Master Thesis

Climbing the Olympus: Legitimation and Identity Struggles of a Sport Category Going Olympic

Author:

Dominic Lobgesang (01416725)

Submitted at:

Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck

Faculty of Business and Management

Department for Organization and Learning

Supervisor:

Ass. Prof. Dr. Birthe Soppe

Winter Term 20/21

Innsbruck, October 2020

2

Abstract

Top down category creation and the implications on members have been largely neglected in

organizational scholarship. Using the newly created category of Olympic sport climbing, this

master thesis sheds light on the gap, of how a top down created category is enacted on the

ground. Legitimacy and identity operate as the theoretical framework for conception and data

analysis. Expert interviews with 18 key members of both the competitive and amateur sport

climbing community in Innsbruck/Austria, constitute the core of the qualitative and explorative

case study. The findings suggest both practical implications for the sport as well as theoretical

implications for category literature. The data gathered shows legitimation and acceptance of the

new Olympic category, due to transferred legitimacy and identity characteristics from

competitive climbing. It seems to represent an add-on and acceptable variation to pre-existing

features. The same performing actors are in place, carrying their inherent legitimacy and

identity with them, enacting the Olympic sport climbing category. On the theoretical side, this

thesis argues that competitive members’ dependence on a given incumbent – the IFSC sport

climbing federation – enables successful creation and implementation of a top down created

category. The dependent members are facing isomorphic effects on the road to the top. This

work provides fruitful insights on the status quo of a nascent category, from an internal

perspective. It also paves the way for pertinent follow-up research in organization studies and

sports specific scholarship.

3

Plagiarism Disclaimer

I hereby declare that this master thesis is my own and autonomous work. All sources and aids

used have been indicated as such. All texts either quoted directly or paraphrased have been

indicated by in-text citations.

Full bibliographic details are given in the list of works cited, which also contains internet

sources including URL and access date. This work has not been submitted to any other

examination authority.

Date Signature

4

Table of Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6

2. Research Setting ................................................................................................................. 10

2.1 The New Olympic Sport Climbing Category and its Members ..................................... 10

2.2 The Case of Olympic Sport Climbing ........................................................................... 13

2.3 The Olympic Games and Their Conflictual History with Lifestyle Sports ................... 19

3. Theoretical Orientation ..................................................................................................... 20

3.1 The Formation of Social Categories and Category Spanning ........................................ 20

3.2 Legitimation as a Struggle of Double-Edged Nature ..................................................... 22

3.3 Oppositional Identity Amplifies Legitimation Struggles ............................................... 25

3.4 Enactment on the Ground as Values, Aspirations and Routines ................................... 28

4. Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 31

4.1 Research Philosophy & Design ..................................................................................... 31

4.2 Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 32

4.3 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 35

5. Findings ............................................................................................................................... 36

5.1 Varied Opinions on the Olympic Inclusion ................................................................... 36

5.2 Implications for Routines, Training, Aspirations and Career ........................................ 39

5.3 Oppositional Values on the Ground ............................................................................... 41

5.4 Individual Values and Motivation ................................................................................. 44

6. Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 45

6.1 Category Broadening and Legitimacy Transfer ............................................................. 45

6.2 Little Challenge in Values and Identity ......................................................................... 48

6.3 Top Down Category Creation in a Dependence Setting ................................................ 52

6.4 Co-Existence Diminishes Legitimacy Trade-Offs ......................................................... 53

7. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 55

5

8. Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 57

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ 58

References ............................................................................................................................... 59

6

1. Introduction

Sport climbing has undergone a radical and substantial evolution throughout the past decades,

from a highly scattered grassroots-movement, to the introduction of the first organized clubs

and federations, forming the foundation of what today can be regarded as a highly

professionalized field of sports. Started by some individuals deemed “freaks“ or “dirtbags“ who

climbed outdoors on real rock, often equipped with a solid anti-establishment ethos, it

developed into a popularly accepted mass sport, mostly practiced indoors, where every kind of

societal subgroup can be encountered (Henkel, 2019). This only recently diversified clientele

consists of the after-work business climber, the “bodybuilder“ substituting the fitness gym, as

well as the purely indoor young-gun competitor, just to name a few.

In this master thesis, I argue that sport climbing has been growing and developing into an

entirely new type of sport. A huge climbing industry has developed, sponsors and organizations

have gained interest and structures have emerged on a club and federation level, implementing

youth talent supporting systems and much more. This is paired together with a massive gain in

popularity, not only in terms of active climbers, but also for spectators at constantly more

professionalized events and competitions, a big raise in funding from institutions like the state

and furthermore, climbing gyms have been popping up like mushrooms all over the globe.

Hence, this increasingly opens up professional employment opportunities in the field of sport

climbing, be it within the realm of media- and goods-production, coaches, gyms, events or

competitions, further galvanizing the development of sport climbing. As of today, there seems

to be no reasonable grounds for believing that a tipping point of the climbing-boom is

somewhere in sight. All of the developments mentioned seemed to recently have been

culminating into the inclusion of sport climbing in the upcoming Olympic Games in Tokyo

2020 (IOC, 2016), which sets the scene and point of departure for the investigation of this

master thesis.

Sport climbing evolved not only in its athletic and popularity sense, but moreover in its

organizational structure (see Batuev & Robinson, 2019), as well as in other central aspects to

the sport, such as accessibility, equipment and facilities (see Hardy, 2003). These developments

already made themselves evident in 2006, when the UIAA (Union Internationale des

Associations d'Alpinisme) decided to end its government over competitive sport climbing, as it

“became too artificial“ (Batuev & Robinson, 2019, p. 1681). Eversince, the IFSC (International

Federation of Sport Climbing) has been in charge, literally lifting sport climbing all the way to

the Olympus. To put it frankly, apparently not everybody is comfortable with the unprecedented

“heights“ it is now wandering, which is why I decided to take a look at the inside of the local

7

sport climbing community in Innsbruck, Austria, and explore the status quo of how the Olympic

inclusion is taken from within.

The outlined organizational and social dynamics of sport climbing render the development of

the sport climbing category an interesting field of study altogether, particularly at this critical

point of its Olympic debut. Recent research in organizational studies have already turned

attention to the topic. For instance, Batuev and Robinson (2019) have focused on the

organizational evolution and existing values within sport climbing in a retrospective manner,

showing how a sport can grow into the regulatory legitimacy required for the inclusion in the

Olympic games. In sport climbing, they argue, this has been happening through the

development and expansion of co-existing values (Batuev & Robinson, 2019). Nonetheless,

their research also surfaced questions about agency, when it comes to who is actually sitting in

the driver’s seat of sport climbing developments.

In this thesis, I build on these insights and explore the currently emerging effects and

implications of the pro-Olympia decision on the very members of the sport climbing

community. As scholars have shown in the past, the fusion of alternative action sports and the

Olympics has often been problematic, with many members understanding their practices rather

as a lifestyle than a sport (Wheaton, 2004), and “celebrate value systems that are often

incompatible with the disciplinary, hierarchical, nationalistic Olympic regime“ (Thorpe &

Wheaton, 2011, p. 831). This is why I have set out into the core of the local sport climbing

community, to investigate on how this traditionally afflicted sport, in the new Olympic setting,

is legitimized and given an identity from within. I approach this topic by using theory on social

categories.

Research on social categories have been extensively used to explore and investigate market

categories and their social dynamics. Categories represent an interface, which enable and

facilitate the organization of and exchange in markets on a cognitive and normative level

(Granqvist et al., 2013). They act as a conceptual instrument, in order to understand the

relationships between organizations and their respective environments. (Negro et al., 2010).

Moreover, “in the context of markets and organizations, categories provide a cognitive

infrastructure that enables evaluations of organizations and their products, drives expectations,

and leads to material and symbolic exchanges“ (Durand & Paolella, 2013, p. 3). The market of

sport climbing constitutes nothing different in this respect, which is why I applied the

theoretical lens of social categories as a conceptual roadmap for my thesis.

New categories emerge all the time and have been studied extensively. Much research has

focused unilaterally on how categories arise bottom-up, as for example the rise of the U.S.

8

organic food market category (see Lee et al., 2017). Durand and Khaire (2017, p. 88) define

bottom-up category emergence as “the formation of categories that emerge from elements

extraneous to an existing market“, which happens for instance when genuine innovations are

made, where no existing classification- or categorical system can sufficiently account for the

novelty that is presented and therefore, a new category emerges.

On the other hand, according to Durand and Khaire (2017), top-down category creation happens

when actors purposefully redesign cognitive boundaries within a preexisting category system

for their benefit. This refers a situation like the one we are dealing with here, namely the new

Olympic sport climbing category. Sport climbing, as well as the Olympic games existed in their

own right separately from each other, but now, through their fusion, a new category has been

created through redesigning and reinterpreting elements of both (Durand & Khaire, 2017).

However, the risk of such a top-down created category is that it may be an “empty shell“, a

construct, that needs to be accepted by critical audiences and filled with meaning. In this thesis,

I therefore argue that in order to make a successful Olympic debut, the internal core-community

has to be on board with the decisions made and the developments happening to present a

somewhat coherent picture to this new, Olympic stage.

Hence, to get accepted, it needs to obtain legitimacy and acquire an identity, to act as

cornerstones for the newly-created category. Legitimation is described as the general perception

that a certain venture is proper and desirable, whereas identity revolves around questions of

“who are we and what are we doing?“ (Navis & Glynn, 2011; Suchman, 1995). Both concepts

are interrelated and I argue, crucial to a fruitful analysis of social category systems, regardless

of their bottom-up emergence or top-down creation.

Despite the importance of both categorical birth canals, while much research is centered around

the bottom-up processes of category emergence, little work has turned attention to how a top-

down created category is enacted “on the ground”. I address this gap by investigating how the

novel Olympic sport climbing category is enacted by its core members from within.

Specifically, I examine how the Olympic sport climbing category is internally legitimized and

drafted an identity, given its oppositional stance to the “original“ climbing outdoors.

Academically, this question of enactment is all the more pressing because, at the time of writing

this thesis, there is no literature evident that explores such a clear-cut, top-down category

creation and the effects on its members.

Moreover, this Olympic inclusion highlights a very interesting setting, because this top-down

created category seems to face a cognitive, but also a normative challenge. The cognitive side

is negligible in this thesis, as I am occupied with the internal member perspective. They

9

cognitively know what climbing and Olympia are about and therefore do not have an issue in

grasping the basic idea of it. Nevertheless, it gets interesting when it comes to the normative

aspect. Every climber, competitive or not, has an understanding of what climbing is to him

personally. This might be dependent on the environment you are practicing it in and how you

got introduced to the sport (Hardy, 2003). My point is that individual perceptions and opinions

differ substantially and this controversial Olympic inclusion is far off being an exception,

highlighting tensions and conflicts among members on various layers of this normative

challenge about “right or wrong“.

Although the professionalization of sport climbing has been an obvious and ongoing process,

its traditional ethos and ethics (Hardy, 2003) and strong inherent values (Batuev & Robinson,

2019) are still pointed out by respective research. Whereas the modern Olympic games have

been known for formality, comparability, records and a wide set of rules, sport climbing derives

from a much more adventurous and freedom oriented set of values, an oppositional movement

informed by an anti-mainstream point of view (Hardy, 2003). Considering these circumstances,

how can these two developments actually go together? All of this condenses down in my

primary research question:

“How is the new category of Olympic sport climbing enacted on the ground?“

I explore this question in the empirical setting of climbing in Innsbruck, Austria (see chapter 2.

Research Setting). Upon building a sound theoretical framework (see chapter 3. Theoretical

Orientation), my research design is informed by an explorative, qualitative and interview driven

approach. Specifically, I conducted semi-structured expert interviews with 18 core members of

the sport climbing community in the long-standing climbing stronghold of Innsbruck, Austria.

Seven of them are active professional climbing athletes, six former competition climbers and

five high-level amateur climbers. They were asked about their opinion on the Olympic inclusion

altogether, as it is set up right now and the impacts this has had on certain key elements such

as training, routines, career and aspirations. Furthermore, there were questions revolving around

whether they perceive the inclusion challenging to present value systems within the sport and

their personal motivation and values in sport climbing. Their answers were inductively coded

throughout several rounds, in order to arrive at the main issues of discussion and determine the

perceived changes in type, extent and attributed valuation. For deriving conclusive findings,

frequently overlapping codes were extracted and tied back into arguments, corroborated by

exemplary statements of the interviewees.

The findings show that it proves difficult to tell professionalization and the Olympic inclusion

apart, as their dynamics and implications overlap. The Olympic sport climbing category turned

10

out to work as an add-on to competitive sport climbing and not as a standalone category.

Furthermore, the category creation is not perceived as a substantial challenge for values, as

necessary features have been developed by members yet. The data also suggests, that the most

basic, underlying collective identity is found for many in the activity itself, no matter how it is

practiced. The most radical and direct implications from the top down category creation, rest

upon the competitive share of members, because of a market-like dependence relationship with

an incumbent, essentially representing a monopoly. Therefore, competitive climbing is

decoupled to a certain extent from the rest of the pre-existing category. Nonetheless, it appears,

that the novel category is perceived as an acceptable variation and not far off the pre-existing

competitive features. The new category does not bring an entirely new sport. The actors are still

the same. This is why legitimacy and identity that is vested in the athletes is seemingly

transferred to this new stage, preventing conflicting expectations and rendering acceptance

possible. These circumstances prevent that the new Olympic category is seen as an “empty

shell” and legitimacy had to be built from scratch. Concluding, I argue in this thesis that top

down category creation, with considerable impact on its members, is only possible in a foremost

one-sided dependence relationship. In hindsight, a key take-away from this study’s findings is

that the combination of two particular circumstances seem to lever out many dynamics, that are

generally applicable for category research: Partial dependence of category members on a given

incumbent with features of a monopoly.

In order to undertake first exploratory steps into this realm and to illuminate some of the

struggles which a newly created category is facing, we first of all have to take a look at the soil

we are about to set foot on. After this foundational introduction, the next chapter deals with the

questions of who the members of this new category are, where my research took place, as well

as what Olympic sport climbing is all about and the reasons, which render it a highly suitable

case for conducting my research in.

2. Research Setting

2.1 The New Olympic Sport Climbing Category and its Members

We might all agree that, overall, the Olympic games are a fully established and institutionalized

business and therefore, so is their category. Although some individuals might not like them as

they are, we still know what they are about, we know what to expect from them and we know

the spirit and ethos that comes with them, regardless of the inclusion of a new sport. I argue

that, through the inclusion of sport climbing, approved and elaborated by the IFSC and

11

ultimately the IOC (International Olympic Committee), external audiences, who are not

members of this new category, automatically accredit legitimacy to some extent to basically

whatever these actors decide, through the normative power vested in them. This claim is backed

by assertions made from Negro et al. (2010), towards the political view on legitimacy, in which

legitimacy follows the norm-building and norm-enforcement of large organizational players in

a certain domain. What remains unclear is how, at the very core of this new Olympic sport

climbing category, the members themselves take this inclusion, what they do with it and how,

if at all, it affects them.

Therefore, I argue, it is not beneficial to conduct my specific category research with audience-

centrality, as suggested by other respective scholars (e.g. Negro et al., 2010). As in some other

markets with producers (see Negro et al., 2010), athletes and further key members are audience

to each other anyway, producing and consuming simultaneously as a collective entity, further

blurring these boundaries and rendering proper analysis of this kind pointless to a certain extent.

Moreover, there are many people climbing, but would not necessarily dub themselves climbers.

This stems from the lack of identification with this sport among peripheral groups throughout

the community and is in line with pertinent research (Cattani et al., 2014; Grodal, 2018).

Subsequently, values and views that get displayed from those groups with weaker

identification, might differ considerably from the ones of core members (Hsu & Grodal, 2020)

and hence, may not stand representative for the target group which I want to address, when

conducting my research. This is why I assume key member-centrality for the purpose of my

thesis, which is an extension to the in Batuev’s and Robinson’s (2019) work proposed athlete-

centrality.

Certainly, competitive sport climbing and the community within this circuit is arguably a

guiding part and key pillar for the structures and direction of the sport. However, in the end,

competitive sport climbing and the community inside of this competition circuit is just a

fraction of the total community and what the sport consists of. As the Olympic inclusion affects

all of the climbing community on a global scale, and this newly created category is yet to be

enacted by members entrenched in this community, I see more than just competitive athletes,

the Olympians-to-be, useful to explore these issues of legitimacy and identity.

Although the top-level athletes’ perspective is crucial to my work, there is simply more to the

story than one side. For instance, there are climbers who do not like or eventually totally refuse

to go indoors, possibly having a completely different understanding of their own identity as

climbers with inherently different values regarding the sport. Furthermore, there are people in

favor, and some, who are in disagreement with the direction the climbing sport has knocked in.

12

Either regarding individual decisions from federations and institutions or in general, like

climbing going mainstream, which might likely clash with value- and belief systems of its

origins as an anti-establishment sport.

Hence, key members of the sport climbing community are climbers, who identify themselves

with this sport in a strong manner, which have an opinion about the things that are going on

within this micro-universe and, at best, take part in the discourse about them. In other words,

climbers who are central to the community and the overall framing process. This is inspired by

the key-informant technique (Tremblay, 1957), choosing interview partners based on their role

and knowledge in the field. Hannan (2010) further emphasizes the importance of clearly defined

conditions of membership, which is why I laid out in detail who is eligible to become a potential

interviewee for this thesis.

As history shows, category members do have a significant impact on the industry. To give an

example, just recently, the IFSC announced a contract with FloSports, a U.S-based streaming

service provider, to put the livestream of climbing worldcups behind a paywall (CBJ, 2017).

This livestream has always been free of charge up to that day. As a reaction to this move, there

was unanimous outrage in the climbing community and even the active professional athletes

threatened to boycott the, at this time, upcoming world cup. This was the moment, when the

IFSC retreated and pulled out of the deal, continuing to produce the livestream free of charge

ever since.

To get a sound picture, I conducted eighteen expert-interviews with climbers consistent with

the description of a key category member. The interviewees therefore consist of actively

competing, professional athletes, who are part of the national Austrian climbing squad,

ambitious high-level amateur climbers, who have been practicing this sport for many years and

are deeply engrained into the local climbing community and last but not least, climbing coaches

as being in an institutionalized role, with either one of the aforementioned histories. More

detailed information on the interviewees is displayed in the methodological chapter (4.1 Data

Collection).

To ensure the investigation of localized on-the-ground category-enactment, I stuck to the

geographical region of Innsbruck, Austria, and immediate surroundings. Innsbruck is not only

my hometown, but has long been known as a stronghold of climbing, conditioning a dense

network of professional and amateur climbers, that I consider myself lucky to be a part of

(Welebil, 2018). These circumstances made the study here not only purposeful, but possible in

the first place.

13

Not long ago, Innsbruck was equipped with the “Kletterzentrum Innsbruck“, one of the largest

and most advanced climbing gyms in the world (Alpenverein, 2017; Schwienbacher, 2017).

Among other factors (e.g. quality of routesetting), this is attracting many top athletes and

national teams from all over the globe. On top of that, Innsbruck has been a frequent host to

national and international climbing competitions from the very start of their existence,

rendering it a climbing mecca in every respect (Welebil, 2018), and the perfect destination to

conduct my research in.

2.2 The Case of Olympic Sport Climbing

First of all, I am going to explain the different disciplines, which are relevant for the case of

Olympic sport climbing. This list does not account for the full spectrum of disciplines that exist

in climbing, only for the relevant ones, which are officially competed in under the organization

of the IFSC. Competitive sport climbing is essentially a sport practiced indoors, on artificial

walls and artificial holds. These holds are part of a route, set by a certified route-setter, differing

every time for the disciplines of lead and bouldering.

Although competitive athletes may partake in other disciplines or outdoor climbing activities,

it is neither required nor usually often the case, as training indoors takes up most of their time.

My goal is to explain the disciplines in a preferably amateurish way, for everybody to get a

sufficiently good idea of what the sport is about. For more detailed information on the rules

and specifics please turn to the more extensive description of the German alpine club (see

Alpenverein, 2019) or the official, current IFSC rulebook (see Hatch & Leonardon, 2020).

Lead Climbing:

Lead climbing was the first discipline that climbers competed in. Nowadays, it is held on

purpose-designed, artificial walls with an average height of 15 meters, with fixed points of

protection. The mode of competition is generally “flash“ (for qualification rounds) and “on-

sight“ (for semi-final and final rounds), meaning every athlete has one try for ascending the

route, in “on-sight“ even without prior information. For safety purposes, climbers are equipped

with a harness, a rope and a belayer, making sure to catch the climber in case of a fall and bring

him back to the ground safely. The route has to be climbed on lead, meaning each climber has

to “clip“ the rope into each individual point of protection himself. The objective is to climb as

high as possible within a preset timeframe. Whoever reaches the highest position, wins the

respective round.

14

Bouldering:

Bouldering means climbing without a rope, within reasonable jumping height. The main

objective is to climb as many boulders to the designated top hold, as possible. For catching

eventual falls, the floor beneath the artificial wall is protected with mats. While lead climbing

is more about resistance, this discipline is more about pure strength, coordination and balance,

as on a relatively short wall, maximally difficult individual moves are demanded. While earlier

in sport climbing history this mostly just meant smaller holds, which are obviously more

difficult to hold on to, the modern-day bouldering competitions are packed with acrobatic

moves, jumps and previously unseen motion-sequences. This has been making it very

spectacular to watch, even for spectators who are not climbing themselves, and is part of the

reason bouldering competitions achieved their status of being an “audience-magnet“.

Speed Climbing:

In speed climbing the name says it all already. Since 2005 the 15-meter-high and 5-degree

overhanging, artificial wall is standardized, as well as the route with the holds it takes place on.

In general, it is designed like a K.O. tournament, where each competition round is held on two

identical lanes right beside each other, making it a head-to-head duel. Much like in track and

field sprinting, there is mechanical-electric timing, also responsible for indicating false starts.

The climbers are nowadays belayed from the top by specifically designed machines and, after

the designated start-signal, the goal is to hit the top buzzer in the shortest time possible.

Important to know for this study is that speed climbing has a long tradition in many eastern

countries, like Russia or Eastern-Europe. However, in most western countries, like Austria, it

previously has neither been popular, nor have many climbers actually practiced it. The reason

this has changed recently, was the introduction of Olympic combined, as laid out below.

Olympic Combined:

Olympic combined is a “triathlon-format“, introduced specifically for the sport climbing debut

at the Olympic games, being the only discipline that is going to be held there. It consists of

speed, bouldering and lead together. These disciplines are getting climbed in this particular

order, leaving each competitor with three individual rankings. In order to determine the winner,

these three individual rankings become multiplied with each other, leaving each competitor

with a certain score in the end. Mathematically, the better the individual performances, the

lower this score is going to be. Accordingly, the athlete with the lowest score wins.

15

Now that we know the foundations of what we are talking about in a sportive sense, we are

moving forward deeper into the tissue of going Olympic. In one way or another, sport is and

remains a competitive matter by its very nature. The structure of competition in sport climbing

looked much different at its outset, the inherent competitive aspect might have remained the

same. I will not explore this matter further, but arguably grading the first outdoor climbs, in

terms of their difficulty, was at the very beginning of this competitiveness in climbing, and

marked the onset of a distinct category, sport climbing.

Sport climbing is now standing at this very critical, and therefore not only in its athletic sense

but also academically interesting, turning point in history, as it has been included for the first

time in the program for the upcoming summer Olympic games 2020 in Tokyo, Japan. In order

to avoid confusion right off the bat, although this Olympic edition is still going to be named

Tokyo 2020, it had to be postponed due to the global COVID-19 pandemic and is planned to

be carried out in 2021 instead (FAZ, 2020).

Although athletes around the world had to deal with a variety of issues caused through this

crisis, the delay itself however, does not really have any effect on my study. It does not change

any of the given circumstances, it simply delays the day that the Olympic debut is actually

going to go down, giving the athletes and everybody involved more time to prepare for the

inaugural showdown (ORF, 2020). So, what are actually the circumstances and implications

that come with sport climbing going Olympic?

First of all, for current and future climbing-athletes, the inclusion opens the floodgates for a

shot at becoming an Olympian and eventually winning, widely regarded as the biggest

achievement possible in a sportsmen’s career. However, going Olympic comes with its up- and

downsides, which are a matter of perspective and, obviously, individually perceived as the

conducted case study will show. Moreover, it entails opportunities, as well as restrictions and

threats. This concerns not only individuals, respectively members of this category, but

especially the ethos of sport climbing altogether.

The popular westernized slogan “citius, altius, fortius“ (latin for “faster, higher, stronger”),

which is the long standing motto of the Olympic games, is purposefully designed to motivate

athletes to always try their best and outperform previous records (ARD, 2016). To stick with

the Olympic games, this idea is also well apparent in how these events are conducted,

paralleling in “bigger is better“ or “gigantism“, receiving media attention already back in the

70s (Manoliu, 1978). While this slogan may be almost universally applicable in modern-day

society, it may well be in conflict with the ethos and values of a sport it is trying to incorporate.

16

Adding to that, one considerably big change concerns the organizational structure of the sport

itself, as there is now an additional, powerful agent on the very top of the field, namely the IOC,

whose influence is exemplary shown in the following. The recent process of sport climbing

officially becoming Olympic and some decisions that were made in the course of that, were not

without criticism and diverging opinions. Reinhold Scherer, one of the godfathers of Austrian

sport climbing, talks in an interview about how climbing must retain its spirit also in the

competitive sphere and not degenerate to become a puppet of the IOC, just arbitrarily

implementing new formats and features for the sake of entertainment (Arora, 2018).

According to some voices, this is basically exactly what already happened when the IFSC and

IOC decided for the Olympic combined format, invented for and to be held with its debut.

Reinhold Scherer is not a big fan of the Olympic combined and speaks about opportunities and

threats that Olympia entails, as he warns to not lose track of what “true“ climbing is (Arora,

2018). Through this decision for the Olympic combined, a rather unfamiliar and locally not

popular discipline, namely “speed“, found its way into competitive sport climbing in Austria

on a large scale. While it actually has been exercised by some individuals, it was a fringe

discipline regarding the overall picture, apparent not only in the fact that there were very few

facilities across Austria to even practice it.

However, this combination format is the only set of Olympic medals that is going to get handed

out next year, causing huge controversies as everybody who wants to stand a chance or even

qualify, had to take up speed climbing. Vice versa, every speed climber had to start training

bouldering and lead. While for many external audiences, the fast and action-packed speed

discipline is allegedly highly appealing to watch, throughout the internal member-community

it has widely not been regarded as “real“ climbing (Agnew, 2019).

Firstly, this is for reasons of lacking a “problem-solving-element“, usually inherent to climbing,

as the route stays always the same. Secondly, the Olympic combined compares to asking a

runner to compete in a marathon, a 10.000m run and a 100m sprint. While they all may be

running-disciplines, they demand a highly different skill-set, with speed climbing being the odd

one out (Agnew, 2019). Consequently, this decision from the IOC and IFSC has had huge

impacts and implications for the whole scene, especially for the competitive athletes’ side. New

coaches had to be hired, training routines got turned upside down, facilities had to be build and

particularly, many athletes were basically coerced to take up a discipline they did not sign up

for in the first place.

Alongside, there are many other implications of becoming an Olympic sport, like that there is

way more money circulating, increasing funding and sponsoring interest, from which athletes

17

can obviously benefit in pursuit of their professional career. Furthermore, the Olympic

inclusion enhances the public awareness of and interest in the climbing sport, as it receives

more media-coverage, as well as many other things. In the amateur section of sport climbing,

already as soon as 2003, way before the currently ongoing boom set in, parallels have been

drawn to the concept of McDonaldization (Hardy, 2003). In his work, Hardy (2003) discusses

how effects of predictability, objectification and control lead to the rationalization of rock

climbing and that the ethos and values, that dominated in climbing so far, are threatened to fade

through its professionalization.

All of these immanent implications of climbing’s professionalization are linked together in one

way or another, originating in the momentum sport climbing has gained, becoming this big,

mainstream and rationalized industry, eventually broadening the foundational category. As Lee

et al. (2017) elaborated, category spanning can lead to greater legitimacy. Greater is not meant

in terms of higher or stronger, but rather from a larger community altogether. It is however, at

the risk of sparking conflicts among members and therefore watering down the collective

identity (Lee et al., 2017). So, in the end, what do the members think about these developments?

Are these developments still justifiable from their perspective, regarding the identity and ethos

of sport climbing? Self-determined problem-solving and, eventually imposed, high-tech speed

races consolidated under one roof, does that work out?

In terms of category maturation, you could argue that, as far as sports in general are concerned,

going Olympic is the next logical, obvious step of a professionalization process. While this

maturation is an ongoing process, as it is ever-changing, it is subjected to global isomorphic

pressures. These reach from coercive, through normative to mimetic ones. All of them lead to

the same outcome of rendering something heterogeneous to become more similar, more

aligned. For this thesis, I am particularly interested in the normative ones, as they are interlinked

with the identity, ethos and ethics of the sport. However, also the coercive isomorphic pressures

are noteworthy, as they are imposed from larger actors than any individual and therefore, I

argue, fall back onto the normative level within the community. That seems reasonable, as

anything coercive might have people divided in their perception of it, be it as a matter of

principle or out of genuine arguments.

Some of these coercive isomorphic pressures in climbing are really useful, especially regarding

safety. They help getting equipment certified and lift safety-standards to a sufficient level,

minimizing inherent risk. Though, by the international federation externally imposed rules,

policies and structures are also coercive pressures and the category members specifically

exposed to these, are the professional athletes. Complementary, athletes are in general

18

supervised by coaches and arranged in (national) teams, which have to train in some kind of

facility, lifting coaches, gym owners and the national federations into the actively or passively

affected group as well. Being an Olympic sport means that, for the sake of performance-

comparability and fairness, it is inevitable for many aspects to become standardized. That is

why the IFSC rulebook is not likely to get any slimmer, but rather more regulations have to be

added over time, making isomorphism altogether a controversial imperative for the

professionalization of any sport.

Controversial it is for a multitude of reasons, which is why I want to point out a rather

unpleasant implication here of isomorphic pressures in the elite-sports business that is often not

self-evident at first glance. When large actors like the IOC or IFSC come into play and start

making top down decisions, it shapes the professional career of anyone, who wants to

successfully achieve a conventional career down this path. These decisions shape the structural

organization of the sport and shape the isomorphic pressures, but foremost they eventually

determine where money and funding is flowing.

This is important, because it is hardly a professional career and certainly not a sustainable one,

without any payment. In other words, isomorphism gradually narrows down career paths, often

just by redirecting the media visibility from diverse opportunities into a streamlined framework.

I am exclusively speaking here about a genuine conventional career on purpose, because new

media and modern technology has given sportsmen many possibilities for self-marketing,

personal branding and gaining visibility in the public sphere, often used alongside each other

(Thorpe & Dumont, 2019), which is however not the main focus of this study.

When professional sportsmen would not comply to these isomorphic pressures, they put their

jobs in jeopardy, or cannot even roll one out, due to the lack of financial and structural support.

When, for example, the IOC and IFSC top-down decide for a new discipline, that means that

other events will inevitably follow, trimming their competition formats towards the more or

less prescribed model. The athletes basically have no other choice than to give in, as otherwise

there might not be an event for them to compete in. Subsequently, not only their job, but also

sponsoring is threatened. Sponsorship is a business model and not a welfare institution. Your

sponsor is likely to give up on you, if you do not perform on the visible mainstream-stage.

Isomorphic pressures are therefore inherently part of professionalization and a sport becoming

mainstream, but vice versa they can diminish individual freedom and personal responsibility

for athletes, as shown by some real-life examples in the following subchapter.

19

2.3 The Olympic Games and Their Conflictual History with Lifestyle Sports

Besides all the aforementioned reasons, why Olympic sport climbing makes a suitable case,

history points out some similar situations and showcases the interesting conflictual setting,

when conducting research in the field of alternative lifestyle sports getting incorporated in the

Olympic games. The current case of sport climbing is in some respects similar to the case of

the inclusion of Olympic snowboarding in 1998. At that moment, the arguably best

snowboarder in the world, Norway’s Terje Haakonsen, decided to boycott the premiere of

snowboarding at the Olympic games in Nagano, Japan. In a similar manner, many riders were

not fully comfortable with the Olympic situation, as they neither pursued an inclusion, nor felt

adequately represented by their federation (TWSB, 1998). The members of this category were

not happy with merely constituting a profitable asset to the IOC (TWSB, 1998) and in many

ways, it was simply a mismatch between the identity, values and ethos of snowboarding and

the Olympic games. Like in sport climbing, it developed out of individualism, self-expression,

self-determination and freedom, which was threatened or, according to some voices, even taken

away by the inclusion in the first place.

Also, in the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, not only sport climbing, but other action sports like

skateboarding and surfing have been included. A move that Thorpe and Wheaton (2011, p. 831)

see as part of a larger strategy from the IOC to “remain relevant for contemporary youth“,

because they are “cognizant of the diminishing numbers of young Olympic viewers“. As we

saw, these inclusions can create a set of challenges and spark off controversy, particularly

among members of the respective community.

When news started to spread, proclaiming that skateboarding might make it to the 2012

Olympics in London, an outcry was sparked among the global community which eventually

even brought thousands of skateboarders around the world to sign an online petition against an

Olympic inclusion (Thorpe & Wheaton, 2011). The petition was underpinned by various

arguments of similar nature, for example that skateboarding is not a “sport“ and that the

supporters do not want skateboarding to be exploited and squeezed into the Olympic regime,

taking away their individuality and freedom (The Petition, 2010). The comment section of this

petition further stands exemplary for the anti-Olympic stance from this community, literally

begging against an inclusion to not ruin the face of skateboarding (The Petition, 2010). Once

more, the oppositional stance of their core identities is becoming very clear. Altogether, calling

it the “Generation X Games“, Thorpe and Wheaton (2011) offer very interesting insights into

the cultural politics of the incorporation of action sports into the Olympic movement.

20

3. Theoretical Orientation

In the previous sections I laid out how the new category of Olympic sport climbing came into

existence in the first place, as it was created top-down by the IFSC and the IOC, where the latter

has only been recently on the political playground of sport climbing through the Olympic

inclusion. While the literature on social categories is extensive, we still know little about how

a top-down created category is accepted and enacted “on the ground” by internal audiences. My

thesis seeks to shed light on this research question.

3.1 The Formation of Social Categories and Category Spanning

Social categories matter to organizational life because they embody meaning systems, giving

form to organizational fields and their actors, and provide meaning to market entities, agents

and products (Negro et al., 2010). Duran and Khaire (2017) differentiate between category

emergence and creation. Whereas category emergence inherently forms completely new actors

and structures, calling for a new classification out of their inventive nature, category creation

is described more as an intentional and directed makeover of existing categories, e.g. through a

combination of categorical features, keeping the social structuration in place (Durand & Khaire,

2017). Hence, the question arises, if large organizational players in a certain field deliberately

create new categories for the sole purpose of their own benefit, does it come at a certain cost

for the smaller actors, like individuals, in this field? This seems particularly important in the

face of legitimacy trade-off effects, surfaced by Lee et al. (2017).

The formation of new categories, regardless of how they come into place, requires

rearrangement, reinterpretation and revaluation of present features and elements and as a result,

challenges the actors in a specific ecosystem (Durand & Khaire, 2017). Therefore, it is essential

to distinguish between groups of actors and pay attention to the different perspectives in the

unfolding of a new category, as every group is affected differently and occupies a different

position throughout the process of formation. As laid out, such a top down created category

bears the risk of becoming an “empty shell“, if it lacks the acceptance and support from its

immanent actors, the athletes, the climbers, the community. These actors seem crucial, as a

category might have its shell or in other words a mere nametag, but neither a full body nor roots

to give it the necessary substance to maintain its existence and sustainably grow and develop.

Hence, I am looking into the case of sport climbing going Olympic from an internal member

perspective.

This line of argument ties in with the findings of Lee et al. (2017), which suggest that

legitimacy-seeking behavior for nascent categories, resulting in category spanning, implies

21

trade-offs that have been overlooked so far, between legitimacy, identity and size of the

respective category. Lee et al. (2017) refer to this legitimacy phenomenon as a double-edged

sword, meaning that growing in size as a category, comprising more and more members with

eventually diverging values, beliefs, expectations and norms, likely results in rejection or

ceased support from members at the very inside, the part that already has been there in times

the category still remained faithful to the principles it is built upon. In a nutshell, these trade-

offs are not only well under-researched in general, but foremost not researched at all when it

comes to top-down enforced category spanning. That is the gap I am digging into with my

research, breaking down this macro idea of category spanning and its effects, onto the micro-

level of actually affected individuals within this categorical bubble.

Sport climbing and the Olympics constitute categories that have been around for some time, so

they are established and matured to a certain extent. The purposeful combination of their

features, resulting in this novel category of Olympic sport climbing, inevitably leads to this

process of rearrangement, reinterpretation and revaluation (see Durand & Khaire, 2017).

Taking the internal member perspective, it therefore is spanning the category of sport climbing

into spheres that are, at least at first glance, not compatible with the identity and ethos this sport,

and more specifically its members, have represented in its past. The category gets broadened

and thus, diluted (Lee et al., 2017).

This is why, in this thesis, I investigate how the new category of Olympic sport climbing is

enacted on the ground. This Olympic category is novel, but essentially might be an unsolicited

extension to the category of sport climbing altogether, seeking for more extensive legitimacy

for the sport or rather its federation’s representatives. This means the category becomes

extended and broadened and therefore, following this key-argument of Lee et al. (2017),

whatever core values, ideas and principles the category initially is standing for, are being

softened.

Hence, I study the creation of this top-down created category and its internal acceptance from

key-members, particularly through the concepts of legitimacy and identity. Both can help us

understand the struggles of a novel category and its internal social acceptance, as they are

central concepts, not just in social category literature (Lee et al., 2017; Mathias et al., 2018;

Negro et al., 2010), but moreover in organizational research altogether (Glynn & Navis, 2013;

Navis & Glynn, 2010, 2011; Starr & MacMillan, 1990). First of all, it is important to know that

legitimacy and identity are interrelated, conditioning one another and can therefore not be fully

unraveled (Navis & Glynn, 2011). Nevertheless, they have their own dynamics and logics at

work, which I will focus on in the upcoming sections.

22

3.2 Legitimation as a Struggle of Double-Edged Nature

According to Suchman (1995, p. 574), legitimacy is defined as the “generalized perception or

assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some

socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions“. King and Whetten

(2008, p. 192) in other words add, that legitimacy is a “perception of approval“ of actions, in

an organizational setting, when “organizations conform with taken-for-granted standards“.

Legitimacy is argued to be a prerequisite for organizations to acquiring resources and wealth,

meaning it is necessary to attain legitimacy for a venture to be successful in the first place

(Michael Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001; Starr & MacMillan, 1990). As legitimacy is not something

an organization or category simply possesses, but has to be perceived and assigned to it by its

members and audience, this process plays a crucial role and “can be a particularly acute

challenge for new ventures operating in new market categories“ (Lee et al., 2017; Mathias et

al., 2018).

Taking a peek into neo-institutional theory, the idea is that important audiences exert pressure

on organizations to conform, in order to be seen as legitimate (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983;

Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Powell & DiMaggio, 1991). I argue this logic can be conveyed to

category research as well, as research suggests that matured categories carry distinct boundaries

and are likely to get penalized by their audiences if they are not adhering to this normative

framework. It only gets more complex and eventually problematic for a category, when there

is a lot of diversity among audiences, in terms of their interests and views, because they

subsequently ask the category to conform to multiple meaning systems (Negro et al., 2010). In

turn, organizations pursuing to address and please various audiences are likely to experience

conflicting expectations (Negro et al., 2010).

Lee and his colleagues (2017) have recently shed light on this particularly interesting and

largely neglected struggle, namely on the dynamics of attaining legitimacy as a nascent

category, characterizing it to be a double-edged sword. In a nutshell, they argue that broadening

a distinct category waters down the existent legitimacy and collective identity, whereas strict

integrity and compliance comes at the price of limited growth and insignificance (Durand &

Paolella, 2013; Lee et al., 2017; Wry et al., 2011). That means that the categorical coherence

and acceptance is jeopardized by categorical growth and vice versa. This argument rests on the

consideration, that the pioneers of a category share a certain institutional logic, values, ethos

and goals, something that might be subsumed as a shared collective identity, which is threatened

by new entrants, who might hold contradictory views, when broadening a category and seeking

broader legitimacy (Durand & Paolella, 2013; Lee et al., 2017). In the face of growing a

23

category in size, this trade-off seems to be of critical importance, particularly in the face of a

novel category with oppositional identity character, that was drafted in a pioneering manner,

but is internally not yet fully backed up and matured.

Consequently, the legitimization of a novel category involves a variety of struggles, particularly

in the face of acceptance among its internal key members. Even more so in sport climbing, with

respect to some controversial decisions that have been made. Here, we have internal key

members, which are largely put through the aftermath of decisions, that are not the product of

their own making. For example, the invention and implementation of the Olympic combined

format, as well as the overall contested and disputed “mainstreaming“ of climbing, that partially

led to its Olympic inclusion in the first place out of public interest.

The logics at work, when it comes to attaining legitimacy, are of crucial importance, which

leads us back to the assertion made by Lee et al. (2017). Through their findings, they have come

to the conclusion that legitimacy-seeking behaviors come at the price of diluted collective

identity and ethos. Therefore, legitimacy is of double-edged nature, hitherto largely neglected

by research and literature in this realm. Legitimacy needs management, as there is a trade-off

between the actions set out to increase legitimacy and while retaining a shared, distinctive

identity amidst the members of a category (Lee et al., 2017). Bearing this in mind, it seems

particularly important in the light of nascent categories, as they conducted their research and

obtained their findings in the field of the nascent U.S. organic food product category, examining

their development from a grassroots movement to a large and institutionalized player in this

market. However, they kept their focus on the macro-level, the category itself, which was

deliberately pushed by its internal members in search for more extensive legitimacy and

eventually, a bigger share of the market. What we don’t know is what happens when broadening

the category is rather passively enacted onto the members, without action on their behalf.

Lounsbury and Glynn (2001) and Navis and Glynn (2010) in their work address the importance

of, first of all the distinction between, and moreover the purposeful establishment of cognitive

and normative legitimacy for new categories. For reasons I have highlighted, like sport climbing

becoming increasingly mainstream throughout the general public, as well as the normative

power vested in its organizational incumbents (Negro et al., 2010), both forms from an external

point of view and at least the cognitive legitimacy from an internal standpoint are basically

guaranteed and therefore negligible for this thesis. However, the internal normative challenge

that sport climbing as an Olympic category has to put up with remains and makes for this very

interesting setting, where conflictual identities with diverging values regarding the sport might

likely clash.

24

Scholars like Deephouse (1996) argue that purposeful isomorphism, in terms of figuring out

and conforming to institutionalized preferences is often the key to attaining legitimacy. Yet,

such conformity in order to acquire resources, as legitimacy is a resource as well, inevitably

imply constraints on the hand of the entrepreneurial venture, which is more concerned with

values of novelty, distinctiveness and nonconformity (Rindova et al., 2009). In their

entrepreneurial scholarship they argue that these contradicting features coexist and involve an

inherent trade-off for organizations to thrive (Rindova et al., 2009). Much like the work from

Lee and colleagues (2017), these arguments seem reasonable, but leave us yet again groping in

the dark, when it comes to a combination of rather micro-level aspects, as the normative

acceptance within a category that comprises of oppositional identities paired with increasing

mainstreaming and isomorphism in a top-down setting.

In order to be a distinguishable and recognizable entity, to make sense to the audience, and to

gain legitimacy, a category must be somewhat differentiable towards others. Hence, it needs

boundaries that define it and distance a category from related ones. Negro et al. (2010) argue

that, by the nature of category diversity, there are categories with stronger and weaker

boundaries out there. Whereas categories with blurry boundaries usually face little penalization

from their audience for non-coherent actions and category spanning, mature categories with

distinct boundaries and strong schematization are much more likely to get penalized for the

very same action (Negro et al., 2010). Lee et al. (2017) distinguish here between low-contrast

and high-contrast categories. Accordingly, low-contrast categories are less susceptible to

penalization for category spanning, because the acceptance of novelty and openness is bigger

through their more ambiguous schemas in general (Michael T. Hannan et al., 2007; Lee et al.,

2017). Olympic sport climbing right now is somewhat bound to be low-contrast, as it is far

from settled yet and moreover, already looks differently regarding the conducted disciplines in

the 2024 Olympic games in Paris (IFSC, 2019).

Negro et al. (2010) findings further suggest, relating to categorical maturation, that with the

increasing stabilization of a category, the audience tends to pay more attention on specific

attributes within it than still focusing on sensemaking efforts. Imagine mature Olympic sports

categories like track and field or swimming, once of a sudden changing in a way of abandoning

existing or inventing new disciplines. On the other hand, sport climbing, being much less

settled, first of all has to define itself as an Olympic sport and grow steady, in order to strengthen

their boundaries and let their members and audience make sense of it.

Lee and his colleagues (2017, p. 447) are laying out, alongside the work of Lounsbury and

Glynn (2001) and Navis and Glynn (2010), that legitimizing a new category is a process “by

25

which producers engage in sensegiving using labels, frames, and narratives to make new

identities understandable and appealing, and by which audiences engage in sensemaking to sort

out and assess organizational claims“. The initial foundation of any market category is a

common understanding between producers and audiences on a “prototypical identity“,

representative for every organization within a certain emerging category (Rosa et al., 1999).

Affirmative of the findings by Negro et al. (2010), Kennedy (2008) claims that the more

organizations stand by this “prototypical identity“, and therefore promote clear-cut outer

boundaries, the more the category in its own right as well as its individual organizational

members are accepted and viewed as appropriate and legitimate. However, seeking out

legitimacy comes with noteworthy implications, regarding the aforementioned trade-off. The

more distinct and narrow in its identity and the more isomorphism is imposed among its

members, the higher may be this categories integrity and overall perceived legitimacy, but this

comes at the cost of insignificance and limited growth (Wry et al., 2011). By implication, this

suggests that legitimacy-seeking behaviors, in the sense of seeking out for broadening the

attracted variety of audiences or new market entrants, is watering down the initially narrow

identity. Negro et al. (2010) deem this the blurring of categorical boundaries and it might come

with penalization from existing members and audiences.

Durand and Paolella (2013) and Thornton et al. (2012) further elaborate on these effects, as

their findings show that broadening a category likely causes declined legitimacy from

audiences, as the affected category becomes perceived as increasingly ambiguous and less

consistent. Moreover, they found it is diluting identity, mostly being rooted in a shared

understanding of the category’s institutional logic, an overarching worldview and a common

goal. So, in order to deepen our understanding of how to attain legitimacy as a category that

hosts such shattered, heterogeneous views and perceptions of norms, we have to dig into the

concept of identity, which is so closely interwoven with legitimacy in this social-market

context, that using one without the other might likely lead to missing out on beneficial synergy

effects.

3.3 Oppositional Identity Amplifies Legitimation Struggles

The concept of identity is also deemed central to social category systems and markets, as the

mere volume of research in this area accounts for (see Jensen, 2010; Lee et al., 2017; M.

Lounsbury & Rao, 2004; Mathias et al., 2018; Navis & Glynn, 2010, 2011; Negro et al., 2010;

Zuckerman, 1999). Jensen (2010) asserts that a market identity is defined by its associated

social categories, determining the expectations about organizations and products claiming this

26

specific identity. Once more, we are arriving at a point where it is suggested, that it is the

internal people, the backbone of a certain product or venture, which are crucial when it comes

to identity. This seems especially true when it comes to a product like sports, because it is

simply inseparable from its performing actors.

As Negro et al. (2010, p. 17) explain, identity serves various purposes: “it informs

organizational actors of courses of action that are open to and expected of them, helps firms

identify their rivals, and serves as handles for frames of reference that audiences use in their

evaluations“. Furthermore, identity is used for differentiating between categories and

promoting their individual legitimacy. Whereas similarity judgements in an enclosed category

supports cognitive legitimation, so do evident differences between them, because they possess

high contrast against each other (Negro et al., 2010). An example for high contrast between

categories is when members of a certain category are clearly distinguishable against non-

members.

Going with the general conception of Navis and Glynn (2011, p. 479), they describe identity

through the structure of respective claims around a new venture “as to “who we are” and “what

we do”“ serving as cornerstones. The “new venture“ in this thesis is the natal hour of Olympic

sport climbing, that presents itself in great contrast to the aforementioned origins of traditional

sport climbing. As identity is interlinked with legitimacy, these concepts can hardly be used

solely on their own. Hence, the previous chapter is already littered with the term and so is this

chapter with legitimacy, but now it is time to take a more detailed look into the theory of

oppositional identity and its implications for the present case.

It is argued that, the emergence of new categories, that are situated oppositional to established

ones, is rather common, as the driving actors set out to designate and describe novel categories

through their very contrast with existing, associated offerings (Durand & Khaire, 2017; Sine &

Lee, 2009; Weber et al., 2008). Quite some researchers have already picked up this idea of

oppositional identities and investigated into categories, that have formed out of opposing

stances to the established mainstream. The literature spans from studies about the U.S. craft

beer industry (Mathias et al., 2018; Verhaal et al., 2015), microbrewery movement (Carroll &

Swaminathan, 2000), whiskey distillery market (McKendrick & Hannan, 2014), grass-fed meat

and dairy industry (Weber et al., 2008) to the green energy sector (Sine et al., 2005), among

others. What they all have in common, is that oppositional collective group identification

promotes collective action and subsequently, organizational legitimacy (Pozner & Rao, 2006).

King’s and Whetten’s (2008, p. 192) work brought forward that “social identities constitute an

organization’s reference group and provide stakeholders with standards by which assessments

27

of the organization are made“. Yet, despite their importance, how the creation and legitimation

of new market identities works is still largely undiscovered (Jensen, 2010). While agents, likely

the ones which were active in the process of category creation from the outset, can propose a

new categorical identity to some extent, the final construction remains a collective affair (Hsu

& Grodal, 2020).

However, achieving collective agreement might be a difficult endeavor, particularly for reasons

of rivaling conceptions throughout stakeholders about valid membership, which occur

especially in early stages of category formation (Granqvist et al., 2013; Hsu & Grodal, 2014).

These rivaling conceptions and the struggle to attain a legitimate collective identity, that is

coherent enough to justify its term, tie back to category spanning. The more members have to

come to terms, the more conflicting expectations are in place, rendering a category schema

more ambiguous and its boundaries fuzzier (Lee et al., 2017; Negro et al., 2010). One reason

and at the same time the outcome of such circumstances are, that no unequivocal identity can

be presented, due to the divided body of the category.

The sheer novelty of this new category of Olympic sport climbing and the fact that it was

created top-down out of an oppositional identity to the traditional roots of sport climbing, might

make the struggle of working out an identity even worse. As it has not matured yet, neither in

its competitive design nor its community, it is yet most likely lacking an explicit and

unequivocal collective identity among its members and as a categorical entity, unlike

established Olympic sports.

Jensen (2010) takes a more pragmatic approach in his work about identity, with his study about

the combination of legitimate comedy and illegitimate pornography in Denmark and how

purposefully creating a new market identity seemed to help legitimizing their existence and

created a novel market. He claims that a product is perceived with a legitimate market identity,

when it recombines features of existing categories in a way that is both isomorphic with and

differentiated from its categorical predecessors. This assertion would point towards Olympic

sport climbing having its spot secured, regarding its legitimate market identity. Nevertheless,

the internal perspective here is most likely neglected, as forging an identity is a collective

endeavor from the inside out, which is why we need additional information from the affected

members to analyze the case of Olympic sport climbing (Hsu & Grodal, 2020).

Market entrepreneurs often define a new category through its clear opposition to pre-existing,

associated offerings, in order to attain attention and legitimacy for their novel category (Hsu &

Grodal, 2020). While in the past, research has highlighted the beneficial features of such

oppositional categorical positioning, recent scholarship shifted the attention towards the

28

phenomenon of stigmatization and found this oppositional strategy might be a double-edged

sword (Hsu & Grodal, 2020). This takes us back to the issue about normative legitimacy, which

is also essential for identity work, particularly when it comes to products or ventures that risk

being viewed as normatively illegitimate (Jensen, 2010). Normative illegitimacy means, when

larger groups of people perceive something to be in violation of social norms and values (Scott,

1995).

Whereas Jensen (2010) is concerned with the legitimation of market identities, Hsu and Grodal

(2020) in their work elaborate on the dynamics of stigmatization and the inherent threat of a

new category associating itself with an already established one, even if the positioning is

oppositional, when the pre-existing category is normatively questionable. The question arising

here is if the stigmatization of the Olympics stains the category of Olympic sport climbing or

even further down the road sport climbing altogether.

3.4 Enactment on the Ground as Values, Aspirations and Routines

Gazing through the concepts of legitimacy and identity, we are now at a point where we

probably would be able to look at the case of Olympic sport climbing at a macro-level and take

some educated guesses. Yet, in order to get to the meat of the thesis, and see what effect the

Olympic inclusion essentially has had on the community, there is the need for different rather

micro-level oriented foci, in order to operationalize this theorized framework, ask hands-on

questions and then be able to analyze the gathered data from the conducted interviews. While

these foci constitute the tip of the spear of the theoretical orientation, they enable to move

deeper towards the empirical study and later on, seamlessly go back into theorization.

These different lenses, used for the questioning and analysis, are namely first of all values,

which are manifold in sport climbing according to Batuev and Robinson (2019), but

nevertheless inherent to the identity of the members of the sport climbing community. Here, I

use values in their sense of what an individual or a group stands for and what matters to them,

which is closely related to their identity, the face they represent to the outside and within (Navis

& Glynn, 2011). Somewhat special about climbing is the vast variety of values seemingly

coexisting throughout the climbing community, originating from the value-laden traditional

mountaineering, successively wedging off into its own forms and disciplines until it ended up

with the implementation of the Olympic combined discipline some years back (Batuev &

Robinson, 2019). Eventually, there is to be found a common key value among climbers.

Something that they collectively represent, as part of the reason they practice this sport and

tying them together as a community. So far, it remains unclear if the values currently co-existing

29

can and have to further expand, for sport climbing to accommodate something that seems to be

so far off from what climbing has been.

Getting to know more about the values in climbing and their questionable persistence seems to

be even more fruitful in the face of statements made by Hardy (2003), as he highlights the wider

importance of climbing values to the overall society. Hardy (2003) called out two overarching

values that he found of great significance for climbers: adventure and intrinsic reasons. He also

identified several rationalizing factors and mechanism throughout the professionalization of

sport climbing, like guidebooks, equipment or modern climbing facilities, which in turn lead to

predictability and control. He argues that the values and ethos in climbing, which are allegedly

largely in place within this core-community, act counter-rationalizing, against the effects of

commodification of modern-day sport climbing. Yet, we do not really know what happened

ever since Hardy (2003) conducted his study, especially in the light of the Olympic inclusion,

and if the enactment on the ground is even comparable here in Austria.

The second theoretical lens is the one concerning aspirations, as of their ambitions in climbing

and where they actually want to take their business. Be it amateur or professional climbing,

most climbers at a high level likely do have some sort of personal agenda. While for amateurs

might be a grade or a particular route outdoors, aspirations for professionals are often related

to competitive goals and rankings and hence, their career. Enclosed in this issue is the question

of why athletes are actually climbing in the first place, their motivation and drive at the very

core of their efforts.

Sport climbing athletes have been facing substantial, externally inflicted change, due to the

inclusion in the Olympic program, so they have to deal with what is externally imposed on

them. Conversely, this inclusion opened up new opportunities and new goals, eventually

triggering the aspiration of current and future climbers. The question is, if and how these

aspirations changed throughout this category change, that has been taking place and how they

individually differ among the athletes. Ensuing this question is, if and to which extent the

athletes actually perceive this change through the Olympics as affecting themselves.

Obviously, there are going to be athletes whose biggest dream it is to compete in the Olympic

games, which now is theoretically possible or for those already qualified is going to become

reality. Not only in climbing but across all kinds of sports this is often times the ultimate goal

for sportsmen. But there might also be climbers who do not feel affected, compete for different

reasons than this Olympic spirit or do not do competitions at all but instead focus on outdoor

climbing. Furthermore, a difference between older and younger climbers might be found, which

grew up incorporating varying values as they started to develop their own identity of being a

30

climber for their own individual reasons. The symbolic approach to climbing, how people get

introduced to climbing as a sport, is already highlighted in its importance by Hardy (2003). In

his findings, he asserts that the way a person’s gets to know climbing, regarding the attached

social environment and how the sport is conducted in this initial phase, is substantially

impactful in how this person will climb in the future. Yet again, this is closely intertwined with

the initially transported values, which have the potential power to shape and direct the

prospective, individual set of values.

The third lens that has been put on is concerned with the routines and training in sport climbing,

something that is really tangible for climbers on a day to day basis. There might be athletes not

affected by all means through the developments going on, but for many competition climbers,

being able to take their chances with Olympia, this means a huge makeover of their training

regime. For many this is leading to competing in more disciplines than they originally did. This

may not constitute mere coercion, but at least it is more than what many athletes bargained for

in order to be able to stay in the game, having to comply to policies imposed by the IFSC or

IOC. Whereas policies are nothing out of order in competitive sports, providing the necessary

regulatory framework, the implementation of Olympic combined is of rather radical nature.

This step has left many puzzled, which makes it all the more interesting to investigate the status

quo of the acceptance and legitimation of this new discipline. Moreover, the matter of routines

comprises any relevant tangible issue, which is eventually affected by change through this

inclusion. Routines might manifest themselves in daily business, as of where to go and what to

do, timetables , competition schedules, gym versus outdoor climbing. Eventual change of these

routines might result in altered behavior of any kind and for any reason, which is where this

focus wants to shed light on.

The developments regarding climbing now being an Olympic sport and what it took to get there

are kind of raining down on the affected members, particularly athletes, rendering them victims

of the decisions made by authorities high up the foodchain, if they are happy about it or not.

Obviously, you could walk away anytime from competitive climbing, but if want to go for a

professional career you have to comply to the laid-out rules and policies. What we don’t know

yet is what this exactly means for the athletes and other members of this category.

Going Olympic as a sport is something that, obviously, affects the sport and the community on

a global scale. However, Innsbruck, as this long-standing climbing stronghold, stands

somewhat exemplary in the climbing world, which enables a fruitful local investigation here in

the first place. So, this thesis aims on having this particular look on the Olympics and sport

climbing as overarching phenomena, guiding the question of how the global ideology of

31

climbing is currently enacted on the specific, local ground of Innsbruck. This perspective might

offer particular insights that permit valuable conclusions back on the theoretical level of

category literature and organizational scholarship.

4. Methodology

In this section, the “how“ behind the theoretical, but most notably the empirical share of this

present thesis is laid out in full detail. At first, the research philosophy is being introduced,

alongside the research design used for the study. Secondly, it is elaborated how the data for the

case study was collected, how the inquiry took place and who was involved it. Lastly, how the

data was used, processed and analyzed is explained in 4.3 Data Analysis. The research setting

(chapter 2.), bound to be part of the methodological approach, was brought forward as an

individual chapter, due to its complexity and size.

4.1 Research Philosophy & Design

The research design is a qualitative, exploratory, inductive, interview-driven case study.

Conducting a qualitative case study seemed the most useful approach, in order to derive

exploratory insights into a matter that has not been researched, trying to answer questions that

are pending to date. This qualitative approach was preferred over a quantitative one for reasons

of integrity in portraying the particular struggles of this sports category going Olympic. As this

study is not about physical, tangible data or a hard comparison between groups, but rather about

capturing intangible sentiments and complex, context-sensitive social constructions, the

qualitative design seemed to be the only feasible approach yielding a rich and fruitful

investigation.

This approach, lacking a fully predefined theoretical framework, calls for inductive

construction of theory, being nourished from pre-existing category literature and the empirical

insights of the conducted interviews. The data was not only inductively coded and analyzed

(see 4.3 Data Analysis), but moreover the entire case study was built ground-up this way,

developing along and providing incremental and substantial insights on the go. That led to

constant adjustments and refining, during the process of data collection. In other words, this

inductive approach meant going with the flow of the incoming stream of data, yet without losing

sight of the research goal that was set in the first place and still navigating within my default

research gap of lacking scientific data on the enactment on the ground of a top-down created

category.

32

Regarding the research philosophy driving the epistemology of derived insights, this thesis is

fastened down in the interpretivist school of thought. As the present work is of qualitative nature

and I myself, as a researcher, am part of the community I conducted this research in, I fully

acknowledge the position I am in. I am aware of the benefits this position implicates, as

broached at several instances throughout this thesis and fully explained in the next subchapter.

Nevertheless, I also respect the limitations this scholarly paradigm and the immersive role I

adopted are bringing along, as well as other potential limitations, as stated in chapter 8.

Limitations.

4.2 Data Collection

The data collection for this thesis happened in two consecutive steps: The preparatory work and

the case study. Both are empirically driven, out of my own real-life experiences, discussions,

interviews, etc., but were supplemented with expedient theoretical pieces from scientific

literature, as well as literature from the media (e.g. newspapers, journals, magazines, online

articles, blogs) to get a fuller, more matured picture on the case.

The preparatory work was used to build substantial insight into the empirical field in

preparation for the case study. This empirical framework with a modicum of theoretical aspects

had to be built, in order to arrive at a suitable research question and a sound baseline for

conducting a fruitful case study. The lion’s share of the preparatory work has happened over

the course of particularly the past four years, since it was officially announced that sport

climbing has been accepted for the upcoming Olympic games 2020 in Tokyo, Japan (IOC,

2016). I have spent these years firmly rooted within the core of the climbing community in

Innsbruck. Especially for this thesis, I enjoyed a very advantageous position, getting to know

both worlds in detail. On the one hand, regarding my private life, I am immersed in this world

of mostly amateur climbers, climbing for the sake of their own fun. On the other hand, regarding

my professional life, I had the possibility to dive into the world of competitive climbing, ensued

by many interesting interactions with professional climbers from around the world. Many of

whom have become friends, providing me profound insights into their perspective. Therefore,

I was able to hands-on experience the rocky road of sport climbing on its journey to Olympics

from a position which is very rare, but in my opinion very fruitful for scholarly research. Hence,

my interest in the field overall and experiencing the different opinions on this controversial

topic first hand led up to this thesis and shaped my research question up to this point.

To complete the picture, my preparatory work was complemented by several articles from

conventional media, like the newspaper, online articles or actual climbing journals. This was

33

useful for me as an inside member, to better understand the perspective from an external

audiences’ point of view and how sport climbing as an Olympic sport is framed in the public

media. To top it off, I conducted extensive research within the existing academic literature

about the Olympics and previous inclusions of similar lifestyle sports, as well as scholarship

about sport climbing and its developments in particular.

For details on the case study, the local scope, as well as the general setting the research took

place in, please visit chapter 2. Research Setting. There I also establish the argument on why I

picked this style of interviewing, which interviewees make for an insightful resource in

answering the questions I set out to answer and why. The data collection for the case study itself

was conducted through a total of 18 semi-structured expert interviews with active core members

of the climbing community in Innsbruck. This is inspired by the key-informant technique

(Tremblay, 1957), selecting interview partners based on their role and knowledge in the field,

rendering them experts on the inside and hence, the default source of information for the

selected perspective.

Out of these 18 interviews, 14 were held via the popular video-chatting platform “Zoom“. All

of these interviews were consensually recorded and transcribed after. The remaining four

interviews were held in person, out of which two were recorded and transcribed and two were

summarized through field notes without a recording device. The duration of the interviews was

in between 11 and 50 minutes, with an average of 19 minutes, and were conducted from April

to September 2020. Except for one with two interviewees, every interview, was held one-on-

one and to carry out the majority via electronic means seemed reasonable in the face of the

ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, avoiding physical proximity wherever possible. Towards the end

of the interview series, regardless the nature of the interview partner, the content assimilated

more and more, essentially repeating what has already been said at some point, leading to the

inference that the investigation was closed at a reasonable point of saturation. Hence, the sample

of interviewees provided sufficient data as to permit drawing meaningful and valid conclusions.

Any and all recordings of the interviews was made with the consent of the respective interview

partner. Every interviewee was informed upfront about the research project objectives and that

the interviews can inherently not take place anonymously, but the content is treated

confidentially, when it comes to the publication of their answers and my findings. On the one

hand, portraying individual opinions is not of use to my study, as I am searching for the overall

acceptance and legitimacy of the novel Olympic category through its enactment on the ground.

On the other hand, this decision was made precautionally for the interviewees and to ensure

answers were as honest and unimpeded as possible. Therefore, I will only abstractly present the

34

institutionalized roles my interviewees are in at the time of the inquiry, without associating

answers with specific interviewees.

I interviewed seven currently active professional competition climbers on the national team, six

former competition climbers who are still active indoors and outdoors, and five climbers who

never competed on a professional level, climbing both in- and outdoors at a decent to very high

level. Regarding the occupational connections to climbing, out of these 18 interviewees, one

works as a national team coach, one as a youth coach, one as route setter, one as a

physiotherapist, one in the IFSC athletes’ commission and one in the national federation of

sport climbing. The interviewees are between 19 and 38 years old and have their current home

base in Innsbruck and immediate surroundings. Specific details on every interview can be

withdrawn from table 1. Interview Details in chronological order.

Table 1. Interview Details (chronologically listed)

Status/Group Age Background Means Duration (roughly)

Date Note

competition 23 student in person 14 min 04/30/2020 f.n.

amateur 37 physiotherapist in person 15 min 05/01/2020 f.n.

amateur 27 student in person 14 min 05/03/2020 r.&t.

competition 22 route setter electronic 23 min 09/11/2020 r.&t.

amateur 31 student electronic 18 min 09/11/2020 r.&t.

ex-comp 33 employee electronic 13 min 09/11/2020 r.&t.

amateur 32 youth coach electronic 25 min 09/11/2020 r.&t.

competition 19 student electronic 12 min 09/12/2020 r.&t.

ex-comp 25 student electronic 50 min 09/12/2020 r.&t.

competition 20 student electronic 11 min 09/18/2020 r.&t.

ex-comp 25 federation electronic 16 min 09/18/2020 r.&t.

ex-comp 32 employee electronic 32 min (comb.)

09/19/2020 r.&t.

ex-comp 28 employee electronic 32 min (comb.)

09/19/2020 r.&t.

competition 21 student electronic 22 min 09/19/2020 r.&t.

ex-comp 33 national team coach

electronic 13 min 09/21/2020 r.&t.

competition 20 student electronic 21 min 09/21/2020 r.&t.

amateur 27 student electronic 12 min 09/21/2020 r.&t.

competition 29 IFSC athletes’ commission

in person 13 min 09/24/2020 r.&t.

Key: f.n. = field notes; r.&t. = recorded and transcribed; comp = competition

35

I opted for the semi-structured interviewing method, as climbing as a sport and climbing folks

have a rather informal mentality, which lead to many interviews developing in sort of an

informal conversation, rather than a full on formal question and answer game. That might also

be based on the fact of me knowing all of my interviewees in person. That resulted in not

everybody getting asked the exact same questions in the same way, depending on what they

already said in the interview and where they were going with their answers. Based on the

position they revealed about the issues in question and the institutionalized role they are

representing within the community, I dug deeper into matters of interest to fully take advantage

of their specific knowledge. As an interview guideline in general, my questions were informed

by ticking the following four matters of interest:

a) Their general thoughts and personal opinion on the inclusion of sport climbing now

being in the Olympics and how they are set up.

b) Probing questions to address how they feel that this inclusion affects them in their

training, routines, sports aspirations and motivation.

c) Getting insights as to whether they feel this is challenging (or compatible to) the values

they belief are key to the sport.

d) Their personal motivation and key values in climbing.

4.3 Data Analysis

For the analysis of the collected data I worked with the qualitative data analysis (QDA) program

“Quirkos“. After transcribing my interviews in the text processing program “Microsoft Word“,

I uploaded the individual transcripts into Quirkos and started off the first round of the coding

process by inductively creating codes through the first reading of each transcript line by line.

The codes are plotted as dots on a canvas and grow in size when incrementally adding data to

each respective code and the program allows to group codes as main categories with various

sub-categories as clusters. As the transcripts were re-read several times, new codes emerged

and some data was re-coded throughout this process, to aid minimizing potential researcher’s

bias in interpretation and ensure the highest possible level of inter-subjectivity within the

analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2015).

The first round of coding was used to get an overview about the topics which the interviewees

talked about and to create a tangible feeling of the direction the content is taking. At first, I

differentiated the content in altogether 34 subcategories, which could afterwards be grouped in

five overarching categories. The five big categories that could be identified were:

Values/Lifestyle, Format, Change, Aspirations, Personal Reasons. The second round of coding

36

was focused towards the implicated change through the Olympic inclusion, regarding which

area is affected, the scale of the change and the subjective valuation, if any is apparent. Thus,

as to whether the change is radical, incremental or non-existent and if the change concerned

routines, the training, aspirations, the overall career or values. The valuation was split into three

parts, as to whether the change is perceived as positive, negative or neutral.

The text being multi-coded allows for an exploratory “proximity” analysis within the pool of

codes at hand, meaning that through the overlapping codes more or less frequent connections

emerged. That is between, for example, eventual change that happened, the depth of its impact

and the context it is embedded in. This strategy paired with the detailed data enabled a

conclusive analysis and deep insights into the social dynamics and enactment on the ground of

a newly created category.

5. Findings

In order to present my findings in a useful manner, the structure of the four main interview

issues, as introduced in 4.2 Data Collection, is going to be followed.

5.1 Varied Opinions on the Olympic Inclusion

This section captures the overall sentiment about how the core community in Innsbruck is

feeling about facing the inclusion in the Olympic program. Hence, the top down creation of a

novel category right on their doorstep and therefore, unsolicitedly broadening their category.

While the Olympic inclusion and the ongoing professionalization of the sport itself are effect

and cause at the same time, one implication from the inclusion, that can clearly be singled out,

is the invention of the Olympic combined:

“[…] followed by long deliberations of which discipline to take and in the end, they decided for

the combined.”

Through the circumstances of only receiving one set of medals for now, which is already going

to change in the Olympic games in Paris 2024, it was decided to conduct the Olympic combined

as it being the fairest solution for the sport, without excluding any disciplines:

“[…] as a matter of fact, the IOC only gave us one set of medals and it would have been

devastating for the two other disciplines if we only included one. So that has been a compromise

with the combined and hopefully we present ourselves well.”

It has to be taken into account that the Olympic inclusion was not something to happen

overnight. The final announcement over the vote for it to be included was preceded by many

steps towards this decision on behalf of the IFSC and the IOC. After all, this vote for Tokyo

37

2020 was made back in 2016, which results in four years up to now, to make sense of and adapt

to the changes through the inclusion. Accordingly, many things unfolded in the meantime and

there was time to think about the inclusion, which was highlighted by some saying that their

stance on the inclusion changed over time:

“In the beginning, I wasn’t that much in favor of it, maybe because I was still an athlete and knew

it would only work out if I totally changed and embarked on this new format. Meanwhile, it doesn’t

affect me too much, leading to thinking the inclusion is alright.”

Altogether, there was a great spectrum of answers, ranging from negative (48 codings) and

neutral (92) to highly positive aspects (74). Amateurs appear to experience rather weak,

incremental positive effects, e.g. easier conversations with non-climbers through climbing

being more popular, more appreciation for their sport, better media coverage for consumption,

outdoor crags in better condition and so on:

“When I was in my teens and told my classmates I do bouldering, they responded: oh yeah,

bowling, nice [laughs]. Nowadays most people immediately know what you are talking about or

they even tried it themselves.”

This change can also appear in different behavior, as being more drawn to watch competitions

live or via livestream because of better quality or there was none before:

“I started to really enjoy watching climbing competitions. Ten years ago, it was just horrible, but

now it is really cool with all these visualization tools, the different camera angles, professional

commenters […].”

Furthermore, their effects seem to be closely related to professionalization and noticeably more

money within sport climbing. That leads to more and better climbing gyms that they can visit,

easier accessibility of the sport, more worthwhile competitions to watch, better gear for their

use, a bigger community to interact with etc.

For the competition climbers, the positive changes were mostly deemed radical and are closest

related to routines, regarding their day to day business. More financial resources for the

federation and in the end, the individual athlete, enabled access to better support features like

physiotherapy, regenerative measures, nutritionists, closer supervision, training camps, way

more spots in the sports army for climbers and better sponsoring. Further positive mentions are

generally related to rising popularity, aspirations to qualify for the Olympics and career

prospects overall.

Neutral change was mostly considered to be of incremental nature and connected to their

routines and the values of the sport. It was mostly about the ongoing change of route setting in

competitions and gyms, changed training routines and a denser competition schedule.

38

Moreover, it regarded an indifferent attitude towards combined and, going back to the values,

towards the alleged divergence of the world of outdoor climbing and competition climbing:

“In my days, there wasn’t really any comp climber not going outdoors. Now there are still people

who do both, but many athletes just do competition climbing, that changed. But partly that is

simply due to the combined format. Having to train three disciplines just doesn’t leave you with

a lot of time to go rock climbing.”

The negative share of comments was strongly tied to radical change. Here, most interviewees

talked about change in values, routines, rivalry within the community, imposed career

isomorphism and training changes:

“What I really underestimated was how divided the community got through this Olympic topic.

[…] Lately, I don’t even dare to say in the climbing gym that I fancy this development in climbing,

because I am sure that about 90% of my colleagues are totally against it, consider me crazy and

say these Olympics are just bullshit.”

Rising popularity also brings along change and problems not everybody is happy with:

“[…] as it becomes more popular, the focus is also more on money. Everybody wants to earn

money with climbing and for me, this doesn’t fit together with climbing as I know it.”

Many of the perceived negative aspects are rooted in the combined format, because it implicates

lots of imposed change in the training, the career supporting system and many more:

“As a specialist in one discipline, you will not go places anymore, […], the combined athletes

have to be preferred by the federation whenever possible. […] I personally am skeptical about

changing a sport so substantially, just for the sake of the Olympic inclusion.”

On top, speed climbing does not enjoy too much of a high standing in the Austrian climbing

landscape, with many people disregarding it as athletics and making statements like the

following:

“Technically, the movement is a climbing movement, but I wouldn’t really call it climbing. It’s

more like a 100m sprint, just vertically.”

The rather incremental changes deemed negative are often rooted in the route setting style of

modern day competitions:

“Often, they say that the direction bouldering is going, is completely wrong. Way too much

parkour, that it’s not climbing anymore. Altogether, you get to hear the sentence “this is not

climbing anymore“ very often.”

Overall, 15 out of 18 asked generally support the decision for the Olympics and see the benefits

for the sport altogether. However, three interviewees are personally against the inclusion,

although they don’t condemn the general professionalization of sport climbing. These three

consist equally of one amateur, ex-comp and one comp climber. Interestingly, 17 out of 18

interview partners, with one professional being the exception, stated at least some positive

39

effects. All 18 experienced changes that were perceived as neutral to them and 16 perceive at

least something as negative. Many are currently left with mixed feelings about the inclusion,

but often the negative comments were only about the implementation of the combined format

for the inaugurating event at Tokyo 2020, as the format is already going to be changed for Paris

2024. Some called it the necessary evil that they have to put up with right now, for the sake of

long term benefits and progress for the sport:

“I don’t think it is totally mature yet with the combined format and the disciplines and the process

of qualification. It is the first time climbing is included so nobody really has a masterplan yet I

feel like. But other than that it is pretty cool.“

5.2 Implications for Routines, Training, Aspirations and Career

The goal is to categorize the effective changes, effects and implications through the Olympic

inclusion, along the predefined areas of training, routines and sports aspirations. I am going to

start with routines, the area mentioned most often with altogether 118 codings. The change in

routines is addressed very often as being radical (57 overlapping codes), especially often related

to the Olympic combined as a substantial, all of a sudden change:

“[…] with the combined format also the youth comps are held in this design, so we have to

participate in and train all three disciplines.”

However, it was as well often perceived as incremental (45 overlaps), foremost when it comes

to training, route setting and values in climbing:

“Obviously, you have to go to the gym to train new school boulders, you simply don’t find them

outdoors. In the past, it was possible to train most movements outdoors for a competition.”

It is mostly perceived as neutral (47 overlaps) or positive (40 overlaps), way more than negative

(19 overlaps). Apparently, it is tied strongly to the area of values (43 overlaps), which is going

to be discussed in detail in question 3. Furthermore, routine change seems to be connected with

training (25), financial resources (21) and career (18):

“[…] a lot changed for the better. It has got a completely different significance all of a sudden.

Here you clearly see how important the inclusion was for the financial matter.”

The second most often mentioned sort of change, with 82 codings, is concerned with values,

but as the next full section is solely dedicated to values, it is going to be discussed there. Third

up, with 45 codings, is change of the training regime. With 30 overlapping codes, most

perceived it to be a radical makeover after the inclusion. As seen in the lines beforehand with

25 overlaps, the change in training seems closely tied to change of routines. It is mostly taken

as neutral (18 overlaps), before positive (12) and negative (11). Moreover, it has rather weak

ties to aspirations (12) and career change (10):

40

“What really changed is that the competition season took place in blocks. First bouldering, then

lead. Now, we sometimes have combined comps in between with all three disciplines at once and

that makes a difference for the design of the training program.”

Among the responses, 36 have been coded as a change in aspirations. With the inclusion itself

being a substantial incision, 23 overlaps are present with radical change. 19 times the change

was deemed positive, 8 times neutral and 6 times negative. In the respectively coded text, 13

overlaps referred to career change:

“I think for every professional athlete it is the ultimate goal to participate in the Olympics, so for

me that applies as well.”

While, along with the new circumstances, qualifying for Olympic games in the future seems to

have recently shifted positively onto the goal setting horizon for some professional climbers,

others lament the restrictive effects onto their career. These statements have been coded as

career isomorphism and show how the Olympic inclusion leaves professional athletes facing

the decision between hoping for the best as a specialist in one discipline or giving in and opting

for combined:

“[…] the more climbing is in the spotlight, the more politics come into play. That sometimes leads

to people being involved who don’t have much of a clue about climbing. People who may prefer

climbing just being a cool show, rather than determining who the best athlete is.”

I am not saying the combined format is inherently bad and it seems many have come to like it.

Yet, lots of athletes apparently have had to realize anything less will come at certain

disadvantages for their career, rendering it a semi-imposed construct. As only current and

former athletes are affected hereby, the following statements are from them:

“[…] at the end of the day, […] you have to think twice about not switching to combined even if

you don’t like it too much. That is because sponsors are very keen on the Olympics and as well

all the other furtherance, from the sports army to individual support, everything is constructed

around the Olympics now.”

In other words, there was complaint as to how it changes the athletes’ support landscape:

“[…] big promotions for only a few people, while others get nothing. I think that this is a

development going in the wrong direction and that is a pity.”

In one of the interviewees cases, it even has contributed to quitting a professional career:

“That was the moment I realized that from now on, on a sustainable and long-term basis, you can

only do this sport professionally if you embark on the combined format. […] I knew by that time

that I will always be handicapped and never bring home a financial benefit as an athlete for that

reason.”

41

Lastly, an example was brought up how this matter is conducted in Germany. I included it as

this German athlete is permanently living in Innsbruck and the example is worth being shared

in my opinion:

“Being in a youth category in Germany, you have no choice other than doing all three disciplines,

otherwise they don’t recognize your results. […] Otherwise you are just not allowed to participate

in international competitions.”

Concluding, it has to be taken into account that only current and some former athletes are

subjected to most of the directly affecting changes, particularly regarding the training, routines

and career. Despite all the interviewees seeing changes in the sport itself and showing empathy

for their professional colleagues, on a personal or abstract level, for quite a share, particularly

the former athletes and amateurs, not really anything changed within their personal sphere.

Hence, the code “no change” registered 42 entries. The statements reached from staying a

specialist, out of conviction or not seeing a realistic chance to qualify for the Olympics, over

the Olympics do not change if you like climbing or not to basically every asked amateur saying

the inclusion itself does not have any effect whatsoever on their life as a climber and how they

conduct the sport. At least not in an operative sense, as they apparently are aware of and widely

enjoy the benefits of developed infrastructure etc.

5.3 Oppositional Values on the Ground

As laid out within the previous chapters of this work, some climbers might perceive the values

that the Olympics stand for and the modern-day version of sport climbing which is going to be

presented there, to be of opposing nature compared to what climbing represented back in the

day. Here, insights are drawn from how the interviewees, which are exclusively long-term

climbers, experienced these developments of values. Altogether, 82 codings were tied to value

change, mostly valued as being neutral (40 overlaps), followed by negative (22) and very little

explicitly positive change (5). Foremost, the change was deemed incremental (42) and some

incidents as radical (16):

“Suddenly everything revolved around the Olympics. That increased the pressure, which can be

motivating at times, but often I feel like the real climbing gets lost there. I often had the feeling I

have to do this and do that. […] regardless if I wanted to or not. For me personally, I got the

impression all of this rather decreased my motivation.”

Many of them seem to be connected to routine change (43), while other intersecting topics are

the broadening of the climbing category in general (12), the route setting style (10), training

change (9) and lastly, how a person gets introduced to climbing (6):

42

“In my opinion, the combined format doesn’t do justice to the athletes, how I got to know the

sport and the way I got to know climbing.”

In order to get a better feeling, whether the answers rather highlight the subgroups of the

climbing community living happily alongside each other or being in overt opposition, the two

coding categories co-existence and rivalry were born:

“When I started doing climbing professionally, there was an obvious gym climbers’ community

and an outdoor climbers’ community. Not everybody accepted climbing on plastic holds from the

start, some absolutely despised it. […] Nowadays this rivalry doesn’t exist anymore, so I think

these opposing parties rather got closer than drifting further apart. Climbing on artificial walls

is so similar to the rock that there is no need for calling them two different names.”

Whereas 23 codings overlap with rivalry, 20 do so with co-existence. However, it must be

attached that one interviewee, through his experience with the topic, disproportionally raised

the number of statements about rivalry with 14 instances alone:

“There are these religious rock priests who don’t want to see anybody else dragging their holy

sport through the mud and are against every kind of commercialization and professionalization.”

Adding to this, as this thesis is interested in the status quo and not the past, quite some cases

emphasize, how the climbing community got divided at a certain point in the past, e.g. the first

openings of gyms, the effective date of the Olympic inclusion four years ago. Though, arriving

at the here and now, the struggles and conflicts are said to be widely settled:

“In 2016/17 that topic was discussed a lot. We really got split up in two parties with a lot of

tensions between us. Many athletes disliked this development, but there were also others being

totally happy about it. In the meantime, these initial conflicts settled, everybody made his decision

and accepted the status quo. I think these opposing parties still exist, but do not live in some sort

of obvious rivalry.”

Some struggles might not seem obvious anymore, but the next quote shows they haven’t fully

disappeared:

“As I trained more speed lately I even had to deal with some dismissive comments from

colleagues. So, I literally had to justify myself for doing that. Especially in Austria I feel like speed

is not appreciated and largely disregarded.”

Despite the overall appreciation of the circumstances and benefits, the average opposing stance

of non-professionals was often subliminal and connected to rising popularity and the result of

more people:

“When I go climbing in an outdoor climbing area and see that every route is being occupied,

there are a lot of people, chaos and noise, maybe even rubbish on the ground, I miss the good old

times.”

43

Regardless of some value challenges being in place, 13 out of 18 interviewees emphasized how

well the diversity of disciplines and people in climbing are compatible:

I think climbing is a sport where a combination of both works out pretty well. I mean, looking at

other sports, they also thought oh no, the Olympic spirit doesn’t fit at all to its roots. […] Same

as in climbing, it is just a different approach and mindset if you do it for the adventure […].

Maybe you even opt for living out in the sticks to go bouldering. Or you are a competitive athlete

training for competitions. These things are fundamentally different but nevertheless, they go

together. And I don’t think we lost this feature through the Olympic inclusion, that is really cool.

Many said that, for them, it absolutely doesn’t matter how somebody else practices the sport:

“I am good friends with outdoor and comp climbers and I equally like them. I think climbing as

a sport connects all of us, regardless of how we practice it. It’s just one big bunch of people that

you can have fun with.”

As the development of sport climbing has been shifting towards climbing indoors, the overall

mindset, lifestyle and aspirations seem to be changing a little. Yet, that change is not necessarily

framed to be negative but rather open-mindedly acknowledged out of the manifold possibilities

sport climbing has to offer:

“Today many athletes are just not fond of climbing outdoors on the rock, I haven’t ever heard

that in the past from a climber. We were just die-hard climbers, now there are die-hard comp or

gym athletes.”

Supposedly, the traditional picture of a climber, as it may be in most people’s heads, is a person

out there in the mountains, climbing on rock. This image is not wrong, but with climbing

becoming more popular, more people practicing it and so many climbing gyms opening around

the world, many climbers simply do not have access to actual rock climbing. Living in

Innsbruck, the interviews made clear you always have the choice, but many, for example,

metropolitan areas do not offer the possibility to find cliffs nearby. Taking this into account, it

becomes more comprehensible why many could not even follow these traditional climbing

values, even if they wanted to. As a matter of proportion, that likely tips the scale towards

modern lifestyle, indoor climbing, even though significantly more people are climbing outdoors

compared to 20 years ago. Adding to that, some interviewees are corroborating the findings of

Hardy (2003), stressing the importance of the introduction to the sport as determining to a large

extent how one is going to practice the sport later on:

“[…] climbing indoors is just how they got to know the sport and what they do. Many of

the elite Japanese athletes don’t ever really go outdoors. […] all of them could crush it

outdoors as well, they just never do it.”

44

Interestingly, a solid amount of talk about values implicated no change in values through the

Olympic inclusion at all (17 overlaps). There were statements concerning the personal values

in climbing:

“I am more of the old-fashioned type and I think that climbing should be taking place on the

rock.”

Additionally, some gave their expertise in an overall estimation of the post-inclusion situation:

“I think everybody who liked competition climbing beforehand, in the world cups and world

championships, they are most likely going to like the Olympics as well. […] Everybody else, who

didn’t like comps before, probably also won’t like the Olympics too much now.”

Along the lines of the research from Batuev and Robinson (2019), the derived impression and

the claims made in the interviews showcase that the value set not necessarily changed to

different values but rather broadened the overall value-set that climbers may individually find

themselves in. It seems that the variety of the climbing sport is related to the variety of

individual ways, how to conduct the sport and the values that are thereby represented. The

Olympics appear to just have added another layer within these manifold values:

“Climbing just became accessible for the general public. Back then climbing was inherently a

sport with much more adventure, danger and uncertainty, not feasible for everybody. […] I think

climbing has a lot of meanings for each climber at an individual level and that is the reason so

many are drawn to it. Lots of people can identify themselves with climbing because it can give

you various meanings. So, the Olympics are not for everyone but for some, they are.”

5.4 Individual Values and Motivation

Besides gathering insights regarding the reasons for the interviewees’ drive within this sport,

this section aimed towards eventually being able to highlight differences in their values between

(ex-) professional athletes and amateur climbers. The clear winner as to why the interviewees

climb, is apparently the sheer endless variety within the sport. Variety in disciplines,

movements, routes, boulders, things it takes to succeed and many more were mentioned. This

was followed by the challenge, that sport climbing represents to them over and over. The

physical, but also mental challenge, overcoming fear or in terms of being creative in order to

find a solution for a certain sequence:

“What’s so appealing for me in climbing is this challenge. It just takes one route for being a

challenge. You are either able to do the route or not. It’s that simple.“

The next most popular answer was related to competitive and performance oriented aspects,

fighting till the end, giving it 100%, which particularly were mentioned referring to the

physical, athletic side of climbing. Sharing the place as least popular reasons are social aspects

45

and nature. In each case six interviewees made references to social reasons and nature, yet

mostly additionally and not as their main motivation. The rest of the answers consisted of

individual reasoning behind their climbing. Interestingly, while nature and social aspects were

almost exclusively named together, current professional athletes mentioned social aspects 4

times and nature 3 times. Whereas amateur climbers referred to nature only three times and

social aspects not at all. Moreover, amateurs have 4 compared to the athletes with 3 counts in

arguing with competitive and performance oriented reasons. While these may be just

coincidences and not conclusive, it still is quite the opposite of what one might expect.

6. Discussion

6.1 Category Broadening and Legitimacy Transfer

It is hard to actually separate the Olympic sport climbing category as a single bubble, because

it overlaps and is intertwined with the Olympics and (competitive) sport climbing, which both

have existed beforehand. Along those same lines distinguishing between professionalization in

general and the Olympic inclusion in particular is rather difficult, as laid out. Taking a first look

at the findings, it seems useful to frame and treat the new, top-down created Olympic sport

climbing category not merely as a standalone affair, but rather as an addition to what has been

there already, as evident in the following.

Some arguments from the interviewing process suggest that there is neither a challenge in

values, nor a point in comparing amateur and professional climbing altogether, because these

are two completely different matters by nature. However, I would argue that this does not

represent the reality of inter- and intra-categorical dynamics at hand. First of all, some of the

interviewees pointed out, that the way of introduction to climbing is of great significance, as

Hardy (2003) already suggested in his work. Easier, and also safer access facilitates more

people starting out climbing, ultimately growing the number of category members and

subsequently professional athletes. Though, how they start out and in which environment that

happens is key to their further development and lifestyle as an individual climber. Nowadays,

most people start out in a climbing or bouldering gym, meaning that this is how they got to

know the sport and very often they just stick with that. Naturally, that comes to a certain extent

with a generational shift of values away from daredevil and adventure more towards safety,

convenience and mainstream. Beyond that, nobody starts out as a professional, but as an

amateur and the transition between those seems profoundly impacted by the Olympic inclusion.

This applies not only for the initial area of opportunities and support, but as well for the entire

46

career which is eventually following. Lastly, the coherences between professional and amateur

climbing are comprehensively summarized in a quote from one interviewee, showing once

more that Olympic sport climbing is rather to be seen as a part of climbing overall than on its

own:

“Without competition sports in climbing we will lack necessary budget, leading to fewer facilities

to train, attracting less of the general public. With popularity comes infrastructure, with

infrastructure better athletes and with better athletes better results. But for these results to really

count and have weight, you need a competition with some significance. That doesn’t happen when

you remain confined within your few purist rock climbers, and I totally don’t want that to sound

derogatory. But to be frank, that is never going to lead to a level of popularity for a sport that

justifies a new climbing gym or more financial support from the state. Yet again, this support is

what enables all the other benefits.”

Despite these relations and operating in the same category, competition climbing is still

decoupled to a certain extent from the rest of climbing, at least out of a market-perspective.

This is why the category is not asked to conform to multiple meaning systems from various

audiences as Negro et al. (2010) investigated. The federations respectively in charge are

conforming to isomorphic pressures from superior federations. Like this, policies are

distributed top down, yet they only directly affect competitive athletes and are impartial towards

the rest of the category and its audiences. Because of this, conflicting expectations are largely

prevented.

The findings render a certain development visible, which has been referred to as “generational

change“. The category has been broadening incrementally since the first people started rock

climbing a long time ago. Differences in how to conduct the sport developed locally and through

isomorphic pressures since then have become aligned as basic assumptions in a common,

unwritten understanding of climbing practices, regarding each individual discipline. The strong

ethics in climbing may partially be so persistent, because they base on mutual trust and

credibility in the community. For example, when a climber says he ascended a certain route

that becomes an unquestioned fact, without the need for proof. This constitutes the foundational

agreement within the sport climbing community. Without these ethics in place, this system is

basically worthless and might crash.

Now in competition climbing that is a different story. Here, each performance is under close

scrutiny from judges, exactly realizing the pre-defined policies of official competition climbing.

Now that this entire new generation, mostly commencing in their early childhood, is largely

growing up in a climbing gym and experiencing a different approach and different values than

outdoor climbing, the entire category seems to shift gradually. However, this is perceived as a

47

rather neutral development among the interviewees and I argue, makes the Olympic inclusion

easier because most of the community does not feel alienated by this modern, mainstream

environment and competitive setting. This may have been different if climbing faced this

inclusion 20 years ago, but now this is a decisive factor in enabling the legitimation of the

Olympic sport climbing category. Upcoming research might want to focus upon clear age

differences and take a closer look at how people got introduced to the sport. In my data, there

was no identifiable difference between younger and older participants in regard to values or

opinion on the Olympics. While Hardy (2003) determined values and ethos as counter

rationalizing systems and their broader meaning, the data agrees with his findings, but suggests

this may only stay true for a certain fraction. The findings suggest that mainstream, modern day

climbing is not dependent on its traditional ethos. One of the interviewees also said that people

who climb outdoors and live this particular lifestyle will never forget about the history of

climbing, yet others might. Once this “generational change” eventually takes place, this

scenario might turn out to be true.

Duran and Khaire (2017) argue that the creation of a new category is not a spontaneous

endeavor, but rather deliberately initiated by agents in charge, which evokes heterogeneous

cognitive responses among other actors. The rough circumstances of this top down category

creation remain fairly clear. For a pretty long period in time beforehand, the IFSC campaigned

for an Olympic inclusion. In 2016, the IOC finally accepted sport climbing for the upcoming

Olympic games, but with the constraint of providing only one set of medals. Thus, the IFSC

had to come up with a feasible and adequate solution, which gave birth to Olympic combined.

How much influence the IOC ultimately had on this new format is not open for scrutiny.

However, without detailed insight into the negotiation process and political power relations,

where I agree with Batuev and Robinson (2019) would be viable for further research, it was

this instance that triggered all but uniform reaction within afflicted audiences.

Arguably, the hype around climbing among younger people played in the hands of the IOC,

which wants to strengthen their market position among contemporary youth viewers (Thorpe

& Wheaton, 2011). Moreover, the IFSC has been pursuing a clear line of professionalization

within its governance of sport climbing and as the national and international federations are

heavily dependent on external funding it is fairly obvious why going Olympic is of advantage

(Batuev & Robinson, 2019). Categorization is a strategically important process, because it

provides salient cognitive elements for orientation within the (sports) market, affecting social

evaluation and material investments from internal and external parties (Durand & Khaire,

48

2017). Hence, both incumbents’ motives for the inclusion are evident, whereas it eventually

comes at an inflicted price tag for those affected down the line.

The athletes, equaling category members, might not be the initiating force of this inclusion, yet

they resemble both producers, as they are performing, and consumers, as they are following

along. Nevertheless, they are to a certain extent victims of the boundaries, tied to the inclusion

and subsequent implications. While having an external audience is an imperative for a

category’s existence and survival, I argue that this internal perspective is as important to ensure

the category does not stay or become an empty shell (Negro et al., 2010). Some interviewees

labelled the combined format a contemporary “necessary evil”, for the greater good of sport

climbing’s long-term progression and growth. None of the people I talked to were even

surprised that sport climbing is going Olympic, at the time it was announced. This underlines

the findings of Glynn and Navis (2013, p. 1133), who emphasized “categories are dynamic and

not simply static [but] in continual flux as new entrants introduce acceptable variation,

significant jolts occur from the external environment, and performance dimensions change”.

While joining the Olympic regime brings considerable effects upon the members of the

climbing community, all things considered it seems to be largely accepted. Whereas many

interviewees agree upon being annoyed by the combined format, most seem essentially content

about where sport climbing is going and the implications that come with its progress and the

Olympic inclusion. It is not far off the pre-existing competitive side of sport climbing and this

introduced variation seems to be supported by the majority of climbers. Therefore, I argue

through this study, that the respective pre-existing, internal legitimacy becomes projected upon

the novel Olympic sport climbing category.

While we can say that the category is broadened through the inclusion and the IOC ascended

into a decision-making role, it lacks new entrants that are of significantly different attitude and

would pose a threat to the identity and values, which competitive sport climbing has yet

developed. They may have become more distinct in the course of the inclusion, but it still

represents an acceptable variation. Contrary to snowboarding and skateboarding, there are for

example no serious petitions to be found, trying to forestall the inclusion. This grounds on

various reasons, but first of all in the common acceptance that sport climbing is also a sport,

not merely a lifestyle that is in need of protection (Thorpe & Wheaton, 2011).

6.2 Little Challenge in Values and Identity

Basically, it appears to make sense saying that every climber expresses his values in climbing

through his climbing lifestyle and the way he conducts the sport. Arguing with the present

49

findings, I found that not to be entirely true. It does not appear that professional athletes value

competitive traits necessarily more than amateur climbers, simply the stage of performance

might differ. While this may be a local particularity, a cognitive bias or due to the selected, very

experienced, interviewees is up for discussion. But it for sure pursues an interesting line of

thought for prospective studies.

Furthermore, the findings suggest that not even the individual values are a static, but rather a

fluid construct, which changes from time to time. As an example, many former athletes argue

to have discovered a completely different side to climbing after quitting their professional

career, eventually shifting their value system according to the current circumstances. While the

visible routine of a climber seemingly does not have to be an exact portrayal of his values,

routines frequently undergo changes, which is evident in the collected data. This occurring

change appears to be decoupled to a certain extent from value change, but is rather oriented

towards practical circumstances. Even though some competition climbers, in the end, claim to

prefer rock climbing over indoors, the frequency of doing so is regimented by their training

schedule, timetable and ideal preparation for competitions. Many said it is important to them,

to keep a certain balance between those two, to mix things up, get some headspace and stay

motivated for exhausting indoor training periods. This suggests a non-opposing value setting

informed through variety and a rather flexible and practical approach to enacting a professional

climbing career.

Others as well described their climbing history as non-linear with excursions into different

disciplines or varying focuses, depending on what they value in climbing at the moment.

Interestingly, the interviewees consistently perceive outdoor climbing to be coherent with old,

traditional values and climbing in the gym with the modern mainstream. Whereas every climber

I interviewed claims to really like or prefer outdoor climbing, even the competitive athletes,

their approach is very routine- and time-dependent. So, as pronouncedly important a certain

balance between indoors and outdoors is for them, arguably their immanent value system is

most likely not frequently turning upside down, but rather it is a certain individual value-set

that each of the climbers seeks to satisfy to the best of his practical possibilities. Again, this is

coherent with the personal key value in climbing mentioned the most throughout the interviews:

variety, in what they do.

Though, what became evident during the analysis of the findings, is that the partially perceived

value change does not really seem to be linked to the Olympic inclusion. The change in values

is described as more of an ongoing, incremental process, part of the overall professionalization,

however without a significant negative or positive connotation to it. This leads to the assertion

50

that the Olympic inclusion itself is not a substantial challenge regarding the values in climbing,

based on the reason that competitive sport climbing, as part of the overall climbing category,

seemingly has yet developed the features demanded for the Olympics. Apparently, that is also

the reason why in sport climbing not the same dynamics occurred as Thorpe and Wheaton

(2011) described it for the Olympic inclusion of snowboarding and skateboarding. Because the

competitive community of sport climbing neither feels misrepresented by their federation nor

does the frontline of sport climbing perceive the inclusion to be a misfit or connected to adamant

challenges in their value system or identity. Another element that has been pointed out in the

interviews is that the world of rock- versus gym climbing is not necessarily drifting further

apart, but is becoming more distinct through the inclusion.

Baker and Faulkner (1991, pp. 283–284) argue, the meaning of a category ensues the enactment

of roles in markets. Market roles are defined as resources and “used to pursue interests and

enact positions“. Subsequently, meanings and boundaries may shift over the course of time,

according to the structure of material rewards and opportunity (Negro et al., 2010). As in the

history of sport climbing and the Olympic category creation now, the reward systems for

athletes might be more external, pressuring them into adhering to changing regulatory

frameworks for enabling success and material reward in the first place. Whereas for rather

traditional rock climbers these meaning systems are more internalized and intrinsic, as success

in their sense is not essentially rewarded, at least not materially (Hardy, 2003).

Hence, for amateur climbers, where no one’s career is at stake, it is evidently much easier to

deal with the new Olympic sport climbing category. As they are not dependent on anyone to

pursue their passion, it seems like they are also not concerned about oppositional identities or

rivaling values. The interviewees’ statements emphasize the manifoldness of lifestyles that one

can live out, all within the same sport. Competitive sport climbing seems to be just one end of

an entire scale, and while this end may be subjected to isomorphic pressures due to dependence,

which made a leap through the Olympic inclusion, the remaining variety persists to be largely

untouched.

Concluding, there is no unanimously agreed upon identity of what makes a typical climber, at

least not anymore, since the sport got diversified so much. This got already evident in 2007

when the former governing body of sport climbing, the mountaineering association UIAA,

ceased its efforts to govern sport climbing because they saw no point in housing such artificial

endeavors, while climbing remains to be an activity practiced outdoors by many (Batuev &

Robinson, 2019). Every subgroup in the climbing community seems to have its own typical

identity, values and ethos, but apparently there is little need for rivalry among those groups. In

51

the climbing world there rather seems to be open discussion about pressing issues, as for

example the Olympics or devaluing ethics, as many interviewees expressed in their statements

about co-existence. The enabling factor for several co-existing identities seems to be a

particularity here, as the lion’s share of climbers remains to be amateurs without any

dependence on regulatory frameworks, market shares or customers, contrary to a conventional

market.

However, the data suggests that the most basic, underlying collective identity is found for many

in the activity itself, no matter how it is practiced. Mutual respect for achievements is something

often experienced in climbing, even cross-disciplinary. If you were looking for identifying

subgroups within the members of the community, you will eventually succeed. Yet, the only

clear cut that can be made is the one of dependency as an athlete, who competes in official

events. Everything else is a very blurry line. Therefore, I argue the category does not have to

represent an unequivocal identity, because there is neither one commonly agreed on goal for

the category, nor is the category constrained by its members. As evident in the data, many non-

professionals do not feel personally affected too much. It was also said that either you like the

competitive side of climbing or not. The Olympics do not change that and are easily avoidable

if you don’t wish to follow along. Maybe it even turns out as an advantage that Olympic sport

climbing is not a fully matured category yet. The more mature and the clearer its boundaries,

the more irrevocably its features are arguably. While speed climbing still often represents the

“bad guy”, the athletes are already aware of its limited time of being around as an almost

mandatory discipline. So, sport climbing has not fully settled in the Olympics, the games

haven’t even been conducted yet. This gives time the opportunity to let things mellow, which

has already proven useful throughout the past four years, according to some interviewees.

Maybe some things will look different after sport climbing’s debut in the Olympics. Perceptions

can change and opinions can shift. We can only have another look after it actually happened.

The theoretical lens of aspirations turned out to be a rather unrewarding issue of investigation,

which is why I will not go into detail about it here in the discussion section. Yet, it might also

be fruitful for prospective investigation, once sport climbing has settled in the Olympics and

people have been able to experience it happening. In the present case, the Olympics

interestingly did neither alter the aspirations nor the motivation to a considerable extent. Not

even among the interviewed professionals, which was often elucidated through statements of

reasonable modesty about severe qualification criteria.

52

6.3 Top Down Category Creation in a Dependence Setting

How do categories evolve over time? How does a category undergo this professionalization and

development towards a point where it appears to be ready for the Olympics games? Categories

likely do not just evolve by chance in random directions, but there are certain factors and agents

determining these developments through specific actions, likely part of a larger strategy.

Subsequently, we are talking about agency in the realm of categories, closely related to

categorization in this sense. So, the question of interest is, who are these actors which have the

power to create circumstances and therefore define a category and corresponding boundaries?

The answer here in short is the IFSC and lately also the IOC, as the two incumbents in

international sport climbing pulling the heavy strings behind the scenes. But while we know

who it is, it is more of a question of how they enact their agency and why can they successfully

do that? There are multiple issues merging into this answer, as elaborated henceforth.

Overall, many direct and indirect effects of the Olympic inclusion were discussed, many of

them being rather incremental and circumstantial. For example, sport climbing being more in

the limelight, hence becoming more popular and subsequently, answering this demand, more

climbing gyms opening, is a development that may be amplified by the Olympic inclusion.

However, this process touches several bases before it results in this tangible outcome and is

therefore arguably a rather indirect impact. We are seeing that some developments cannot be

fully ascribed to the inclusion itself. We see however, what definitely happened top down, with

apparently the most direct and radical repercussions on the community, particularly the

competitive share. These are the Olympic combined competition format and the implications

for a professional career, as inextricable parts of the novel Olympic sport climbing category.

Overall, those two were also the ones with the highest proportion of negative associations

carried along. But how come these developments still get through?

The special circumstances here are that the national federation is essentially in the position of

representing a monopoly. Besides going on your own and self-marketing your ascents, which

in its pure form is very rare for a proper professional career and typically only occurring in rock

climbing, there is no other way than to follow along according to the current circumstances. In

the interviews it was frequently highlighted, that the Olympic inclusion comes at restrictive,

career-isomorphic pressures. Something every interviewed, professional athlete has been

experiencing since 2016. Due to the monopoly, the athletes are dependent on their respective

federation, for the sake of training, individual and structural support, being allowed to partake

at competitions and much more. In the interviews, some of the really negative comments came

from athletes who are suffering from this situation or were, but hence already put their

53

professional career to rest. “Employee turnover” in its original meaning cannot happen, as there

is nothing to turn to. This leaves many athletes around the world with the options of either

quitting their career, or adapting to what is asked. Therefore, I reasonably argue that successful,

top down category creation, which comes with considerable impacts on its members, is only

possible in a setting of dependence relationship. Ultimately, I am not saying that, through the

federation’s monopoly position it can or will do whatever it wants. First of all, the IFSC has a

supporting athletes’ commission, which consists of climbers directly impacted by decisions

made. Secondly, as we have experienced when the IFSC cut the deal for the fee-based

livestream, strong and collective headwind can lead the IFSC to come around on decisions.

When investigating sport climbing from a category’s perspective, it is simply important to be

aware of some particularities within this field, as shown.

While speed climbing is seen as the odd one out, and often referred to as no “real” climbing,

Olympic sport climbing is not perceived as an entirely new sport. The actors are still the same

as in competitions which have been held for years, now pooled together in the combined format.

The legitimacy and identity that is vested in the athletes is seemingly transferred to this new

stage and therefore the members and audiences largely accept this novel challenge. Especially

when bearing in mind the greater good for their passion from a long-term perspective. These

circumstances prevent that the new Olympic category is seen as an “empty shell” and

legitimacy had to be built from scratch.

6.4 Co-Existence Diminishes Legitimacy Trade-Offs

What still remains unclear, is if trade-offs occur regarding this legitimacy through category

broadening, and if they do, how they look like “on the ground”. First of all, it has to be

considered that the category of Olympic sport climbing may actually not be as novel as it

appears at first sight. Lee et al. (2017) highlights these trade-off effects in the light of nascent

categories, which seems to not fully apply here. This consideration is based on the rationale

that this novel category works as an add-on docking onto competitive climbing. This add-on is

not merely co-existing but rather gets pulled over, as salient in the interrelating impacts it has

on the pre-existing category. Even though it comes with novel features, it lacks this substantial

struggle in cognitive legitimation, because the process of sensemaking is negligible here,

particularly for the internal members. On the other hand, the importance of normative

legitimacy is highlighted by Lounsbury and Glynn (2001) and Navis and Glynn (2010).

Questions of normative legitimacy concern features about “right or wrong”. As the category

has broadened to such a scale, it would be unreasonable to call for a unanimous standpoint, but

54

as the findings suggest, normative legitimacy in the light of the Olympic inclusion, is ascribed

to a sufficient extent for the novel category to be rather embraced than rejected.

The main argument of Lee et al. (2017) is saying broadening the category leads to weakening

of established legitimacy, identity and values. However, in the present case this argument is not

clearly supported by the collected data, at least not bar none. A significant limitation is that

only professional athletes are in a market-like dependence relationship, yet most climbers are

not. This leads to different initial positions within the category. While competitive athletes have

to take action, or quit their career, every other climber is still able to individually pursue his

lifestyle in climbing, regardless of external developments. Purists may proportionally become

less, but neither are they threatened nor is the category restricted to them. Thus, I argue non-

opposing co-existence is made possible, without watering down pioneering values and

legitimacy of the category.

Professional competition climbers constitute a certain sort of workforce, as they are dependent

on the national federation, metaphorically as their employer, and their profession comes with

duties and responsibilities. With this frame being set up, these employment relations can draft

an identity for athletes, with significant impact on the whole organization and particularly

change in this identity potentially entails disruptive effects on the organizational survival,

performance and employee turnover (Baron et al., 2001; Hannan et al., 2006). Through the

inclusion, this identity might well have shifted, as with the IOC there is not only a new, decisive

institution in play, but also some features of professional climbing turned upside down with the

combined format. However, from what we have learnt from the collected data, I argue that these

aforementioned implications are not applicable in this particular scenario of top down category

creation. Not everybody may be fully content with the current situation, but there is no

substantial threat to neither the organization’s survival nor performance. At least not, as long

as the overall support and acceptance is still positively dominating the weighing scale, which

in this case, it does.

According to the systematic review of Negro et al. (2010), category research widely agrees that

collective consensus lays the foundation of category formation. Rosa et al. (1999) and Kennedy

(2005) further state that, as different segments of the audience take part in collective

sensemaking and language, media coverage and publicity showcase their collective agreement.

I pointed out that external audiences are negligible here for the creation of a new category, out

of combining two with a solid, pre-existing fan base for reasons of normative legitimacy vested

in the incumbents (see Negro et al., 2010). Yet, as soon as the internal audience, the members

from the community is on board with the changed circumstances of the new category, even if

55

it was aroused top down, it becomes a rolling stone. The data emphasized substantial conflicts

and rivalry in the beginning between advocators and adversaries of the Olympic inclusion.

However, open discourse and time seem to be two key elements to settle to resolve such

tensions, as the interviewees explained. While different underlying opinions may persist, these

different member segments have largely ceased to be in opposition, clearing the way for surging

acceptance and legitimacy of the new category.

7. Conclusion

As shown, it has proven difficult to tell professionalization and the Olympic inclusion apart, as

their dynamics and implications overlap. The interviewees themselves discuss both things at

one and the same time. In category research terms, the Olympic sport climbing category, that

has been created top down in 2016, turned out to work as an add-on to competitive sport

climbing and not as a standalone category. A certain change in climbing-specific values was

perceived, yet does not seem to be linked to the inclusion. It is rather described as a neutral,

incremental process, part of the overall professionalization. Therefore, the category creation is

not presented as a substantial challenge regarding the values, based on the reason that the

respective internal members have yet developed the necessary features. While we can say that

the category is broadened through the inclusion and the IOC ascended into a decision-making

role, it lacks new entrants that are of significantly different attitude and would pose a threat to

the identity and values, which competitive sport climbing has yet developed. The findings also

suggest that mainstream, modern day climbing is not dependent on its traditional ethos. This is

further corroborated by findings saying the individual values are not a static construct, but rather

an entire value-set informed by, most notably, variety. This set is to be satisfied to the best of

each practical possibilities and preferences. In the end, there is no unanimously agreed upon

identity of what makes a typical climber. Yet, the data suggests, that the most basic, underlying

collective identity is found for many in the activity itself, no matter how it is practiced.

The most radical and direct implications from the top down category creation, rest upon one

particular share of members, namely competitive athletes. They are affected by an almost

mandatory new discipline and isomorphic career pressures, because of a market-like

dependence relationship. Meanwhile every other member is still able to individually pursue his

lifestyle in climbing, regardless of external developments. The category is not restricted to

individuals. It still appears, that the novel category is perceived as an acceptable variation and

not far off the pre-existing competitive features, as it is supported by the majority of members.

Hence, I argue that pre-existing, internal legitimacy becomes transferred upon the novel

56

category. Taken into account that it may actually not be as innovative as it appears at first, Lee

et al.’s (2017) trade-off effects seems to not fully apply here. Even though it comes with novel

features, it lacks this substantial struggle in cognitive and normative legitimation, as they are

said to be ascribed to a sufficient extent for the novel category to be rather embraced than

rejected. Thus, I argue non-opposing co-existence is possible, without watering down

pioneering values of the category. The data emphasized substantial conflicts and rivalry in the

beginning between advocators and adversaries of the created category. However, open

discourse and time seem to be two key elements to settle to resolve such tensions, clearing the

way for surging acceptance and legitimacy of the new category.

While still operating in the same category, competition climbing appears to be decoupled to a

certain extent out of a market-perspective. This is why the category is not asked to conform to

multiple meaning systems and conflicting expectations are largely prevented. The new category

does not bring an entirely new sport. The actors are still the same. This is why legitimacy and

identity that is vested in the athletes is seemingly transferred to this new stage, rendering

acceptance possible. These circumstances prevent that the new Olympic category is seen as an

“empty shell” and legitimacy had to be built from scratch. Helping this case is the “generational

change” currently taking place. An entire generation of members, now largely growing up in

the climbing gym out of various reasons, aids the shift towards mainstream and indoor values.

Hence, the novel Olympic category does not appear in too big of a contrast to pre-existing

features and does not leave the members alienated.

Nonetheless, a special circumstance here is that the category incumbent is essentially

representing a monopoly. A share of members, the competitive athletes, are dependent on their

respective federation. Whereas for non-dependent members, it is evidently much easier to deal

with top down dispositions. Therefore, I argue that top down category creation, which comes

with considerable impacts on its members, is only possible in a foremost one-sided dependence

relationship. Ultimately, this does not mean that incumbents can do whatever they want, but as

long as it is within certain parameters of dependence, acceptable variation and enough overall

support, governing seems to work just fine. In conclusion, a key take-away from this study’s

findings is that two particular circumstances in combination seem to lever out many dynamics,

that are generally applicable for category research: Partial dependence of category members

and a given incumbent with features of a monopoly.

57

8. Limitations

First of all, the proximity to the topic and members naturally lead to having a particular opinion

about the status quo myself. An opinion that has evolved, but one that I have been contributing

to the countless discussions I participated in among the international, but foremost the local

climbing scene. So before even assuming to role of the researcher, I might have had a miniscule

influence on shaping other people’s opinions and arguments. Furthermore, rooted in the

interpretive paradigm, assuming total objectivity is not possible, I cannot guarantee neither

being minimally biased in my overall set up and analysis, nor that the interviews I conducted

were free of bias. Besides, due to my particular position, the interviewees are inevitably friends

and acquaintances, potentially having influenced the selection of interviewees or results to some

extent. To minimize this influence in the interviews, I occupied the most impartial stance

possible while questioning, without putting words into their mouth and regularly encouraging

them in answering frankly and truthfully. For reducing potential bias in the analysis, I

conducted several rounds of coding to ensure portraying the findings as objectively as possible.

The items used for investigating the enactment on the ground, namely training, aspirations and

values, were partly theoretically derived and partly inductively developed. As this work is of

exploratory nature, other items might prove more insightful in the future, rendering this a

potential limitation on behalf of the theoretical framework of this thesis.

Not necessarily a limitation, but at least something to be aware of, is that it is not possible to

distinguish clearly between effects from professionalization overall and the Olympic inclusion

in particular. These two are inseparably related and make distinct causalities rather difficult.

This is why I set out to analyze the data as a whole and present the overall image. Lastly, there

might be a limitation towards the diversity of interviewees and subsequently the collected data.

While the interviewees presented a good balance of current, former and non-competition

climbers as shown, it might have been interesting to talk to somebody who fully rejects every

sort of professionalization of this sport and its Olympic inclusion. However, I could not find

anybody with this view here in Innsbruck, which may be a local bias.

58

Acknowledgements

Wow, what a journey 2020 has been so far! Not only has a global pandemic been keeping the

whole world in suspense, but it also has been littered with ups and downs of my, without a

doubt, biggest academic piece of work ever conducted. I am deliberately stating this here as a

fact for two conclusive reasons. The first one is easy, as I sincerely hope this remains the biggest

paper I ever have to put together. My second argument is even more evident. I need a time out

from academic writing, where facts are simply not a thing. Funny enough that my overall topic,

the Olympics, couldn’t even take place this year. The one event that the entire climbing

community was thrilled to finally see happening. I mean, what are the odds of a pandemic, the

year sport climbing celebrates its first appearance in the Olympics.

In every respect, 2020 is a year to be remembered. On that note, I want to truly thank everybody

who has made 2020 such a special year, despite all circumstances. And of course, my thanks

go out to everybody who made this thesis possible in the first place. The road from start to

finish felt so long, I began to picture this thesis as “the 1000-headed dragon”. Once you

managed to chop one head off, get a fraction of the work done, another one appeared. It just

kept coming. Eventually I succeeded, but I owe big thanks to everyone out there, who supported

me throughout the year. First of all, I want to thank my family and friends for cheering me up,

even when the odds looked grim for finishing this thesis within reasonable time. At this point,

I particularly want to mention my flat-mate and master thesis writing partner in crime, who

brought me through the year unharmed. We did a great job, bro! I might even miss those “office

hours” with you one day. I also want to thank my supervisor Prof. Birthe Soppe for her splendid

job, giving me the guidance, support and belief I sometimes needed to carry on. Thank you! In

the end, what would this thesis be without my great climbing friends and interviewees. I want

to thank each and every one of you for the time you took, to sit down and patiently answer my

questions. Now it’s time for a good climbing session and some champagne. Cheers!

59

References

Agnew, M. (2019). Why is speed climbing included in the Tokyo 2020 Olympics’ controversial format? SCMP (South China Morning Post). https://www.scmp.com/sport/outdoor/extreme-sports/article/3022751/why-speed-climbing-included-tokyo-2020-olympics (Accessed 2020-06-26)

Alpenverein (2017). Kletterzentrum Innsbruck: “Klettern findet Stadt“. Alpenverein. https://www.alpenverein.at/portal/news/aktuelle_news/2017/2017_05_11_kletterzentrum-innsbruck.php (Accessed 2020-06-21)

Alpenverein (2019). Lead—Bouldern—Speed—Olympic-Combined. Alpenverein Deutschland. https://www.alpenverein.de/wettkampf/klettern/wettkampf-abc/die-disziplinen-lead-bouldern-speed-olympic-combined_aid_10338.html (Accessed 2020-06-26)

ARD (2016). Neu bei Olympia: “Citius, altius, fortius“. ARD Sportschau. https://rio.sportschau.de/rio2016/geschichte/Neu-bei-Olympia-Citius-altius-fortius,didon102.html (Accessed 2020-06-24)

Arora, S. (2018). Kletterpionier: Der goldene Griff des Reini Scherer. Der Standard. https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000087378566/der-goldene-griff-des-reini-scherer (Accessed 2020-06-24)

Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. (1991). Role as Resource in the Hollywood Film Industry. American Journal of Sociology, 97(2), 279–309. https://doi.org/10.1086/229780

Baron, J. N., Hannan, M. T., & Burton, M. D. (2001). Labor Pains: Change in Organizational Models and Employee Turnover in Young, High-Tech Firms. American Journal of Sociology, 106(4), 960–1012. https://doi.org/10.1086/320296

Batuev, M., & Robinson, L. (2019). Organizational evolution and the Olympic Games: The case of sport climbing. Sport in Society, 22(10), 1674–1690. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2018.1440998

Carroll, G. R., & Swaminathan, A. (2000). Why the Microbrewery Movement? Organizational Dynamics of Resource Partitioning in the U.S. Brewing Industry. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 715–762. https://doi.org/10.1086/318962

Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., & Allison, P. D. (2014). Insiders, Outsiders, and the Struggle for Consecration in Cultural Fields: A Core-Periphery Perspective. American Sociological Review, 79(2), 258–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414520960

CBJ (2017). Behind the Scenes of The Broken Deal. Climbing Business Journal. https://www.climbingbusinessjournal.com/behind-the-scenes-of-the-broken-deal/ (Accessed 2020-06-21)

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (Fourth edition). SAGE.

Deephouse, D. L. (1996). Does Isomorphism Legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 1024–1039. https://doi.org/10.5465/256722

60

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

Durand, R., & Khaire, M. (2017). Where Do Market Categories Come From and How? Distinguishing Category Creation From Category Emergence. Journal of Management, 43(1), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316669812

Durand, R., & Paolella, L. (2013). Category Stretching: Reorienting Research on Categories in Strategy, Entrepreneurship, and Organization Theory: Reorienting Research on Categories. Journal of Management Studies, 50(6), 1100–1123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01039.x

FAZ (2020). Olympia wegen Corona verschoben—Tokyo 2020 findet 2021 statt. https://www.faz.net/aktuell/sport/sportpolitik/olympische-spiele-in-tokio-wegen-corona-auf-2021-verschoben-16694140.html (Accessed 2020-04-21)

Glynn, M. A., & Navis, C. (2013). Categories, Identities, and Cultural Classification: Moving Beyond a Model of Categorical Constraint: Categories, Identities, and Cultural Classification. Journal of Management Studies, 50(6), 1124–1137. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12023

Granqvist, N., Grodal, S., & Woolley, J. L. (2013). Hedging Your Bets: Explaining Executives’ Market Labeling Strategies in Nanotechnology. Organization Science, 24(2), 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0748

Grodal, S. (2018). Field Expansion and Contraction: How Communities Shape Social and Symbolic Boundaries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(4), 783–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217744555

Hannan, M. T., Baron, J. N., & Koçak, Ö. (2006). Organizational identities and the hazard of change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(5), 755–784. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtl020

Hannan, Michael T. (2010). Partiality of Memberships in Categories and Audiences. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-021610-092336

Hannan, Michael T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. (2007). Logics of organization theory: Audiences, codes, and ecologies. Princeton University Press.

Hardy, D. (2003). The McDonaldization of Rock Climbing: Conflict and counter conflict between climbing culture and dominant value systems in society. In R. Poff, S. Guthrie, J. Kafsky-DeGarmo, T. Stenger, & W. Taylor (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Outdoor Recreation and Education (pp. 75–90). Association of Outdoor Recreation and Education. http://www.aore.org/ICOREProceedings2002.pdf

Hatch, T., & Leonardon, F. (2020). Rules 2020. IFSC (International Federation of Sport Climbing).

61

https://www.austriaclimbing.com/fileadmin/user_upload/IFSC_Rules_2020_v141_PUBLIC.pdf (Accessed 2020-06-26)

Henkel, R. (2019). Klettern und Bouldern: Wie ein Bergsport zum Trendsport wird. ISPO. https://www.ispo.com/trends/id_79326674/klettern-und-bouldern-aus-bergsport-wird-fitness-sport.html (Accessed 2020-06-10)

Hsu, G., & Grodal, S. (2014). Category Taken-for-grantedness as a Strategic Opportunity: The Case of Light Cigarettes, 1964-1993. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1), 12012. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2014.243

Hsu, G., & Grodal, S. (2020). The Double-edged Sword of Oppositional Category Positioning: A Study of the U.S. E-cigarette Category, 2007–2017. Administrative Science Quarterly, 000183922091485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220914855

IFSC (2019). Olympic Games Paris 2024. https://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/olympic-games/paris-2024 (Accessed 2020-08-24)

IOC (2016). IOC Approves Five New Sports For Olympic Games Tokyo 2020. IOC Press Release. https://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-approves-five-new-sports-for-olympic-games-tokyo-2020 (Accessed 2020-06-10)

Jensen, M. (2010). Legitimizing illegitimacy: How creating market identity legitimizes illegitimate products. In G. Hsu, G. Negro, & Ö. Koçak (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 31, pp. 39–80). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2010)0000031004

Kennedy, M. T. (2005). Behind the one-way mirror: Refraction in the construction of product market categories. Poetics, 33(3–4), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2005.09.012

Kennedy, M. T. (2008). Getting Counted: Markets, Media, and Reality. American Sociological Review, 73(2), 270–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240807300205

King, B. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2008). Rethinking the Relationship Between Reputation and Legitimacy: A Social Actor Conceptualization. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(3), 192–207. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2008.16

Lee, B. H., Hiatt, S. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2017). Market Mediators and the Trade-offs of Legitimacy-Seeking Behaviors in a Nascent Category. Organization Science, 28(3), 447–470. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1126

Lounsbury, M., & Rao, H. (2004). Sources of Durability and Change in Market Classifications: A Study of the Reconstitution of Product Categories in the American Mutual Fund Industry, 1944-1985. Social Forces, 82(3), 969–999. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2004.0046

Lounsbury, Michael, & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.188

62

Manoliu, L. (1978). The Olympics: Bigger Is Really Better. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1978/12/10/archives/the-olympics-bigger-is-really-better-some-disturbing-problems.html (Accessed 2020-06-26) (Accessed 2020-06-24)

Mathias, B. D., Huyghe, A., Frid, C. J., & Galloway, T. L. (2018). An identity perspective on coopetition in the craft beer industry. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12), 3086–3115. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2734

McKendrick, D. G., & Hannan, M. T. (2014). Oppositional Identities and Resource Partitioning: Distillery Ownership in Scotch Whisky, 1826–2009. Organization Science, 25(4), 1272–1286. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0865

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550

Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2010). How New Market Categories Emerge: Temporal Dynamics of Legitimacy, Identity, and Entrepreneurship in Satellite Radio, 1990–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(3), 439–471. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.3.439

Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimate Distinctiveness and The Entrepreneurial Identity: Influence on Investor Judgments of New Venture Plausibility. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 479–499. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.0361

Negro, G., Koçak, Ö., & Hsu, G. (2010). Research on categories in the sociology of organizations. In G. Hsu, G. Negro, & Ö. Koçak (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 31, pp. 3–35). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2010)0000031003

ORF (2020). Schubert muss Saison neu skizzieren. ORF Sport. https://sport.orf.at/stories/3061270/ (Accessed 2020-06-22)

Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. (Eds.). (1991). The New institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press.

Pozner, J.-E., & Rao, H. (2006). Fighting a Common Foe: Enmity, Identity and Collective Strategy. In Advances in Strategic Management (Vol. 23, pp. 445–479). Emerald (MCB UP ). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-3322(06)23014-6

Rindova, V., Barry, D., & Ketchen, D. J. (2009). Entrepreneuring as Emancipation. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.40632647

Rosa, J. A., Porac, J. F., Runser-Spanjol, J., & Saxon, M. S. (1999). Sociocognitive Dynamics in a Product Market. Journal of Marketing, 63(4_suppl1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429990634s108

Schwienbacher, E. (2017). Neues Kletterzentrum Innsbruck: Tirols neuer Klettertempel [News]. Sport Tirol. https://sport.tirol/de/stories/Neues-Kletterzentrum-Innsbruck.html (Accessed 2020-06-21)

Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations (1st ed.). Sage.

63

Sine, W. D., Haveman, H. A., & Tolbert, P. S. (2005). Risky Business? Entrepreneurship in the New Independent-Power Sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 200–232. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.2.200

Sine, W. D., & Lee, B. H. (2009). Tilting at Windmills? The Environmental Movement and the Emergence of the U.S. Wind Energy Sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 123–155. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.123

Starr, J. A., & MacMillan, I. C. (1990). Resource Cooptation Via Social Contracting: Resource Acquisition Strategies for New Ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 11(Special Issue: Corporate Entrepreneurship), 79–92.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331

The Petition (2010). No Skateboarding in the Olympics! Care2 Petitions. https://www.thepetitionsite.com/de/takeaction/656/763/888/ (Accessed 2020-07-03)

Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.

Thorpe, H., & Dumont, G. (2019). The Professionalization of Action Sports: Mapping Trends and Future Directions. Sport in Society, 22(10), 1639–1654. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2018.1440715

Thorpe, H., & Wheaton, B. (2011). ‘Generation X Games’, Action Sports and the Olympic Movement: Understanding the Cultural Politics of Incorporation. Sociology, 45(5), 830–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511413427

Tremblay, M.-A. (1957). The Key Informant Technique: A Nonethnographic Application. American Anthropologist, 59(4), 688–701.

TWSB (1998). PR: Burton’s Official Response To Terje’s Olympic Boycott. TransWorld SNOWboarding. https://www.snowboarder.com/transworld-snowboarding-archive/snowboarding-news/pr-burtons-official-response-to-terjes-olympic-boycott/ (Accessed 2020-06-28)

Verhaal, J. C., Khessina, O. M., & Dobrev, S. D. (2015). Oppositional Product Names, Organizational Identities, and Product Appeal. Organization Science, 26(5), 1466–1484. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1000

Weber, K., Heinze, K. L., & DeSoucey, M. (2008). Forage for Thought: Mobilizing Codes in the Movement for Grass-fed Meat and Dairy Products. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 529–567. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.53.3.529

Welebil, S. (2018). Willkommen in der Kletterhauptstadt Innsbruck. FM4. https://fm4.orf.at/stories/2934017/ (Accessed 2020-06-21)

Wheaton, B. (2004). Understanding Lifestyle Sport: Consumption, Identity and Difference (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203646069

64

Wry, T., Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimating Nascent Collective Identities: Coordinating Cultural Entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22(2), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0613

Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The Categorical Imperative: Securities Analysts and the Illegitimacy Discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1398–1438. https://doi.org/10.1086/210178