 Logics...51
5.1.3.2 The Danish Fashion System ...53
5.1.3.3 Field Positions ...54
5.2 Analysis of Period 2 (1987-2001) ...57
5.2.1. Industry Period 2 ...57
5.2.2 InWear Period 2...65
5.2.3 Discussion of Period 2...70
5.2.3.1.Logics ...70
5.2.3.2 The Danish Fashion System...72
5.2.3.3 Field Positions ...73
5.3 Analysis of Period 3 (2001-2008) ...77
5.3.1 Industry Period 3 ...77
5.3.2 InWear Period 3...89
5.3.3 Discussion for Period 3 ...97
5.3.3.1.Logics ...97
5.3.3.2 The Danish Fashion System...98
5.3.3.3 Field Positions ...99
5.4 Sub-Conclusion and Discussion...107
Chapter 6 – Recommendations ...110
Chapter 7 – Conclusion ...113
Chapter 8 – References ...117
Chapter 1 – Introduction
The fashion brand InWear has had a unsettled existence, since it entered the Danish fashion field in 1969. In 2008, the InWear brand is again repositioned, despite great efforts, this has not achieved the desired success. Since, the process of this thesis ended, another important event has once more affected the brand’s reality. The management at InWear has changed quite consistently over the years and the newly hired manager in 2006, was once more replaced in September 2008. This has left the future of the brand questionable again and in the hands of yet another internal structural change at IC Companys (www.textile.dk). The combination of the various complexities and issues raised above, provide an interesting area of research, particularly due to the connection to the creative industries. The creative industry in Denmark has within resent years gained more attention, primarily based on the growth within the industry. This has lead to a positive effect on Denmark’s image and more focus on innovative processes within the Danish business world. One of the biggest sectors, in the creative industries, is the Danish fashion industry which InWear is a part of. The industry has grown to become the 4th biggest exporter of goods and has received international recognition. In other words, it has embraced the business practices needed to become successful. The industry dynamics present a challenging existence for many fashion companies and it is important to try to map these, to provide guidance for InWear, in the shape of pursuing proper, appropriate and desirable actions, in their struggle for survival. Despite the growing literature within the creative industries, there appears to be no reports that are grounded in the elements of the thesis. The research area proved an interesting challenge, particularly in relation to the InWear brand and its long-standing presence in the field. The InWear brand proved to be an interesting case study, as it is one of the few brand in the Danish fashion industry that has made it through very difficult times and has endured both external and internal challenges and attained varying degrees of acceptance in the field. Furthermore, as the InWear brand is undergoing a repositioning, their long-standing field history and knowledge were found as fascinating and important to understand the actions needed for a successful repositioning.
This thesis seeks to understand the reasons behind the changeable life, the fashion brand InWear has led. In other words, it is found interesting to shed light on what has caused this unsettled existence and how. This is done, by incorporating central features and patterns of events in the Danish fashion industry and at InWear. Thus, what will be highlighted in this thesis
is a continual process, which we have sought to pause, in order to question ‘how’ and ‘what’ has affected InWear’s agency in the field. In order to answer this, the following research question is proposed:
‘How has InWear gained legitimacy within the Danish fashion industry and what effect has this had on the current repositioning of the InWear brand?’
To be reflective in terms of the patterns of InWear’s existence in the Danish fashion industry, it is important to find out where they have been to understand, where they are going and thus, we needed a theory that could guide us in doing this. In addition, to recognize what facilitates an acceptable move from one position to another, it is important to understand how a brand’s action are perceived in the industry. The beliefs that make this change possible are conditioned by field dynamics that exists between actors and institutions. Institutional theory makes it possible to understand these social processes in the industry. In addition, it plays with the notion of time and change in determining what is perceived as proper, desirable and appropriate. As the fashion industry is a part of the creative industry, it is not only influenced by the traditional economic way of thinking, but also an artistic influence, stemming from the creative nature of the products. This also affects the underlying principles that guide the industry’s norms and practices. To uncover what is perceived by the members in the Danish fashion industry, institutional theory is advantageously combined with a social constructivist approach. This approach lead to the collection of several important interviews to get an understanding of the beliefs and cognitions that guide the industry. This data plays a significant role in answering the research question. It provides the basis for uncovering what is perceived to be the underlying processes and practices companies need to be legitimate towards in the Danish fashion field. In the processing of the data, it was found that the following questions were highly influential on the outcome of the main research question. Thus, in order to answer the research question, the questions below have been raised:
1. How does the development of logics within the Danish fashion industry affected the process in gaining legitimacy in relation to InWear?
2. In what manner does the Danish fashion system affect the process of gaining legitimacy in the Danish fashion industry in relation to InWear?
3. Do field positions affect the process of gaining legitimacy within the Danish fashion industry in relation to InWear?
To answer the research question, the thesis has been structured as shown in the figure 1 below. The structure seeks to ease and clarify the reading process of the thesis and guide the reader through the use of theory and data in answering the research question.
As it appears from the model above, the thesis will first and foremost take its starting point in the theoretical frame. Chapter 2, will provide the reader with an initial understanding of the necessary criteria’s and theoretical concepts and facilitate an understanding of the underlying issues throughout the thesis. This choice has been made to support the research question and the supporting questions.
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Figure 1 Structure of the paper. Own contribution
Frame of Theory
Methodology
Discussion
Recommendation
Conclusion Period
1
Period 2
Fashion Field
Period
3
The following chapter will create the frame of reference in relation to the methodology employed in this thesis. Chapter 3, will create the foundation for understanding the remainder of the thesis, through reflections in relation to methodological procedures and techniques.
Chapter 4, concerns the contextual frame in which the theoretical field of the thesis is placed. In other words, an introduction to the fashion industry and the related practices and processes. This will provide the reader with a fundamental understanding of the concepts related to the industry that are used throughout the analysis.
This leads up to Chapter 5, where the qualitative results and secondary data are introduced and put into context. This enables the analysis, which has been divided into three historically founded analytical periods. The classifications of these periods are based on defining events in InWear’s history. In this chapter, theory is bridged with data and thus, provides the reader with the needed information for answering the research question.
Chapter 6 presents recommendations that are derived from the causes identified in the analysis in relation to InWear’s repositioning. The recommendations are based on a strategic foundation.
Lastly, Chapter 7 presents the final conclusive remarks, in relation to the research area and the proposed problem statement
Chapter 2 – Theory
In society today, a variety of institutions exist where some are more complex than others.
As this thesis concerns particularly the fashion industry, the choices made regarding institutional theory were based upon the manner in which to best understand the behaviour of organisations in the field. Institutional theory concerns a widely accepted theoretical attitude that stresses the concepts rational myth, isomorphism and legitimacy. Institutional theory lies within social theory and focuses on the way organisations interact and affect society. In institutional theory, the organisation is considered as an adaptive organism, which is constituted through pressures in the external environment and in relation to the commitment and traits of the organisational members (Scott, 1998)
As fashion is a behavioural phenomenon, which is created through a social process related to the common acceptance, at a particular time, it makes the comprehension of the industry difficult, without a solid theoretical foundation. The institutional perspective allows an investigation of how social behavioural processes can create pressures for organisations seeking to gain legitimacy in the fashion industry. The theoretical framework will provide a strong foundation for enlightening complex issues through social processes and thus, how institutions shape the behaviour of members. This provides a way of scrutinizing institutions away from the traditional views of economics. We believe that a marketing or communicative approach to the problem statement alone, would not have yielded the significance of the interplay between the actors in the industry to a satisfactory extend, which is needed to identify underlying complexities and issues. The theoretical choices, which have been made are based on the fashion industry’s classification as part of the creative industries and thus, not only includes a commercial focus but also an artistic.
The notions of isomorphism and identity are important components in understanding behavioural processes. This is key because organisations pursue legitimacy through commonalities with other players in the field and individualisation through uniqueness, which makes identity a strategic response to the isomorphic pressures (Standgaard & Dobbin, 2006).
Legitimacy is viewed in thesis as a combination of both a strategic and institutional approach. It is believed that a balance has to be stroke between conforming to the environment and acting individually in order to gain legitimacy. The combination of an institutional and strategic approach presents ways of gaining legitimacy and how to strategically act, if this is not achieved.
In the creative domain, the importance of the concept ‘optimal distinctiveness’ is very evident, as
“artists need both inclusion to obtain resources and differentiation to attain recognition for their talent” (Alvarez et al., 2005). In other words, it is imperative for organisation to conform to isomorphic pressures, but at the same time have a idiosyncratic brand identity to attain a central position in the field.
Cognitive legitimacy is found to be vital, as the Danish fashion industry is highly influenced by the taken-for-granted fashion system. As the fashion system is built on status ranking, the concept of status is important in this connection. Especially, within the area of fashion, it is argued that brands play a more interesting part compared to logo or marketing techniques. This is due to the conception of brands as institutions and as ongoing processes of negotiation and interaction between various economic actors (Power & Hauge, 2008). Thus, branding is imperative to include in the theoretical discussion, as it provides a mean of creating uniqueness in the fashion industry.
In order to recognise the processes, by which InWear can gain legitimacy in the Danish fashion industry, the general elements field, logic, legitimacy, status, reputation, identity and brands are accounted for in this theoretical framework. The constellation of the framework provides the means for a concise and nuanced analysis in relation to the problem statement.
2.1 Field
This section in the theoretical framework presents theories that will enable the construction of a field definition in connection to the Danish fashion industry. The main focus of the thesis is to analyses how legitimacy is gained, hence it is important to determine the extent of the field in which the organisation is seeking legitimacy. Suchman (1995) states: “The multifaceted character of legitimacy implies that it will operate differently in different contexts” (p. 573). Hence, legitimacy in not a consistent factor, as it changes along with the setting in which it resides. In order to define legitimacy in relation to the Danish fashion industry it is important to limit the field, which enables an identification of the actors in the field and the pressures they exhibit. In reviewing the literature on institutional and neo institutional theory, a variety of field definitions have emerged (see appendix 1 for field definitions). The array of theorist brought forward in the literature and their understanding of field constitute a continuum, which began three decades ago by focusing on the dynamics that guided homogeneity among organisations and progressed towards understanding the complexities that lead to heterogeneity, change and variation.
Fligstein’s (1997) notion of field has been chosen for this thesis, as he states:“It is the combination of preexisting rules, resources and the social skills of actor that work to produce fields in the first place, making them stable on a period to period basis and produce transformation” (p.20). This definition will enable the discussion and identification of processes and practices that are taken-for-granted in the fashion industry, which will guide the analysis in identifying the logics at play and how these affect the positions in the field. Hence, the social skills of the actors are introduced as they influence the field. Furthermore, Fligstein (1997) argues that a field is not consistent and changes from period to period and thus, plays with the notion of change, which corresponds with the analytical frame of the analysis that is divided based on transforming events.
The course of the analysis is characterised by the fashion industry’s emergence from the concept of clothing to fashion, which then grows into becoming a more mature field during its development of the analysis. An emerging field is characterised by disparate and somewhat unorganised set of factors and it also tend to lack a dominant player, which means that institutional entrepreneurs have to collaborate with different stakeholders that hold disparate positions regarding the evolution of the field. Therefore, legitimacy must be sought in a wider group of actors, as the constricted set of attributes one group holds is not enough to mobilise change (Maguire et al., 2001). On the other hand, when the field matures, it is characterised by a dominant actor, which tends to control economic and cultural capital. This actor usually has access to key resources, which are important to bring about change (Maguire et al., 2001). Maguire et al., (2001) in his work with HIV/Aids treatment advocacy in Canada found that to occupy central positions in an emerging field, legitimacy needs to be built from different areas of the field. In the same vein, Strang and Meyer (1994) find that research on diffusion and modernity is connected to social meaning and the manner, in which adoption is initiated by central actors, is based on how modernity is valued in the community. However, when modernity is less valued the “marginal men” become the early adopters. The degree of diffusion depends on the level of communication and shared cognition between socially engaged individuals (Meyer & Scott, 1994).
In relation to Bourdieu’s (1988) perception of field, Wedlin (2006) states that procedures creating/reforming positions and the relationship between these positions are important in understanding fields and field processes. This particularly holds true in the fashion industry, as it is organised by innovation and change and modernity plays a large part of the social meaning in the industry. Furthermore, within the creative industry, ‘maverick’ reside in the field periphery where they initiate and promote change. The different techniques and idea originating from the changes in the periphery might in time become institutionalized. This pertains more to creative styles than business practices (Alvarez et al., 2005). In the same vein, DiMaggio (1988) argues
that institutional entrepreneurship surfaced as an important concept and was almost equated with institutional change. The focus on institutional change emerged in the late 1990’s and centred around the construction and legitimisation of new practices. Thus, instead of being viewed as dependent variables, organisations were treated as independent variables in the process of institutional change. This means that the change process has gone from being viewed as initiated by an exogenous chock, where external factors crash into institutional arrangements, to endogenously (internally) driven change, (Leblebici et al., 1991). This also had an impact on the way the institutional field was seen; “Instead of institutional settings being seen as highly stable, permanent and characterized by conformity, they were now treated as contested terrains contoured by variation, struggles and relatively temporary truces” (Greenwood et al., 2008: 19)
The theoretical framework seeks to understand cognitive processes that guide field member’s behaviour, which is influenced in varying degrees in accordance, to which logics are dominant. Furthermore, this will provide the basis for analysing field dynamics, in terms of marginal and central players and their movements in the field and what factors contribute to their positions.
2.2 Logics
This part of the chapter entails a theoretical discussion of logics. The notion of logics is strongly linked to the notion of field for two reasons. Firstly, logics have an effect on how a field is defined and organisational practices and arrangements are organised (Wedlin, 2006). Secondly, the reason for uncovering the institutional logics in the field is to identify the elements that facilitates legitimacy.
The belief systems and related practices that are dominant in an organisational field are characterised as institutional logics (Scott, 2001). Individual and organisation cognitions serve as means for understanding the creations of logics within the field (Boxenbaum, 2004). Thus, an institutional perspective facilitates the use of cognitive processes and symbol systems. According to Weber (1968) “Action is viewed as social only to the extent that actors attach meaning to it. Environmental stimuli must be cognitively processed by actors- interpreted by individuals employing socially constructed symbol systems- before they can respond by taking actions” (Cited in Scott & Christensen, 1995, p. xiii). The belief system is not necessarily shared by everyone influenced by it. This means that individuals, who are socially skilled, are able to interpret the belief system to make informed decisions to act
either accordingly or against it (Fligstein, 1997). In other words, one either choose act according or against the norms in society.
Wedlin’s (2006) conception of field is related to the struggle for capital, and thus capital is perceived as a specification of institutional logics. In this sense: “Logics thus refer to larger systems of meaning, identified over time, in which the struggle for capital is a part” (Wedlin, 2006, p.22). In other words, the logics can seen as something that grows stronger over time and gains more importance. The theory of institutional isomorphism argues that two logics do not co-exist in a given field. According to the theory, one of the two (or more) institutional logics will become the dominant institution in the field, thus co-existence on an equal level can therefore only be temporary phenomenon (Sigurdardottir, 2005).
Sewell (1992) states that it is in fact “not the pattern of social practices that make up social systems, but the principles that pattern these practices” (Boxenbaum, 2004, p. 9). These organising principles equip field participants with guidelines, as to how they are to perform the work. The systematisation of field logics fluctuate along the dimensions; content, penetration, linkage, and exclusiveness (Scott, 2001). For further elaboration on the dimensions see appendix 2. Another aspect affecting field logic diversity can be dominant and strong field participants such as trade organisation or professional.
Institutional logics can also be viewed as causal relations, which are collectively perceived to be objectively true and rational (Boxenbaum, 2004). As stated above, legitimacy varies depending on the field it is sought in, likewise do institutional logics. However, institutional logics have been found to be tenacious to change over time. As logics rarely change over time, the predominant logics are then generally believed to be objective representations of reality by the participants in the field. Hence, the behaviour of the actors in the field is guided by the causal beliefs, which become taken-for-granted and are not directly scrutinised (Boxenbaum, 2004).
As the fashion industry is classified as a creative industry, which is highly influenced by both an artistic and commercial logic, this section is thus, imperative for mapping field dynamics and construction of legitimacy.
2.3 Legitimacy
The theoretical conception of legitimacy has proven to be an important component in analysing the Danish fashion industry. This is particularly central in terms of field positions and the manner of attaining certain positions in the field. To be legitimate the actions of the
organisation needs to be perceived as proper, desirable and appropriate in relation to the socially constructed system, which is influenced by field boundaries and overall logics.
Some businesses that seek endorsements by a wide set of groups or individuals may occasionally come across troublesome dilemmas, in their quest for recognition. If these businesses deliberately violate societal norms, the chances for being noticed are more apparent, and hence outsiders might not be willing to give support and endorsement (Elsbach & Sutton, 1992). Therefore, legitimacy is important for businesses to gain in order to survive and remain effective in the organisational field.
Social entities, structures, actions, and ideas are subjects of legitimisation, whose acceptability are being assessed. Internal and external audiences are those who observe organisations and legitimacy assessments, which can be termed sources of legitimacy. As there is not a fixed set of gatekeepers in any given socially constructed system, it is important to determine who, in the given setting, has collective authority over legitimacy (Greenwood, 2008).
During the development of the concept, it has been employed for various purposes such as the attainment of resources by conforming to institutionalised myths, relational effectiveness, legal mandates, collectively valued purposes, goals and means, just to name a few (Greenwood et al., 2008). In the research area on legitimacy, a divide in the theory has become more evident and two distinct groups of research have appeared, one which considers legitimacy as a strategic tool (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990; Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975; Pfeffer, 1981; Pfeffer & Salanick 1978) and another that views legitimacy as an institutional tradition (DiMaggio & Powell 1983; Meyer &
Rowen, 1991; Meyer & Scott, 1983a; Powell & DiMaggio, 1991; Zucker, 1981) (Suchman, 1995).
Suchman (1995) points out that the concept legitimacy is not often defined, but more typically only loosely described by scholars. As mentioned earlier, legitimacy varies from context to context and hence, the consideration for what legitimacy is sought for becomes central to the discussion. Several definitions of legitimacy have though been suggested varying in the degree of how specific they are defined. Meyer and Scott defined legitimacy in 1983, as “Organisational legitimacy refers to… the extent to which the array of established cultural accounts provide explanations for (an organization’s) existence” (p. 201). The ideology behind this definition stems from the view that organisations need to be understandable rather than being desirable to gain legitimacy. In another vein, Pfeffer and Salanick (1978) assert that “Legitimacy is known more readily when it is absent than when it is present. When activities of an organization are illegitimate, comments and attacks occur” (p. 194).
This definition entails what legitimacy is not, rather than what it is and portrays the negative aspects. Both of these definition includes crucial point in the portrayal of legitimacy, however, they do not represent a scope that is wide enough for this thesis. Instead, the definition put forth
by Suchman (1995) in his review on legitimacy provides a more broad-based scope, as he proposes that “Legitimacy is a generalised perception of assumptions that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (p. 574).
In other words, legitimacy is a process whereby actions attached to norms and values within the society can become legitimate or acceptable to a group or audience. Suchman’s definition entail an approach that allows the recognition of both conscious and unconscious actions that guide organisations in gaining legitimacy. This is also supported by Boxenbaum (2008) in her definition of legitimacy, which refers to the similarities between widely accepted norms and values that inform organisational activities. In this thesis, it is assumed that legitimacy is gained both consciously and unconsciously. As previously stated, legitimacy is a balance between the strategic and institutional approach, as it is believed that when actions are consciously performed, they allow strategic actions.
In order to determine, what legitimacy is sought for, the approach employed by Suchman (1995) will be incorporated to enlighten the different dimensions, as legitimacy might be sought for many different reasons. There are two different dimensions that needs to be regarded, when determining the context in which legitimacy is gained. These are 1) the distinction between pursuing continuity and pursuing credibility and 2) the distinction between seeking active support and seeking passive support (Suchman, 1995). Suchman (1995) argues that what the organisation is trying to be legitimate towards, depends on whether you are pursuing continuity or credibility.
The pursuit of continuity leads to persistence, because resources are most likely to be supplied to organisations that appear desirable, proper or appropriate. However, if organisations are pursuing credibility, then legitimacy entails credible collective accounts or rational explanations for the actions of the company. Suchman (1995) identifies another distinction for measuring the effectiveness of legitimisation efforts, this can be done in an active or passive manner. The manner depends on the degree of support the organisation needs, i.e. legitimisation might be quite low if the organisation wants to be out of the spotlight from a particular audience. Whereas, the support for legitimacy might be active, if the organisation seeks to prolong audience involvement (Suchman, 1995). In order to be effective, an organisation needs to consider on which levels of these dimensions they seek legitimacy, thus why and for what they want to gain legitimacy. It should however, be mentioned that an organisation’s action or idea cannot be either legitimate or illegitimate it varies in degree, such as highly legitimate, somewhat legitimate or slightly legitimate. As the field is not a stable concept and as legitimacy is gained within a particular field, legitimacy hereby fluctuates thereafter. This is supported by Boxenbaum (2008), as she identifies legitimacy as a ‘continuous construct’.
As mentioned earlier, two types of approaches to legitimacy exits, where one is strategic and the other institutional. The strategic legitimacy is characterised by Suchman as “…an operational resource (Suchman, 1988) that organizations extract – often competitively – from their cultural environments and that they employ in pursuit of their goals (Ashforth & Gibbs 1990; Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975) (p.576). Conversely, institutional researchers focus on legitimacy as constitutive beliefs. This means legitimacy is not something that can be drawn from the environment, but the organisation is affected in every aspect by the external institutions. Furthermore, it means that institutionalisation and legitimacy are intertwined. Oppositely, strategic legitimisation is considered to be calculated, purposive and frequently oppositional. Management control over the legitimatisation process differs, as strategic researchers assume a higher level of involvement, as opposed to institutionalists that downplay the manager-stakeholder conflict and managerial agency. The perspective of the two approaches differs, as strategic theorists view organisational managers as looking “out”, whereas institutional theorists see society looking “in” (Suchman, 1995). It is believed that some elements from both processes of legitimisation are in play. As suggested earlier, this dual existence of strategic and institutional approaches will be utilized throughout this thesis. The dual existence is underlined by Suchman, in stating that “Because real- world organizations face both strategic operational challenges and institutional constitutive pressures, it is important to incorporate this duality into a larger picture that highlights both the ways in which legitimacy acts like manipulable resource and the ways in which it acts like a taken for granted belief system” (1995, p. 577).
Suchman (1995) has outlined three broad types of legitimacy termed: pragmatic legitimacy, which constitutes legitimacy in relation to self-interested calculations of the immediate audiences.
Secondly, moral legitimacy which concentrates on “the right thing to do”, and lastly cognitive legitimacy that focuses on the taken-for-granted and comprehensibility. Even though, these dimensions are interconnected, it is necessary to separate them, in order to analyse them. Each category of legitimacy is guided by behavioural dynamics, as cognitive legitimacy rests on comprehensibility and taken-for-granted legitimacy, it corresponds to the objective and the assumption presented throughout the thesis. The reason for stating this, is because comprehensibility is viewed as a strategic tool, as it entails the deliberate arrangement of experience by participants, thus being a conscious action. Taken-for-granted legitimacy is classified as the most powerful and subtle source of legitimacy, if alternatives are not identifiable, they become impossible to challenge, and hence the element of control is not within reach.
Therefore, it can be classified as an unconscious event, which only occurs for the most fortunate managers (Suchman, 1995). Three types of legitimacy have been identified, however the following section will consider cognitive legitimacy. The reason for elaborating on the cognitive
legitimacy is that it enables an analysis of the shared beliefs that exist on an organisational level and field level.
2.3.1 Cognitive Legitimacy
This section elaborates further on the concept cognitive legitimacy, which is based on the taken-for-granted processes and practices that are socially constructed. This is done in order to find out how the underlying assumptions of the fashion system affects the process of gaining legitimacy, which is particularly important in relation to the Danish fashion industry.
Rao (1994) has identified two types of legitimacy, namely cognitive and socio-political legitimacy. Socio-political legitimacy entails approval from legal authorities, governmental bodies and other powerful organisations. On the other hand, cognitive legitimacy involves that organisational actions are matched to taken-for-granted beliefs, which are considered to be proper, desirable and appropriate within a socially constructed system build upon widely shared norms, beliefs and values (Zucker, 1986; Scott, 1987; Rao, 1994; Suchman, 1995; Boxenbaum, 2008). Cognitive legitimacy is not inherit in the actions preformed by the firm, they are acquired.
Thus, actions that are difficult for people to understand do not gain legitimacy and become diffused, unless they make sense. Generally, practices have to correspond to the taken-for- granted belief, in order to become legitimate and e.g. a foreign best practice is adopted in organisations and if it is in opposition with the taken-for-granted beliefs in the field, the likelihood for it being illegitimate increases.
Another aspect of cognitive legitimacy is the comprehensibility of the actions, which often depicts “the social world as a chaotic cognitive environment, in which participants must struggle to arrange their experiences into coherent, understandable accounts” (Suchman, 1995 p. 582). In terms of the Danish fashion industry, cognitive legitimacy is viewed in relation to the taken-for-granted beliefs indentified throughout the analysis and thus, the underlying system of meaning and the fashion system. As legitimacy has been outlined above, the following will discuss the strategies that are related to cognitive legitimacy, in order to assist the further development of the repositioning process.
2.3.2 Legitimisation Strategies
The theories and research outlined so far concern the legitimisation process and define and explain legitimacy in organisational environments and their influence on organisational conformity to the environment. The following will address the strategic behaviour that organisations can employ, as direct responses to the legitimisation processes that affects them (Oliver, 1991).
Suchman (1995) argues that no managers can completely ignore the belief systems that make the organisation possible and certainly it is not possible for an organisation to fully satisfy all audiences. However, the initiatives of the management can prove to make a considerable difference, in relation to the activities performed by the organisation, in order for them to be proper, desirable and appropriate. Communication is one of the main factors in legitimacy management, as this provides the organisation with a means of displaying non-verbal behaviour and actions connoted with meaning. Suchman (1995) acknowledges that all three forms of legitimacy are not put into action simultaneously, organisations do however, tend to seek more than one type of legitimacy. Nevertheless, it has to be considered that the legitimisation strategies function in terms of different logics.
Suchman (1995) expands on the ideas put forth by Oliver (1991) and provides a setting by which the responses are directed. Furthermore, he directs the strategic responses in terms of how to gain, maintain and repair legitimacy and offers a selection of strategies to react to, on each of the levels: pragmatic, moral and cognitive (See Appendix 55 for figure).
In accordance with the research area of this thesis, it has been found that based on the case study of InWear and the repositioning of their identity that “gaining” legitimacy is the chosen area of research. The following will outline the strategies that are under the category ‘gaining legitimacy’, which are based on a cognitive approach.
2.3.2.1 Gaining Legitimacy
Suchman outlines that “If organizations gain pragmatic legitimacy by conforming to instrumental demands and moral legitimacy by conforming to altruistic ideals, they gain cognitive legitimacy primarily by conforming to established models or standards” (1995, p 589). In other words, it is necessary for a company employ models and standards that are perceived as proper in society in order to gain
cognitive legitimacy. Generally, within the category of gaining legitimacy the strategies fall into three groups: efforts to conform, efforts to select, and efforts to manipulate.
Conform to Environments
In relation to this, institutional researchers argue that comprehensibility and taken-for- grantedness is frequently perused through mimetic isomorphism, when environments are unstable. This is done by mimicking the most salient and safe organisations in the environment.
Another strategy for gaining cognitive legitimacy is through formalization, where informal procedures are codified. Lastly, in this connection professionalization is pursued by linking organisational activities to definitions of competence and authority in the external environment (Suchman, 1995).
Select among environments
If an organisation does not believe that it can conform to the environment, managers can attempt to move to a friendlier field, where their activities can appear more desirable, proper and appropriate. However, the move to another field might be complicated, as formal gatekeepers and labelling institutions may limit the access to desirable categories and definitions. Thus, the organisation has to obtain the proper certification to act in the field, which can be done by conforming to formal requirements. It is easier to penetrate sectors, which are not highly institutionalised (Suchman, 1995).
Manipulate Environments
Comprehensibility and taken-for-gratendness can be fostered merely by persisting, however, this strategy is conditioned by the collective nature of reproducible organisational action. This collective action consists of either popularization or standardization. Some of the tactics under popularization, are: storytelling, lobbying, advertising, event sponsorship, litigation, and scientific research (Hinings & Greenwood, 1988; Meyer, 1982; Nielsen & Rao, 1987, Suchman, 1995). In terms of standardization, the mere existence of a form often provides legitimacy, however, it appears challenging when competing for resources if organisations are not
alike. Suchman suggests, “Thus, organizations may enhance their taken-for-grantedness by remaking others in their own image, either through success or modelling, or through coercion and regulation” (1995, p. 593).
In another vein, it is proposed that in order to arrange the experiences in a legitimate manner, cultural models are available to provide credible explanations. To legitimise actions, the combination of actions with locale practices are broadly recognised, thus the leveraging of the unfamiliar with the familiar. Another means of gaining cognitive legitimacy is by applying a discursive strategy. However, as actions or ideas maybe superficially accepted, they may nevertheless be reluctant to integrate it as a deeply held conviction. Thus, it can be advantageous to combine discursive strategies with conformity to pre-existing beliefs and local practices.
The following theoretical discussion will focus on the interrelation between legitimacy, reputation and status, as both status and reputation are highly involved in the legitimisation process in the fashion industry. As brands are considered to be institutionalised, the manner in which they are perceived is affected by the brand identity and the interrelation between legitimacy, reputation and status.
2.4 The Interrelation of Legitimacy, Reputation, and Status
This section outlines the relationship between legitimacy, status and reputation, particularly status is important in relation to the fashion industry, as the fashion system is constructed on the basis of status ranking of social actors.
The expansion within the research on legitimacy has created overlaps with other manners of describing social evaluation of organisations. The most salient concepts have been status and reputation. Status is defined by Greenwood et al., (2008) as “ ‘a socially constructed, intersubjectively agreed-upon and accepted ordering or ranking’ of social actors (Washington & Zajac, 2005: 284), based on the esteem or defence that each actor can claim by virtue of the actor’s in a group or groups with distinctive practices, values, traits, capacities or inherent worth (cf., Benjamin & Podolny, 1999: Weber, 1946)” (p. 59).
Greenwood et al. (2008) states that reputation is “a generalized expectation about a firms future behaviour or performance based on collective perceptions (either direct or, more often, vicarious) of past behaviour or performance (cf., Ferguson, Deephouse, & Ferguson, 2000: Fombrun, 1996: Rindova et al., 2005) (p. 59-60).
The three concepts legitimacy, status and reputation are characterised by many similar traits, such as their focus on cultural factors in organisational life and all three suggest that organisations acquire resources by embracing and internalising prevailing social norms. Thus, some stakeholders will only engage in exchange of resources if organisations are legitimate and will not
collaborate with others. A strong reputation is generally of importance for stakeholders, when supporting an organisation within a legitimacy class and status group. The figure in appendix 56 presents the interrelation of legitimacy, reputation and status.
Even though, the three concepts have similar traits they stem from fundamentally different sources. As Greenwood et al. (2008) note “… legitimacy reflecting conformity to various social guidelines, while status reflects ascription and group mobility, and reputation reflect achievement and self-presentation” (p.
66). It should be mentioned that if legitimacy is the only factor existing, just the most mundane tasks can be achieved, however, combined with status and reputation the organisation can voice various claims more strongly (Greenwood et al., 2008). The paragraph above emphasises the importance of not employing legitimacy on its own, it has to be combined with other factors for evaluating the organisation. Combing legitimacy with identity enables a better manner for suggesting managerial and strategic approaches for organisation to be effective.
Struggle for status is highly influenced by the ranking systems within a field. Thus, the punish and rewards mechanism that exist within a field are important driving forces in creating certification, which is dependent upon the image control and reputation building of organisations (Wedlin, 2006)
In this thesis, all three concepts are important to the analysis of the Danish fashion industry. The relationship between the fashion industry and legitimacy and status has been outlined above. Reputation will be considered as being connected to branding and identity, as reputation dynamics enables organisations to promote uniqueness and furthermore, would-be exchange partners look towards reputation in order to map past organisational performance (Greenwood et al., 2008). The corporate identity is developed in order to distinguish one organisation from another, and to claim a distinct position in the field and thus, creating optimal distinctiveness. However, as mentioned earlier in the thesis, in order to gain legitimacy some degree of conformity to prevailing norms and believes is needed. Thus, the two concepts corporate identity and legitimacy seems to be at odds with each other. This dichotomy will be discussed in the following section.
2.5 Linking Legitimacy and Corporate Identity
The following theoretical discussion will illustrate the connectedness between the creation of identity through uniqueness and the formation of legitimacy through uniformity, in order to investigate field positions and the institutionalised manners in which they are constructed.
As suggested by Strandgaard and Dobbin (2006), these dual processes that constitute the organisation embrace both legitimacy and identity. In line with institutional theorists, Meyer and Rowen (1977) Selznick, (1949) and Zucker (1997), it is argued that institutionalised meaning and identity has become important dualities that constitute the organisation in discussing individual identity. Gioia (1998) states that “Identity is arguable more fundamental to the conception of humanity than any other notion” (p. 17). Furthermore, he states that the concept of identity is also central to the concept of the organisation, as it is one of the most interesting and complex human creations (Gioia, 1998). Organisations can be viewed as being comprised of many different identities, which based on specific contexts and audiences varies in appropriateness. This also holds true for individuals. It is less problematic for organisations as opposed to individuals to present a complex multifaceted identity without appearing fragmented or even schizophrenic (Gioia, 1998).
In addition, organisations are expected to portray different identities to different audiences (Gioia, 1998). Organisational identity presents ambiguous challenges, as loosely identified identities can accommodate many different presentation, actions and complex pursuits. This provides the organisation with the ability to change in a planned or unplanned manner without appearing as going against the foundational values of the organisation (Gioia, 1998).
Organisations create legitimacy through uniformity by pursuing isomorphism (Strandgaard
& Dobbin, 2006). Thus, in order gain legitimacy an organisation needs to conform to pressures in society, for instance by copying other successful businesses. Furthermore, they argued that the process of isomorphism is still at play today, because organisations previously were considered to be structured by their particular function in society or by national cultural tradition that have taken identical forms (Standgaard and Dobbin, 2006). Organisations apply institutionalised structures in order to reinforce their position and secure their survival. If the legitimised institutionalised structures are not applied, the organisation risks being regarded as negligent, irrational and unnecessary (Meyer & Rowen, 1991). However, organisations also form their corporate identity through a claim of uniqueness. This is also supported by Alvarez et al. (2005) in their article Shielding Idiosyncrasy from Isomorphic Pressures: towards optimal distinctiveness in European filmmaking where they use the term ‘optimal distinctiveness’, which is characterised as “ social identity is viewed as reconciliation of opposing needs for assimilation and differentiations from others” (Brewer, 1991 & Alvarez et al., 2005). The way in which organisations can claim uniqueness and distinguish themselves are highly institutionalised in terms of e.g. strategy, price, advertising, quantity and quality. This is underlined by Standgaard and Dobbin in that “The available roles are scripted not only at industry level but also at the economic-wide level – mass marketer (moderate price, high quantity), high end (high price, low quantity), discounter (low price, high quantity)” (2006, p. 902). They term this process
polymorphism. New comers to a market typically choose a position, which is not overcrowded in order to avoid competition and thus, create the unique identity in relation to other organisations.
In this connection, Røvik (1998) defines identity as a relational phenomenon, as comparison is a central process in the creation of identity.
According to Standgaard and Dobbin (2006) “An organization must make claims to being a recognisable member of a genus, and species, but it must also make claims to be a distinct member” (p. 904), thus striking the appropriate balance between the processes is key for survival in a given field. In a related vein, various researchers have considered the link between corporate identity and structure, Labianca et al.(2001) suggested this by arguing that emulation is not always a matter of finding the organisation, which is most structurally similar to ones own organisation. But instead identity related issues play a very important role in the decision of who the organisation is striving to be equal to, thus companies are comparing themselves against others. This can be done in two different ways, either where organisation are striving to be equal to a superior organisation (upward comparison), which are associated with greater strategic change. The other way is to strive to excel against an inferior organisation (downward comparison), which concerns greater perceived external threat (Labianca et al., 2001).
As mentioned earlier, the manner in which organisations can claim uniqueness, is done through institutionalised tools, which are also found in the process of branding. Branding is the process of strategically personifying products, but it also involves balancing economic values such as quality, utility, symbolic, and cultural worth. Hence, brands are more comprehensible for a institutional perspective (Power & Hauge, 2008). In order to address issues in the fashion industry, the section below will outline the specific dynamics that constitute the formation of brands as institutional systems. The various theoretical approaches presented will oblige the notion that brands acts as institutions. Therefore, when brands are viewed as institutional systems, it connects corporate identity and institutional theory and thus legitimacy, as brands can be understood as products and firm-centric actions. Hence, brands can be viewed as an ongoing negotiation process.
2.6 Brands as institutions
In order to create the intended image of the company, branding is important in order to create the value that people connect to a product, in other words how they think and feel about it (Power & Hauge, 2008). Power and Hauge (2008) define brands as “Brands are the
result of a branding process whereby one attempts to charge a product (or set of products) with ethereal qualities:
qualities that primarily function as marketing arguments” (p. 124). Through branding, the personification of products are strategically created by the means of history and personality. As firms are increasingly exporting their goods globally, the graphic extension has brought about a higher need for differentiation in terms of easily recognisable marks of identity and quality. Power and Hauge (2008) argue that the logic of branding can be understood as an institutional setting, and the market processes and underlying economic arrangements are affected by the structure lend to many industries. Additionally, “An institutional perspective means that we understand brands to be products, not just of firm-centric actions, but also as ongoing processes of negotiation and interaction between various economic actors” (Power & Hauge, 2008, p. 125). Hence, this means that brands and branding can not only be considered as a strategic tool for management, but influenced by a combination of strategic management and market pressures. Therefore, branding can be considered as both an institutional setting and as embedded in institutional processes. Power and Hauge (2008) propose that brands can function in several different ways, both at firm and sector levels, these can be seen in appendix 3.
As mentioned earlier, brands are viewed as institutions created through institutionalised processes and thus, often play a part in the institutionalised context were individuals and groups negotiate and construct practices, habits, routines, symbolic registers and also social identities. In this relation, it can be argued that “organizations respond and conform to widely accepted rules and expectations in order to seek legitimacy with important stakeholders and consumers (Meyer, 1992; Zucker, 1991)” (cited in Power & Hauge, 2008, p. 129). Based on this, it can be said that branding and legitimacy are interrelated and are advantageously combined when planning the repositioning of a given brand in a field.
2.7 Discussion
The theoretical framework employed, in this thesis, is based on institutional theory. This will allow an investigation of social processes within the Danish fashion industry and InWear.
The social processes are found to be important, because they have an effect on the current repositioning of InWear. The institutional school of thought proclaims that you have to know where you have been, in order to understand where you are going. Thus, a historical perspective on the social processes will provide an insight into the prevailing belief systems in the industry and at InWear. To address the situation evolving around the current repositioning, it is important
to determine the extent of the field in which the organisation is seeking legitimacy. Hence, legitimacy in not a consistent factor, as it changes along with the setting in which it is sought.
This makes it relevant to investigate where it all began and how it has evolved. This underlines the social process from which the industry’s and InWear’s social belief system constructed.
Furthermore, the theory enables an identification of the actors in the field, and the pressures they exhibit. These considerations made concerning the field were found to be depicted superiorly through Fligstein’s definition of field.
In order to analyse how legitimacy is gained, the notion of field needs to be defined. This will allow a process of identifying, which logics reside in a given field. Thus, the reason for uncovering institutional logic is to identify the elements that facilitate legitimacy in the Danish fashion industry. It is in this relation necessary to understand cognitive processes that guide field member’s behaviour, as they are influenced by the interplay between the logics.
Cognitive legitimacy was chosen, as it enables an analysis of the shared beliefs that exist on an organisational level and field level. Furthermore, it is believed that cognitive legitimacy will assist the investigation of the dichotomy created between the logics art and commerce and the underlying fashion system in the fashion industry.
In this thesis, legitimacy is viewed as a combination of both a strategic and institutional approach. As organisations often encounter both strategic operational challenges and institutional constitutive pressures, this duality is important to create a holistic frame of analysis.
It is believed that a balance has to be stroke between conforming to the environment and acting individually in order to gain legitimacy. The notions of status and reputation are as both highly involved in the legitimisation process in the fashion industry. As brands are considered to be institutionalised, the manner in which they are perceived is affected by the brands identity and the interrelation between legitimacy, reputation and status. In addition, status plays a significant role in relation to the fashion system as it is constructed based on a status ranking system. The theoretical framework constructed for this thesis will provide a means for both being reflective in relation to ‘what’ and ‘how’, and strategic recommendation in terms of the current repositioning of the InWear brand
Chapter 3 – Methodology
This chapter concerns the methodological choices made, which constitute the research design of the thesis. Our research design is constructed to illustrate the interplay between the research question and the research objective, and the research question and the data. This will allow a foundation for understanding the methodological choices made in the thesis and the chosen paradigm, which has guided us in making choices throughout the thesis. Hence, the starting point of this chapter will be the research question area, in which the problem statement and the stakeholders involved in this thesis will be elaborated. Following this, the choices made in terms of paradigm and approach will be outlined. This enables a frame of reference in terms of the perception of the research and the construction of theory within a specific field and provides a concrete manner for solving research problems (Sohlberg and Sohlberg, 2004). The approach outlines the processes in which the thesis has been created and the approach in employing theory and data. Furthermore, the choices of paradigm and approach will be considered, in terms of the data collected and the various data sources utilized in the thesis. The chapter will sketch out the structure of the paper and the theoretical framework to explore the research question. Lastly, contributions and delimitations are delineated.
3.1 Stakeholders
The persons, groups, organisations, or systems that can effect or have/hold a stake in the project can be referred to as stakeholders. In connection with the thesis five main stakeholders have been identified; Copenhagen Business School, InWear, IC Companys, the actors in the Danish fashion Industry, and the writers.
The problem dealt with in the thesis can be seen differently by the stakeholders, as they are considered to have varying degrees of involvement in the project. These can be found in appendix 4.
3.2 Paradigm
The purpose of this section is to establish a common frame of reference for the readers and the authors, from which the approach to the research question in the thesis should be
understood. Esterberg’s (2002) definition of paradigm reads as follows; “Paradigms are not provable….They are, essentially, matters of faith. But paradigms shape the methodological choices you make and the relationship you see between theory and data.” (pp. 9-10). Esterberg (2002) makes a clear definition of the processes, which is guided by the paradigm and focuses on the implications only on a scientific level. This section is build on what effect the paradigm has on the methodological choices, which influence the view and frame of reference the investigation will be based upon.
Based on the four theory of science investigation paradigms (see appendix 5), we have chosen a social constructivism view to investigate the research question area and hence, work from a relativistic ontology and subjective epistemological point of view. Within the social constructivist paradigm the emphasis is put on understanding the constructions by individuals and their interpretation of the social reality, hence, the production of the realities within the raised research question area (Esterberg, 2002). As it is difficult to measure the belief system of an industry, the social constructivism paradigm has been chosen, as it enables the conceptualisation of logics. The thesis investigates a case study within the Danish fashion industry and hence the creative industry, an industry that is influenced by underlying cognitions that affect the belief system. Particularly, in connection with the fashion industry social constructivism allows an understanding of the underlying fashion system, as it is build on status ranking because the notion of status is socially constructed among actors in the field. Overall, the thesis investigates InWear and the Danish fashion industry, which includes the society, institutions and organisations, but also individuals and groups. Our use of the paradigm can be seen in the collection of qualitative data, as four main interviews have been conducted to understand the construction of these individuals reality in relation to the research area.
Furthermore, this thesis seeks to reflect upon theory on legitimacy and identity. Berger (1966) in his book The Social Construction of Reality a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge combines amongst others institutionalisation, legitimisation, internalization and identity as fundamentals in the construction of social reality. Based on this point of view, it can be established that the thesis employs a combination of social science. We are aware that the social constructionist paradigm implies that actors construct the social world. This entails that we, as actors, subjectively interpret reality and thus, influence what we perceive. We know that objectivity is not an end in itself, because it is not achievable and therefore, we have sought instead to be conscious of our impact, by being as reflexive as possible (Turnbull, 2002). Thus, no one single truth is sought. Based on the subjective epistemology of the paradigm, it is recognised that objectivity between what is investigated and the investigators is impossible because the investigators interact and thereby influence the investigated. Hereby, the result will always represent a subjective product created
between investigators and the object of investigation and their respective relativistic take on reality. We recognise that the interpretation made in the thesis are based on what we think our research subjects are communicating, this means that we are not able to gain a complete insight into our research subject’s understanding of reality (cf. Esterberg, 2002). In order to follow the social constructivist paradigm, we need to apply an approach on how data collection is conducted, which falls in line with the chosen paradigm. In order to find out, which pragmatics this paradigm has had for our work see appendix 9.
3.3 Approach
We perceive the process, which creates the foundation for the thesis as just that - a process.
Thus, our methodological approach can best be described as abductive. Pierce (1958) states that the abductive approach entails “All the ideas of science come to it by way of abduction. Abduction consists in studying facts and devising a theory to explain them” (Cited in Frankfurt, 1958, p.593). Hence, as Pierce explains, we will view abduction as a means of clarifying and defining the nature of the problem, through exploratory data analysis. This approach allows us to observe phenomenon’s in the Danish fashion industry and InWear, make use of them, and check them against other data. We do not have to know everything about the industry and the company, as there may be more than one convincing pattern. Thus, instead we ‘abduct’ the ones we find most plausible. Examples of the utilisation of the abductive approach is apparent in the categorisation of the of two overcharging logics of ‘art’ and ‘commerce’ and the analytical periods (1,2,3) found through the exploratory data coding. Thus, enabling a delimitation of the plausible patterns in the data.
Through this process, our take on the subject matter has changed and we have found new theoretical approaches, which has helped us to better understand our empirical data. In this way to assist us in analysing and understanding the aspect related to the problem statement. The abductive approach is closely related to the ‘Grounded theory’ approach and the choices made in this thesis correspond with characteristic of both approaches (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). These choices in terms of approaches have been made to correspond with the process of creating the overall design. Our process began with a preconceived theory in mind, but we found that the approach did not fit with the nature of the data and thus, we employed the abductive and
‘Grounded theory’ approaches. This allowed the theory to emerge from the data and made it resemble the ‘reality’ to a larger extent, instead of letting our experiences and speculations create
