MASTER THESIS
COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL
Institutional Innovation
A constructivist study of how actors construe innovation at Icopal
Julie Anne Andersen
M.Sc. in Strategy, Organization & Leadership Copenhagen Business School, 2013
Supervisor: Eva Boxenbaum, IOA Hand in date: 14.10.2013
Number of STUs: 166.575
2 Abstract
The thesis analyses how actors perceive the enabling and constraining conditions for innovation as they engage in innovation that may disrupt the highly institutionalized construction sector. The study offers a critical analysis of how innovation happens, according to the partially institutionally embedded actors involved, who are perceived as constructers of the innovation path within Icopal. A social constructivist approach to Grounded Theory serves to analyze eight semi- structured interviews with employees within Management, Sales and Development departments of Icopal. The findings identify four enabling conditions for innovation, which are Competence and Knowledge, Network Innovation, Culture and Motivation and Organizational Structures. Three constraining conditions are identified by Icopal as Supertanker, Dysfunctional Periodic Procedures and Resource Allocations. The discussion offers a reflection on the potential implications of my findings, including how actors can be seen as disrupting institutions as they engage in innovation, seen from an institutional perspective. I finally discuss the concept of the paradox of embedded agency. Here I raise the question of whether it is reasonable to assume that actors are able to disrupt institutions when actors’ beliefs and actions are significantly determined by the same institutional environment that they wish to change.
3
Indhold
Abstract ... 1
Introduction ... 6
Structure of the thesis ...11
Theory ...12
Innovation ...12
Old Institutional Theory ...15
New Institutional Theory ...16
Case description...22
Company Description ...22
Organizational Field Description ...24
Methodology ...25
From idea to birth ...25
The Social Constructivist Paradigm ...27
Grounded Theory ...29
The Social Constructivist Approach to Grounded Theory ...30
Case Study as Research Design ...32
Data ...33
Data Collection ...33
Personal Interviews ...33
Observations ...35
Documents ...36
Coding of Data ...36
Delimitation ...38
Findings & Analysis ...42
Enabling Conditions for Innovation ...44
Competence and Knowledge...44
Network Innovation ...45
Culture and Motivation ...47
Organizational Structures ...49
Reflections on the Enabling Conditions for Innovation ...50
Constraining Conditions for Innovation ...52
4
Icopal as Supertanker ...52
Dysfunctional Periodic Procedures ...54
Resource allocations ...55
Reflections on the Constraining Conditions for Innovation ...57
Sub- Conclusion ...59
Discussion ...60
Summary of Findings ...60
Implications of Findings ...61
The Paradox of Embedded Agency ...65
Contribution...65
Conclusion ...67
References ...69
Primary Sources ...69
Secondary Sources ...69
Literature ...69
Internal material ...75
Reports ...75
List of Appendices ...76
14: Overview of coding process and categories ...76
Appendix 01 ...77
Appendix 02 ...78
Appendix 03 ...79
Appendix 04 ...80
Appendix 05: Page 1/3 ...81
Appendix 06 ...84
Appendix 07 ...85
Appendix 08 ...86
Appendix 09: 1/3 Euroconstruct macro economic outlook analysis ...87
Appendix 10 ...90
Appendix 11 ...91
Appendix 12 ...92
Appendix 13 ...93
Appendix 14 ...94
5
Appendix 15 ...95 Appendix 16 ...98 Appendix 17 ...99
6 Introduction
“[I]nstitutional work captures the deliberate actions that produce an institutional effect, regardless of whether this effect is anticipated and desired at the outset.” (Boxenbaum, E. & Strandgaard, J.,
2009: 179)
Icopal, the recognised leading supplier of building protection products in Denmark, has within the last four years been rewarded with several prestigious prizes for its incremental product innovation efforts. By receiving these prizes, Icopal can be considered a frontrunner on innovation within its field. But how does Icopal manage to innovate within a highly institutionalized field like the construction industry?
This paradoxical observation has stimulated the curiosity towards finding out how the employees within Icopal are experiencing and understanding their innovation abilities. This thesis offers a critical analysis of how innovation happens, according to the partially institutionally embedded actors involved, who are perceived as constructers of the innovation path within Icopal.
Therefore, this thesis is not a study of effects, but a study of understanding and interpretation.
In general, the construction sector is known to be quite conservative, established on traditions and highly institutionalized. It has a tendency to lag behind other sectors of the economy when it comes to innovation. The innovation is not radical; it is rather incremental product innovation, where refinements and extensions of existing products are developed, possibly with inspiration from innovations that originates elsewhere (Vermeulen, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2007). However, the construction sector faces a new challenge: the need for environmentally friendly construction solutions. With the release of the European directive in 2002 (Kauschen, 2012), it was decided that building-related energy consumption should be reduced drastically in all countries within the European Union by 2020 (ibid). In the report from 2010 “Danske bygningers energibehov i 2050” initiated by the Danish Energy Agency (Energistyrelsen), the demand for future energy improving construction solutions is emphasized (Kragh & Wittchen, 2010).
This demand represents a remarkable break in this conservative industry, because it requires new technology and innovation (Kragh & Wittchen, 2010). I am fascinated by how these new demands are influencing organizations within this field, and how these will stimulate a field with firmly consolidated institutional rules and structures to develop a more sustainable future of construction.
7
Through this thesis I look at the case company Icopal, and more specifically at the Danish Strategic Business Unit (SBU) of the Icopal Group and the actors involved in the innovation within this unit. The idiom ‘Icopal’ will be used to refer to the Danish SBU of the Icopal Group.
While conducting research on Icopal, I discovered that they seem to make an effort to position themselves as an innovative company, even though they are part of a conservative industry:
“Innovation is the basis for safeguarding Icopal’s leading competitive position” and the “Icopal DNA” consists of creating growth “(...) through focused product and business development with the delivery of new, innovative and high performing products to the market.” (Annual Report, 2012). It is clear that the organization is subject to institutional pressures. Therefore it is interesting to investigate how they continually manage to develop and innovate.
The pivotal point of this thesis is the actors’ perception of what enables and constrains innovation within an environment that demands increasing focus on sustainable innovation while still being locked up in a highly institutionalized industry. Based on this topic, the thesis will take its outset in the following research question:
How do actors perceive the enabling and constraining conditions for innovation as they engage in innovation that may disrupt the highly institutionalized construction sector?
The research question is based on carefully chosen key words and phrases. I will briefly describe my thoughts behind these choices. The word condition is used because it refers to the Innovation Theory by Angles (1989) and Kanters (1988) about which institutional arrangements are enabling or constraining conditions for innovation. Furthermore, Lawrence and Suddaby use the word, not to describe conditions that produce innovation, but to describe “the conditions that produce institutional entrepreneurs.” (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2005:220). In so doing, Lawrence and Suddaby emphasize actors’ understandings of which conditions enable or constrain innovation and also the conditions that shape or produce their own roles as institutional actors. Referring to the quote in the beginning of this chapter actors operate through “(...) deliberate actions that produce an institutional effect, regardless of whether this effect is anticipated and desired at the outset.”
(Boxenbaum & Standgaard 2009: 179). The word actor stems from both old and new institutional
8
theory and has been chosen because it implicitly acknowledges the employees’ agency. It is especially emphasized in the new institutional theory perspective, such as institutional work, which emphasizes how actors work to influence their institutional context. However, I have also chosen this word because of its ambiguity; actors are not free, but partially embedded in their institutional context. This dimension relates to the paradox of embedded agency, presented in the theory of institutional entrepreneurship (Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum, 2009).
The phrase “identified by the actors” justifies the qualitative research method I have used to collect my data. I am able to answer the question through my primary empirical sources, which are interviews and observations. The words highly institutionalized refer to the way Meyer and Rowan (1977) define institutionalized organizations. Their description fits well with the characteristics of the field of construction. Icopal belongs to this construction sector, which DiMaggio and Powell (1983) describe as an organizational field.
The empirical data that I have collected plays a significant role in answering my research question. Through my process of coding data, I found categories that highly influenced the final result of my main research question. I have created two sub-questions out of these categories to help me answer it as fully as possible:
1. “From the actors’ perspective, which enabling conditions for innovation have an impact on how actors are able to innovate within Icopal?”
2. “From the actors’ perspective, which constraining conditions for innovation have an impact on how actors are able to innovate within Icopal?”
The thesis is structured as follows. I first outline the key theoretical concepts upon which the empirical study rests. Since the study takes its outset in the paradoxical observation about innovation versus institutionalization, I find it highly relevant to also choose contrasting theories. In that way, I am better able to cope with the paradox from both viewpoints and to build a bridge between them through theory, analysis and discussion.
Therefore, my study combines elements from both institutional theory and innovation theory. As an overall perspective, it is not an obvious choice to combine the two theories, since old
9
institutional theory emphasizes organizational similarities while innovation theory tries to explain how organizations differentiate themselves by developing new ideas. However, new institutional theory believes that institutions do not just exist – they exist because of actors creating, maintaining and disrupting them. Therefore, the new institutional theory can be seen as connecting the bridge between institutional theory and innovation theory. Still, institutional pressures are not normally seen as something that generates innovation. I find it interesting to bring these concepts within different theory areas together to explain the empirical case study observations.
My aim is therefore to build a bridge between institutional theory and innovation theory. Existing old and new institutional theory literature contains a number of theoretical explanations of how, and to which degree, actors play a role in affecting organizational practices and structures. I will try to find out how their actions affect the development of incremental product innovation, assuming that their understanding of enabling and constraining conditions for innovation guides their actions to a significant degree. In my attempt to build the bridge between theories, I will firstly go through innovation theory to place the kind of innovation that happens in Icopal within a theoretical context. Secondly, I will go through the evolution of institutional theory, describing the old institutional theory and why it is a challenge to do and study innovation from this point of view. Thirdly, I will move on to outlining what new institutional theory says about innovation, and what is known about how actors manage to create, maintain and disrupt institutionalized fields, seen from the institutional work perspective (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006).
After the theory chapter I then describe the case company Icopal and the institutionalized construction sector, in which it is embedded. I continue with explaining my methodological reflections, including the reason for choosing a social constructivist paradigm, a social constructivist approach to grounded theory, and a case study as research design. Furthermore I explain the methodological procedures, including data sources, data collection, and coding of data.
To uncover the perceptions of employees within Icopal, I have advantageously combined grounded theory with a constructivist approach. This approach led to the collection of important interviews, which generated data that plays a significant role in answering my research question. I conclude by discussing the soundness of my qualitative research.
In the subsequent chapter, I present my findings in the form of actor perceptions of the enabling and constraining conditions for innovation in Icopal. Here I identify the answer to the two sub-questions of my research question. The discussion takes the findings a step further when I
10
reflect on the potential implications of my findings, including how actors can be seen as disrupting institutions as they engage in innovation. In this section, I combine an institutional work perspective with my empirical findings (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2005). Here I identify the answer to the remaining part of my research question. To constructively criticize the findings of this study, I also dedicate a section in the discussion chapter to the concept of the paradox of embedded agency. This section opens a discussion about the actor’s role in institutional change processes, raising the question of whether it is reasonable to assume that actors’ are able to disrupt institutions when actors’ beliefs and actions are significantly determined by the same institutional environment that they wish to change. I simply open this complex topic.
The thesis concludes with reflections on how this study can contribute to theory and practice based on insight into how Icopal potentially influences the highly institutionalized construction sector by means of engaging in innovation.
11
Structure of the thesis
CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTIONTHEORY
ICOPAL
METHODOLOGY
FINDINGS
ENABLING CONDITIONS FOR
INNOVATION
CONSTRAINING CONDITIONS FOR
INNOVATION
DISCUSSION
CONTRIBUTION
CONCLUSION
THE DANISH CONSTRUCTION
SECTOR
12
Theory
In this chapter, I will outline the theories applied. I provide a solid theoretical background to create a setting for developing an understanding of innovation theory and old and new institutional theory in relation to Icopal. My aim is to build a bridge between innovation theory and institutional theory. For the purpose I will first take a closer look at the various forms of
innovation that can be applied to the innovation that I see occurring within Icopal, seen from the actors’ perspective. Secondly, I will study the old institutional theory to find theoretical
explanations of how actors play a role in affecting organizational practices and structures from this point of view. Thirdly, I will move on to outlining what new institutional theory says about
innovation, and what is known about how actors manage to create, maintain and disrupt institutionalized fields, as seen from the institutional work perspective (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). This chapter discusses the premises of the theories selected and the impact of these premises on the knowledge that is created. The main focus will be on explaining different facets to the theory, combining them with the case of Icopal to build a framework and understanding that will be actively used in the Discussion chapter.
Innovation
“Whereas invention is the creation of a new idea, innovation is more encompassing and includes the process of developing and implementing a new idea. The idea may be a recombination of old ideas, a scheme that challenges the present order, a formula or a unique approach that is perceived as new by the individuals involved.” (Van de Ven, Polley, Garud, Venkataraman, 2008:9).
This definition by Van de Ven et al. seems to fit well with the understanding of how the actors perceive the innovation within Icopal. It is important to distinguish between invention and innovation, because the concepts are very different. What is happening in Icopal can only be seen as innovation. The innovations can both be technical innovations, since new technologies, products and services are the areas Icopal are trying to find new solutions to (Van de Ven et al. 2008).
Furthermore it can also be administrative innovations, such as new procedures, policies, and organizational forms, but I will not dwell on this concept, since I focus more on the product innovation within Icopal (ibid). However, a new product innovation must be “useful – profitable, constructive, or able to solve a problem.” (Van de Ven et al. 2008:11).
13
Another way of looking at innovation is to examine how the degree of novelty involved is measured (Tidd, 2006). Within Icopal it is mostly small improvements to existing products or processes. This relates to the concept of incremental innovation. However, since Icopal can be assumed to be a frontrunner in innovation within its field it can be discussed if they also to some extent try to do some radical innovation (Davila, 2006). According to literature that links innovation and economy, some of the company’s innovations should be radical for the company to be a market leader (ibid). Also, it can be assumed that the competition today is so brutal that companies cannot just survive on the incremental innovations. If Icopal tries to do radical innovation, it might therefore be seen as a response to the market demands.
In Denmark the wages are much higher than in other countries, therefore it is also beneficial, if the new innovation does not only do something for the product, but also affects the working practices to minimize the working hours for the roofing. If it is faster and easier for
professionals or do-it-yourself-customers to use the products, then the working hours will be fewer, and the whole solution will be cheaper for the end user (Tidd, 2006). This is also considered an innovation, when such improvements bring benefits.
To illustrate the way innovation can be understood within an organization, Basadur &
Gelade (2006) have developed a model for innovation process (see appendix 01). In the 1960s the innovation processes were seen as linear models, where innovation was based on sequential steps (Fisher, 2001). The model by Basadur & Gelade represents one of the more recent ways of looking at innovation, where the innovation process is described as a cyclical process consisting of four stages. Stage one is Generating, where options for new possibilities are created. This means that new ideas are generated e.g. by a wonder of how a product might contribute to the solving of a current problem. In Icopal, this stage could represent the way new ideas are generated from looking at product claim lists, or trends in the market. Stage two is Conceptualizing, where ideas are further elaborated. Stage three is Optimizing, where the new idea is evaluated in relation to how it would work in practice. Also planning a future successful implementation is initiated. This leads us to the fourth stage, which is Implementing. At this stage the implementation of the new solution occurs (Basadur & Gelade, 2006).
Basadur and Gelade (2006) further emphasize the importance of knowledge existence in this innovation model. In line with this is the notion of the existence of people with
heterogeneous skills. A study shows that heterogeneous teams composed of people with dissimilar
14
preferences do better than homogeneous teams whose members have similar preferences (Basadur
& Gelade, 2006). The different stages in the model require different types of skills, according to Basadur and Gelade. Comparing the model with Icopal, people in stage one consists of the
employees from the Development group, which have strong entrepreneurial generating skills. They suggest the ideas because they can see relevant correlations, and they get satisfaction during the generating process and enjoy coping with many fluffy ideas. The group of employees at stage two consists of a combination of different people within the Development group, both very technical, operational, and those with a practical sense. Employees concerned with conceptualizing are involved in the problem defining and the idea finding (ibid). Stage three attracts a new set of employees. Here people are focused on developing practical solutions and plans that can work in the real world. Therefore, the Sales group is involved. They have the contact to the market and can see if an idea is a clear go or no go (see appendix 02). Stage four is the last stage, where the idea has been developed into something concrete. At this stage, the employees within the Development group has somehow let go of the project and passed it on to the employees within the Management group and the Sales group. These are responsible for the further economical decisions as well as the market implementation.
Going through the different stages it can be seen as an important factor that the company knows the kind of people required for the different steps. Engaging diverse people in the four stages, as well as developing skills needed for those stages is very important (ibid). It seems as Icopal is already aware of this factor. One of the reasons for me to divide the different interviewees into the three different groups has been to emphasize the heterogeneous teams involved in the innovation. However, as will be analyzed in the Findings chapter, managing people with different interests can be a challenge.
Having identified the innovation concepts which influence the innovation that happens within Icopal, I consider it relevant to find out how this innovation is even more influenced by actors, according to institutional theory. To build the bridge between innovation and institutional theory I proceed with explaining innovation from an institutional point of view. By studying this link between the two theories I will slowly prepare the foundation for the Discussion chapter, which aims to combine an institutional work perspective with my empirical findings.
15 Old Institutional Theory
A commonly used distinction within institutional theory is the division between old institutionalism and new institutionalism (Boxenbaum & Strandgaard, 2009). I will take an outset in this distinction and first describe the old institutional theory, and why it is relevant for this study.
Organizations, institutions and work have been central themes in organizational studies for a long time. The themes reach all the way back to the post-Second WW debate about the relationship between organizations and institutions (Lawrence, Leca & Zilber, 2013). Max Weber (1952) can be seen as one of the first to study organizations from a sociological perspective (Weber, M., 1952). Even though Weber does not use the term institution his first assumptions about
organizations influenced the way of looking at institutions at that time. The Iron Cage refers to the notion of increased rationalization inherent in social life. As a result, the iron cage traps individuals in systems based only on rational calculation and control (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
In a later essay, Weber (1968) returned to this observation and stated that bureaucracy as the rational spirit’s organizational manifestation is so efficient and powerful a way of controlling people, that once established, the momentum of bureaucracy is permanent (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). In this way, seen from the old institutional perspective, the organizational bureaucracy was an effective instrument to obtain a given organizational objective without having the employees’
opinions and interests blocking the way. “In conventional theories, rational, formal structure is assumed to be the most effective way to coordinate and control the complex rational networks involved in modern technical work activities” (Meyer & Rowan, 1977:342). As a result, structural change would occur if it was driven by competition (Suddaby, 2013).
Building a bridge between old institutional theory and the innovation theory presented above, it can be concluded that the old institutional theories do not facilitate innovation in a high degree. It is difficult to innovate if the rules within an organization are too strictly embedded in the institution. This does not allow employees to think outside of the box. Furthermore, neo-
institutional theory sees institutions as things, not as processes (Suddaby, 2013). The theory does not have any assumptions about reflexivity or actors (ibid). Actions which happen in organizations can be seen as a response to an institutional logic (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Building from that, institutional theory acknowledges that organizational forms, strategies and practices are influenced by institutions in the wider society, which enforce organizations to act in certain ways (Lawrence &
16
Suddaby, 2006). Comparing this with Icopal, the construction industry and governmental rules and norms can be identified as being these institutions.
However, a new way of looking at institutions has developed since the Iron Cage, and the focus on bureaucracy was introduced. The new perspective offers more focus on the actors involved in organizations. Suddaby (2013) argues that actors are aware of the choices they can make themselves, and that they are not totally imprisoned by the rules and structures surrounding them. Actors however still act according to the institutions, because they are somehow embedded within them. In the new perspective the assumption is that processes constitute institutions, not things. Therefore, institutions do not just exist, they exist because actors are creating, maintaining and disrupting them. This notion leads to the second section in this chapter about new institutional theory.
New Institutional Theory
In this chapter I aim to provide an overview of the research on what I refer to as institutional work. I will mainly treat the concept of institutional work as a new institutional theory, since it is this theory I have chosen to discuss further in the discussion section. Nevertheless, other new institutional theory concepts will be introduced since they function as supporting theories around the institutional work concept. They are all seen as somehow interlinked. I have chosen to focus on institutional work because it elaborates on what actors do to create change in an
institutional field (Suddaby, 2013).
The new institutional theory that I refer to is the theory that was developed in the 1970s and 1980s (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). These theories belong to the neo-institutionalism, but I choose to see all institutional theory developed from the 1970s and forward as new
institutional theory (Lawrence, Leca & Zilber, 2013). One of the most important differences between old and new institutional theory is that the new one stresses the unquestionable nature of human behaviour and sees actors as constituted by institutions themselves (DiMaggio & Powell 1991). In addition Scott (2001) perceive new institutional theory as consisting of “cultured- cognitive, normative and regulative elements that… provide stability and meaning to social life.”
(Scott in Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006:216).
17
Meyer and Rowan (1977) and DiMaggio and Powell (1983) both present some of the first papers rooted in the new institutional theory, which function as a foundation for institutional work. I wish to present the article by Meyer and Rowan, and in between present theories that relate to this article. Afterwards the article by DiMaggio and Powell will be presented.
Meyer and Rowan (1977) argue that organizations incorporate rationalized
institutional rules to gain legitimacy and resources. They stress the fact that organizations are driven to incorporate the practices already defined and embedded in existing rationalized concepts of institutionalized structures (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). By doing so, organizations increase their legitimacy and chances for acceptance and success in society (ibid).
The concept of Institutionalization was presented by Berger & Luckmann in 1972. As defined by Meyer and Rowan, a structure which has been institutionalized is a structure that has been taken for granted by actors of a social group, which have evaluated being effective and necessary. Some versions of institutional theory emphasize the importance of the existence of institutions, and thus organizations can be described as cultural dopes, because the environment is seen as a deterministic structure which reduces the organizations abilities to act (Hirsch &
Lounsbury, 1997).
Meyer and Rowan furthermore present the concept of rational myths (Meyer &
Rowan, 1977). They believe that organizations are subject to what in society is considered as rational ways of organizing productions and activities (ibid). Institutional accepted rules can therefore be seen as rational myths. These myths can be understood as constraining factors for the organizations, but can also be seen as a positive frame, because they make it easier for organizations to act, due to fixed structures and procedures. In this way the institutionalized structure can be assumed to work as an important source for stable behavioural patterns (Meyer & Rowan, 1977).
By conforming to these rational myths, organizations can attain legitimacy and resources that secure their survival. In the constructing sector, many rules and so called rational myths exist, since there are certain requirements to security, environment, and quality of products. Icopal can be seen as operating in an environment, which can be described as a world of standards (Brunsson &
Jacobsson, 2000). Icopal can be seen as gaining legitimacy through respecting the rules concerning e.g. ISO certification and U-values.
18
Due to all these rules and demands, some organizations experience inefficiency in trying to respect them. A way of increasing efficiency can be to conform to the rules in a
ceremonial manner; this means that they on the outside seem to respect the rules, but in an inside few resources are used on following the rules (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). In that way, a decoupling occurs, and this concept is presented in the theory by Boxenbaum & Jonsson (2008). Decoupling happens when organizations for different reasons are forced to go through change due to external pressures (ibid). The external environment might require elements that the organization is not interested in implementing. As a result of this, the organization implement measures on the exterior, but keeps business as usual on the inside. By creating this façade the organization withholds its legitimacy and position of power to the external environment (Boxenbaum & Jonsson, 2008).
Decoupling is furthermore described by Hirsch and Bermiss as “institutional dirty work”, because of its intention of protecting institutions through strategic decoupling (Lawrence, Suddaby & Leca, 2009).
The article by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) emphasises that instead of trying to explain why there exists variation between organisations, it would be more relevant to see it from another perspective; why there exists organizational homogeneity. This is presented as the theory of Isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Isomorphism represents a notion of creating similarities between organizations. These similarities can occur due to three different causes, as elaborated in the following. Coercive isomorphism results from formal and informal pressures from rules, regulations and standards. Mimetic isomorphism refers to uncertainty, where organizations can benefit from imitating other organizations because they are unsure about how to act due to change in the market. Normative isomorphism is the last isomorphism and reflects the fact that decision makers often have the same cultural and educational background and that diverse organizations therefore experience the same changes (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983.). DiMaggio and Powell (1983) emphasize the fact that conforming to any of these pressures will not increase organizational efficiency. Rather, being similar to other organizations will affect the way an organization can transact with other organizations, which will provide the organization with legitimacy (ibid).
Oliver (1991) presents another variation to the concept of isomorphism. The article explains how organizations try to strategically legitimize itself towards the environment. Oliver argues, that organizations under certain circumstances are allowed to act strategically against pressures when facing institutional isomorphic pressure (Oliver, 1991). By relating this concept
19
with my case, Icopal can be seen as facing isomorphic pressures from the environment that surrounds them. In the report by Kauschen (2012) it can be interpreted that the Danish export promotion agency (Erhvervsfremmestyrelsen) is exposing an increasing societal pressure on the organizations within the construction sector. They demand that traditional organizational structures are replaced by more innovative forms of collaborations around the work, and thereby improve factors such as quality, productivity and work security (Kauschen, 2012). It can be difficult for organizations like Icopal to conform to such demands, and they might wish to translate the demands into actions that go against the isomorphic pressures.
By lining up both Meyer & Rowan’s (1977) and DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) theoretical findings, organizations can be seen as adopting structures and practices that are perceived as legitimate in the society that surrounds them. In that way the company can attain resources and secure survival in the industry.
Seen from an industry level, organizations become more and more similar within the organizational fields and industries, which is presented as the topic of isomorphism. However, being similar to other organizations will not automatically make an organization more effective, but it will give the organization legitimacy. From the article by Oliver (1991) it can be assumed, that agency and clear independent interests within individual organizations have a place in the new institutional theory. Furthermore, DiMaggio also acknowledges that actors affect the institutional arrangements, because they may be seen as institutional entrepreneurs (DiMaggio, 1988). DiMaggio describes institutional entrepreneurs as entrepreneurs who can influence or even change institutions: “based on Eisenstadt (1980), DiMaggio (1998) introduced the notion of institutional entrepreneurship in institutional analysis in an effort to explain how actors can contribute to changing institutions despite pressures towards stasis.” Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum, 2009: 66). According to Suddaby (2013) institutional work can be seen as a slightly extension of institutional entrepreneurship.
The concept of Institutional work, presented by Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) is “the purposive action of individuals and organizations aimed at creating, maintaining, and disrupting institutions.” (216). Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) link different types of institutional work to the institutional outcomes which are creation, maintenance or disruption (Currie, Lockett, Finn, Martin, & Waring, 2012). The definition of institutional work, as stated by Lawrence and Suddaby, highlights three main aspects. It appoints institutional actors as being “reflexive, goal-oriented and
20
capable; it focuses on actors’ actions as the centre of institutional dynamics; and it strives to capture structure, agency and their interrelations” (Lawrence, Leca & Zilber, 2013:1024).
Therefore, institutional work seems to present a perspective on how individuals engage in change by using their agency to evoke institutional change. According to Hargrave and Van de Ven (2006) change is “a difference in form, quality, or state over time in an institution.” (866).
Different theories within the new institutional theory area contribute to the concept of institutional work and Jepperson (1991) argues that institutions are the “product of specific actions, taken to reproduce, alter and destroy them.” (in Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006:216). Within an institutional field, contradictions are likely to occur. Inconsistencies or dysfunctional structures can generate tensions and negative outcomes such as inefficiency (Currie et al. 2012). The response to these tensions can be a wish for change, and institutional actors may try to execute this change to find a solution to the contradictions (ibid). In this way, institutional work can be used as disrupting an institution. In the case of Icopal, it is clear that the organization is subject to institutional
pressures, as touched upon in the introduction chapter and further elaborated in the field
description. Therefore it is interesting to investigate how Icopal continually manage to develop and innovate.
Institutional work can contribute to a possible explanation to why Icopal is able to differentiate itself from other organizations by being innovative. The institutional work in which actors engage is influenced by the institutional actor’s location in a field and their control of resources (ibid). This is somehow in line with the innovation theory presented above by Basadur and Gelade (2006). They argue that different people with different knowledge and skills are required for different stages in an innovation process, where they can be seen as engaging in institutional work. This institutional work is influenced by the institutional actor’s location in the field, or location in the innovation process and control of processes, as described by Basadur and Gelade.
Since my findings only elaborate on what the interviewees perceive as enabling and constraining conditions for innovation, I cannot empirically examine which kind of influences these perceived conditions have at field level. But I assume that the actors within Icopal are trying to generate institutional effects from the observed innovational activities. I believe that it is through the actors’ understanding of what enables and constrains innovation that actors’ might be able to disrupt institutions, according to institutional work theory by Lawrence and Suddaby (2006). By
21
examining the institutional work theory it can be concluded that it is a good theory to use, if the purpose is to examine micro-activities involved in the organizational practices (Slager, Gond &
Moon, 2012).
22
Case description
Company Description
The Icopal Group is a worldwide recognised leading supplier of building protection products, providing waterproofing solutions for roofing with focus on membranes but also related building materials (www.icopal.com). Icopal possess the position as market leader on roofing membranes and its core focus is on bituminous products (ibid).
The Icopal Group employs globally approximately 3,500 employees, and has major business activities in Europe and North America, which are organised into six regions (Annual Report, 2012). This thesis focuses on the Region North, and more specific Icopal Denmark, which is one of the Nordic strategic business units (SBU) within the Region North (ibid). The idiom
‘Icopal’ is used to refer to the Danish SBU of the Icopal Group.
Icopal was selected as case study for several reasons: First, this SBU in particular constitutes the largest region, as a part of the Region North and delivers the highest revenue in comparison to the other regions (Annual Report, 2012). This seemed like a solid foundation for a study about innovation, since it could be assumed that some of this revenue was generated as a result of product development. In 2012 environmental products constituted 2.3% (1.9% in 2011) of total flat roofing sales in the region (Annual Report, 2012). One could argue that the environmental product percentage is too low despite the growth. However, as can be seen from appendix 03, the Danish unit has a significant increase in net sales of new products (younger than five years), due to an enlarged focus on innovation.
Secondly, I was intrigued by the delimited paradox of how Icopal is able to gain recognition through focus on green innovation solutions, despite being part of a conservative
institutionalized industry, strongly affected by a difficult economic environment. Since 2012, Icopal has been rewarded with several prestigious prizes for its sustainable product innovation efforts, which is more specifically described in the methodology chapter (www.Icopal.dk). By receiving these prizes, Icopal can be considered a frontrunner in innovation within its field.
Thirdly, Icopal was originally founded in Denmark in 1876, and the Icopal Group headquarter is still today situated within the Copenhagen area (Annual Report, 2012). For this reason, I thought it would add some authenticity to my thesis to study the Danish unit specifically,
23
since the true “Icopal DNA” is somehow anchored here. I considered doing a multiple case study, comparing various opinions about innovation embedded in different units within the Icopal Group.
Yet, I chose to stick with the delimited paradox observed within the Danish unit to keep a clear focus.
Fourthly, I found Icopal interesting because of its core focus on product quality and product features. For example, the roofing felt, which is the core of Icopal, contains polyester fibre, which adds an extra interesting feature to the products, while making it extremely hard-wearing (see appendix 04 for product portfolio). In 2008, the Danish unit was forced to fire 150 employees but remained agile through flexibility, optimization and innovation (Drewsen, S., 2011, appendix 05).
This has brought Icopal to where it is now: on its way towards more sustainable innovation. Icopal has differentiated itself from competitors by seeing the economic crisis as a challenging kick instead of giving up hope and seeking the discount segment (ibid). The company aims to deliver the best possible solutions to customers, even during periods of crisis. This Icopal-mentality drew my attention towards finding out which kind of employees stood behind this power.
I studied Icopal during a four month period to collect data for this thesis. Since my thesis builds on an empirical qualitative study, a specific group of employees with relation to the innovation process were selected for interviews and observations. Appendix 06 illustrates how product development is enhanced within the company, and how the development groups are interlinked within Region North. The model illustrates how national teams are separately focusing on bituminous and non-bituminous products. Relevant cross-Nordic issues from the groups are discussed and prioritized in the Nordic PD Group. The Danish unit plays a crucial role since it is in the position of chairmanship within this group. New products are prioritized by using the decision matrix, seen in appendix 02. When a new product is prioritized the further development of the product idea starts, as illustrated by the Stage Gate model, appendix 07.
To conclude, I believe Icopal is a fascinating case study because it might provide a perspective on an issue that many companies deal with: the tension between efficient exploitation of resources on one hand and innovating on the other. This issue represents a dilemma that most companies within this multifaceted and unpredictable world experience. Consequently, it is a highly relevant case study.
24 Organizational Field Description
The organizational field that Icopal exists within is the construction and engineer industry. The Danish construction and engineer industry shrank by 4.4% in 2012 and reached a value of 94.9 DKK billion, as can be observed in appendix 08 (Marketline, 2013). The industry has suffered from the economic crisis, and many companies have been adjudged bankrupt and
employees have lost their jobs (Drewsen, 2011, appendix 05). The customers of the construction industry can be divided into three groups: The professional market, the consumers market, and the export market. Consumer confidence remains weak, according to the Euroconstruct macro
economic outlook analysis (Appendix 8). Non-residential construction is the main segment of the industry, accounting for 59.3 % of the industry’s total value. The Civil engineering part accounts for the remaining 40.7 % of the industry (Marketline, 2013).
The industry is facing future challenges, because sustainable solutions and innovation are needed to protect the environment, as mentioned in the introduction chapter. The industry is however characterized by traditions and a focus on prize, not innovation. Therefore it can be seen as a challenge for companies in this industry to try and break with these traditions, even though
pressures encourage change. Furthermore, the discount trend has been dominating parts of the industry as a result of the economic crisis, since customers seek now low prize products. The future challenges with climate changes call for action, and the construction industry can move towards developing possible solutions. The European Research and Innovation program Horizon 2020, which runs from 2014-2020 is a step in the right direction. The budget for this program is bigger than ever, and it is supposed to support the research and innovation within renewable energy, energy efficiency, CO2 storage etc (Thomsen, 2013).
As can be seen from appendix 6, the construction industry is facing a brighter future.
The civil engineering part of the industry in particular pulls their numbers up. This is due to infrastructure projects and the planned number of new hospital projects, which cover major fluctuations in the common sector (appendix 09). Therefore it can be concluded, that the construction and engineering industry which Icopal is a part of is facing a challenging but interesting future.
25 Methodology
This chapter serves the purpose of building transparency within the methodological decision-making embedded in this thesis. This chapter starts by explaining the first thoughts and ideas behind the birth of this thesis. This creates a transparent foundation for understanding the decision-making concerning the chosen paradigm of this thesis. Furthermore the chosen ontology, epistemology and methodology will be described in relation to which consequences they have to the outcome of the study. Also the choice regarding building a thesis on a single case study will be outlined. Furthermore, the considerations about data sources, collection, and data coding will be described, with the choices of paradigm and method in mind. Lastly, the contributions and
delimitations on this study will be presented. Therefore, by studying this chapter, the reader should be able to gather sufficient information to build a platform of knowledge regarding the
methodological reflections about choices made in this thesis.
From idea to birth
Knowing how to start and when to stop can be a challenge in countless situations – this situation concerns the writing of a master thesis. Ideas about how it could, would or should be are many, and sometimes these ideas are conflicting, at other times co-operating. One idea leads to another and at some point you hope that it will all make sense in the end. The first idea that
contributed to the start of this study was the want for qualitative research.
“Taken as a whole, Miles and Huberman (1994), Marshall and Rossman (1995), and Maxwell (1996) suggest that qualitative research seems best suited to answering questions of description, interpretation, and explanation, and most often from the perspective of the organizational member under study.” (Lee, T. W., 1999: 44).
As the quote indicates, the object of study for a qualitative researcher is the experience of real people in real setting. In general, this kind of inquiry can explore the human behaviours within the context of their everyday lives. In my quest towards finding a case study that would accord with my idea, I contacted several organizations and chose Icopal as the research case company. With knowledge about the Danish construction sector through my personal background as a fourth generation member of a family business within this sector, I found the possibilities of
26
creating a study within this field and this company particularly interesting. I will elaborate further on the effects of my role in the delimitations chapter.
In general, the construction sector is known to be quite conservative, well-established and highly institutionalized. However, while doing research about Icopal, I discovered a company that seemed to appear as trying to break out of this institutionalized setting through innovation. I found that “Innovation is the basis for safeguarding Icopal’s leading competitive position” and that the “Icopal DNA” consists of creating growth “(...) through focused product and business
development with the delivery of new, innovative and high performing products to the market.”
(Annual Report, 2012) Furthermore the focus on the importance of the creative urge, on a readiness to embrace changes, and on being agile has dominated Icopal in the period after the economic crisis (see appendix 05). Besides that, Icopal has within the last few years been awarded several external prizes such as the Confederation of Danish Industries (DI) product prize in 2011 (Icopal,
27.09.2011) for its climate-friendly Icopal energy roofing solution, the Engineer’s Product Award 2011 (Andersen, K. B, 10.08.2011) for its Icopal roofing solution with geothermal heat, and the
“Byggeriets Klimapris” of 2012 for its unique roofing concept Eco Activ (Icopal, 13.03.2012), which contributes to the solving of the world’s environmental challenges. The most recent prize was the internal prize within the Icopal Group, which rewarded the Danish SBU Icopal as the most innovative within the Group (www.Icopal.dk). Receiving these prizes within the last couple of years means that it can be assumed that Icopal is a frontrunner in innovation within its field. The company receives recognition on basis of its efforts in finding innovative and climate-friendly solutions for the highly institutionalized construction industry. But how do they manage to do that?
This paradoxical observation stimulated the curiosity towards finding out what allows them to gain recognition through a focus on innovation despite being part of a highly
institutionalized industry, strongly affected by the difficult economic environment.
This section showed how the first ideas to this study arose, and how I managed the challenge of where to start. Now another challenge arises - when to stop.
27 The Social Constructivist Paradigm
“The socially constructed organization is just that: Socially constructed. But it is constructed continuously on a daily, even momentary, basis, through individuals interacting with others. The organization never settles into an entity or a thing that can be labelled and described, because it is constantly changing, or reinventing itself, through the interactions going on within it.” (Campbell, 2000:28).
From an organizational constructionist paradigm viewpoint by Campbell, the quotation shows that organizational reality happens in a continual process, where individuals can construct or reconstruct interpretations, and that this reality can be understood through the social constructions (Darmer, P., 2012). At the same time, individuals experience certain stability, and the characteristics of this reality appear as a consequence, as objectively given (ibid). This can be seen due to the fact that we engage in stable relations where well-known situations are recognised and treated in the same way as the last time the situation occurred, which creates cyclical behaviour.
How we construct organizations depend on the individual and their foundation for interpretation, and these are reliant on several phenomena, which could be factors such as former experiences, socialisation, cognitive competence, or culture (ibid).
Based on the four scientific paradigms described in the theory by Guba and Lincoln (1994), I have chosen the constructivism perspective to be the basis of my research (see appendix 10). It is within this social constructivist paradigm that I wish to investigate the case study of Icopal, and choosing this paradigm, I shape the further methodological choices made in the study, and thus influence the relationship between theory and data (Esterberg, K., G., 2001). This section is
therefore built on what consequences the chosen paradigm has on this paper. Since individuals socially construct organizations I will also use the word “actors” to describe the people involved in the innovation process. It furthermore makes sense to describe them as actors in regard to the new institutional theory perspective which I wish to discuss later on.
From a constructivist standpoint, actors deny at some point the existence of an
objective reality, and therefore they assume a relativist ontological position (Guba & Lincoln, 1994 in Mills, J., Bonner, A., Francis, K., 2006). Ontology is the nature of reality and what we can know about it. This means that from an ontological perspective, multiple realities exist because they are constructed by individuals who experience the world from their own vantage point (Ritchie, J &
28
Lewis, J., 2003). Based on the research question area, it is relevant to select the social constructivist perspective, and the relativist ontological position, since the study aims to analyze how individuals see the process of innovation within Icopal, from their own perspective, hence they are seen as constructing the reality they are a part of. It is my belief that the nature of reality is constructed through multiple realities by individuals, and therefore I choose this standpoint. An organization can in that way be seen as something that is constructed continuously through individual
interactions; thus organizations are constituted on the beliefs of the individuals engaged in it. This take on explaining an organizational phenomenon through the use of the social constructivism paradigm represents a highly relevant point, since organizations today are fast moving, realities are changing, and they are increasingly more network-based rather than introspective and based on heavy bricks – even organizations within the construction sector.
I am aware of the fact that the social constructionist paradigm implies that actors construct the world. This requires that we, as actors, subjectively interpret reality and consequently influence what we perceive. I have found that objectivity is not the goal in itself in this case, at least not the objectivity understood by supporters of other paradigms. The French philosopher Michel Foucault, one of the fathers of constructivism, argues that truth refers to the social lens through which reality is perceived, not to the objective belief of truth that characterizes the natural science (Fairclough, N., 1992). Since objectivity in regard to natural science is not achievable in this thesis I have instead sought to be aware of my impact as researcher, by being as reflexive as possible, looking through the social lens (Turnbull, S., 2002). Based on the subjective epistemology of the paradigm, it is recognised that the objectivity between what is investigated and the investigator is impossible because the investigator interacts with and thereby influences the investigated.
Therefore, the result of the research will always have a subjective outcome, which is made by the investigator and the objects of investigation and their take on reality as seen from their perspective.
I recognise that the interpretation made in this thesis is based on what I think the actors are
communicating. This means that I might not be able to fully understand the actors’ perspective on reality (Esterberg, 2002).
At this point both the ontology, thus the “reality”, and the relationship between the reality and the researcher through the epistemological standpoint has been defined. To be able to discover that “reality”, a methodology technique has to be determined. Since there is no obvious methodological framework for the social constructivist paradigm, it has been necessary to adjust a
29
methodological technique to the premises of social constructivism, which will be elaborated further in the next chapter.
Grounded Theory
This section will start with describing the original thoughts behind grounded theory, which was first described in the book The Discovery of Grounded Theory in 1967 by Glaser and Strauss (Glaser, B., & Strauss, A., 1967). Hereafter, the development of grounded theory through the years will be discussed in relation to how it can contribute to this study as it relates to the social constructivist paradigm.
Grounded theory, founded by Glaser and Strauss in 1967 is a qualitative research methodology which represents an inductive approach towards data gathering (Lee, T., W., 1999).
The idea is to generate or discover theory from the data, rather than having these specified
beforehand. Glaser states that theory should emerge from the data and not be forced. Theory is not a part of the first phase of the data collection but is considered as being part of the process at a later stage of the analysis. However, it is rarely the case that a researcher gathers data without having some kind of category in mind (Lee, 1999). The inductive approach in grounded theory is
commonly criticized because it is claimed that there can be no theory neutral observation. A way to relate to this issue can be to “pay attention to extant theory but constantly remind yourself that you are only human and that what you observe is a function of both who you are and what you hope to see.” (Suddaby, R. 2006:635).
The work of Glaser and Strauss can be described as the traditional grounded theory, where the role of the researcher is expected to be quite passive, because of the risk of imposing own personal bias on the data (Lee, T., W., 1999). In the 90s Glaser and Strauss ended their
collaboration, and Strauss and Corbin gathered and evolved further on the traditional grounded theory. An overall definition of the grounded theory method is described by Corbin and Strauss (2008) who state that”a grounded theory is one that is inductively derived from the study of the phenomena it represents.”(Corbin, J.M. & Strauss, A. L., 2008: 23). The grounded theory by Corbin and Strauss fits into a more post-positivistic paradigm, where the belief of the existence of a pre-existing reality is not supported in contrast to the traditional view. Following Strauss and
Corbin, Charmaz was the first researcher to describe data collection work explicitly as constructivist grounded theory, which will be elaborated further in the next chapter.
30
The spirit of grounded theory can be seen through certain rules which a researcher has to take into account when using this method. Data collection should happen at the same time as the analysis of data and therefore the researcher is expected to make a few initial interviews to gather data, and then start analyzing these before finishing the entire data collection (Suddaby, 2006). This enables analytical work alongside the data work, which is an important factor within grounded theory. By being reflexive and applying a realizing and discovering mindset, the researcher can direct the empirical data collection path, so that it makes sense in relation to the ongoing analysis.
Another important procedure within the grounded theory is theoretical sampling, which provided the reason for why data is collected from specific individuals, groups or activities among others. It constitutes “the conceptual purpose for gathering the next wave of data. The researcher samples in order to test revised hypotheses; the more rigorous the test, the better the sampling.” (Lee, 1999: 49). Data is then organized into theoretically meaningful structures through coding, which can be seen as part of the analyzing process (ibid).
Coding is divided into three levels; open coding, axial coding, and selective coding.
First, the open coding brings together data that relates to the same topic. These categories can be seen as naturally occurring categories, where as many categories as needed are created. This is done in the beginning of the coding process to create an overall overview of the data. Second, axial coding explores the relationship between categories and how they relate to each other. Third, selective coding refers to how particular categories are identified to form some kind of core as a central phenomenon. From this point, the researcher is able to construct a story around these central phenomena. For all grounded theorists, developing relevant categories about the core issues being observed is vital to being able to make statements about how actors interpret reality. Being this close to the data through the process, it can be claimed that the researcher stays with what there is evidence for in the data. The grounded theoretical saturation has been achieved when it is
determined that it is unlikely that the data collection will lead to additional insight or understanding (Lee, 1999).
The Social Constructivist Approach to Grounded Theory
“Ontologically relativist and epistemologically subjectivist, constructivist grounded theory reshapes the interaction between researcher and participants in the research process and in doing so brings to the fore the notion of the researcher as author.” (Mills et al. 2006: 31).
31
As stated above by one of the leading supporters of constructivist grounded theory, Kathy Charmaz, a combination of the above mentioned three combinations will contribute to a fruitful research process, where the researcher is acknowledged as the creator (Mills et al., 2006).
Metaphorically it can be compared with an example from the construction industry:
the architect is hired to design a building. The architect should establish a good connection to the owners and transform their wishes and contributions in the most faithful way possible, combined with own expertise and style. It should be possible to sense the owners’ choices in the finished project, where the architect has had to go beyond transcend experience to figure out how to use various different components and building bricks in the design. The design solution will be the consequence of the co-construction between architect and owners and the architect will in the end be rewarded for the unique way of solving the project.
Through time, grounded theory has been applied to qualitative research anchored in various paradigm settings (Mills et all., 2006). Therefore it is not the first time grounded theory will be applied to a social constructivist paradigm. However, applying grounded theory within this paradigm requires an explanation of the way it has been done.
The constructivist approach by Charmaz is not supported by the original guidelines of grounded theory from 1967. Charmaz is a student of Glaser and Strauss, and was inspired to
question the original grounded theory through a constructivist standpoint (Mills et al. 2006).
Annells (1997) suggests that Charmaz’ constructivist grounded theory relate the strategies of traditional grounded theory within a constructivist paradigm consequently eliminating the concepts of emergence and objectivity (ibid).
I have chosen to identify with the constructivist approach through this suggestion of understanding. This creation of meaning in practice appealed to me as researcher, due to my knowledge about the company and the industry. The constructivist approach to grounded theory affected my data collection, maybe even before I was aware of it, because it felt natural to adapt to that research role from the very beginning. Therefore, it made good sense to take a constructivist approach to grounded theory, and not the natural “distant expert” role as researcher as the original grounded theory dictates (Charmaz, K., 2000). Charmaz argues that the researcher plays an important role in the selection of categories and theory, in contrast to the approach by Glaser &
Strauss. Charmaz questions the original rules of grounded theory by accusing the old version of
32
being too realistic in the approach towards data collection. She states that there is no world out there that you can “just” analyze, and it is believed that the importance of the research lies in the
interaction between the researcher and the participants and that this interaction constructs the world, which is the one that has to be analyzed.
I am aware of the fact that Charmaz represents the modern constructivist approach, and believes that the way the researcher interprets things is just as important as how the respondents interpret. Therefore, what is important in the social constructivist approach to grounded theory is that the researcher tries to be as reflexive as possible. Illuminating the researcher as the architect of a co-construction of experience and meaning is a significant next step in grounded theory research, and I aim for my study to contribute to the evolution of the methodological constructivist grounded theory.
Case Study as Research Design
“Eisenhardt (1989, 2002) and Dooley (2002) argue for theory building from cases by combining case study, grounded theory, and mixed methods traditions. (Swanson, R., A., Holton, E., F, 2005:332)
As the quote states, a good way to build up theory is by combining case study with grounded theory and mixed methods. I have chosen to base this thesis on a case study, which by Robert K. Yin (2003) defines as: “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary
phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (13). It can be assumed that this approach represents another dimension of the social constructivist approach, this time in relation to research design, since it focuses on how the phenomenon is constructed in interaction with the context surrounding it. A case study of the intrinsic and instrumental kind has occurred, since I, as the researcher both had an interest in the case and an aim towards understanding more that what is obvious to the observer (Stake, R., E., 1995).
I believe Icopal is an excellent case study because of the paradoxical observation that has been made, considering how Icopal manages to be a frontrunner of innovation within a highly institutionalized industry. Doing a case study on this observation seemed rational, and in line with the rules of the qualitative research method I wished to dig deeper into the organization and sought
