Reception and co-construction of entrepreneurship discourse in farm context

Jarkko Pyysiäinen

University of Helsinki Department of Social Psychology

The construction of entrepreneurial agency on farms Monday 12th April 2010

Contextualizing entrepreneurship discourse (1/3)

What is a discourse?Socio-culturally organized representations, (social)

practices, ideas, models…

The notion / model of entrepreneurial action Ideal of proactive, initiative, opportunity-seeking, risk-

taking, self-governed, innovative action orientation

Business contexts, SME & entrepreneurship policy- Focus increasingly on the creation of favourable

conditions for entrepreneurship & novel venturesExpansion beyond mere economic spheres

- Organization of public sector, education, regional

development, rural & agricultural policies

Contextualizing entrepreneurship discourse (2/3)

Forms of reception, rejection, social (re-)construction?

Social embeddedness Double ordering of social reality (e.g. Harré):

- Practical order: arrangements for maintaining life in a

given environment- Expressive order: values, attitudes, norms, virtues

- E.g. money:

A practical instrument for commodity exchange

A sign used to express social status, success,

recognition, pride Practical/expressive embedding of entrepreneurship

- Expressive order defines how easy/difficult it is to

embed entrepreneurship in a particular social context

Contextualizing entrepreneurship discourse (3/3)

Entrepreneurship in farm context

Changing agricultural operation environment From regulated ‘exceptionalism’ to market-drivenness

Farm level Increasing competition Pressures towards economic efficiency More relative independence, new opportunities

-> Demand for entrepreneurial action orientation

Forms of reception? Relationship to traditional expressive orders?

5

Case:

Co-constructing a virtuous ingroup attitude?Evaluation of new business activities in a group

discussion of farmers

Based on an article submitted to journal ’Text & Talk’

The question

How do farmers evaluate the facilitation of new business activities on farms?- How are evaluations constructed in a group discussion of

farmers?

The data

A group interview with four Finnish farmers (+two interviewers)

Interviewees encouraged to comment on argumentation-stimulating questions/statements

The topic: Facilitation of new businesses on farms ‘On-farm business diversification’ (OFBD)Currently a hot topic (macro policies & agricultural

predicament)

The interviewees Three engaged in conventional primary production One engaged in business diversification (agro-tourism)

Approach (1/3)Focus on communicative co-construction of

attitudes in interaction Informed by ‘qualitative attitude approach’ (Vesala &

Rantanen 2007)

Rhetorical, sequential construction (cf. rhetorical soc psyc

[e.g. Billig]; conversation analysis) of evaluations Stand(s) taken Nature of justifications used to back it up Object of evaluation thereby constructed Social category / position that the subject assumes

→ Attitude construct interpreted analytically as comprised of these four elements

Approach (2/3)

Qualitative, empirical analysis

First step: Attitude construction

- Categorizing evaluations according to their similarity in: - How topic evaluated (stand, justifications, nature

of rhetorical resources) - What evaluated (object of evaluation) - Who evaluates (position from which the object is

evaluated)

- Identifying the qualitative variation in attitude categories

(hesitant, positive, negative [moderate/strong])

Approach (3/3)

Second step: Contextual, intersubjective aspect- Detecting the sequential interplay & occurrence of

attitudes- Interpreting the analysis with concepts focusing on

interaction and group -level- Footing (Goffman)

- How do speakers align themselves with the

evaluations & categories displayed (e.g.

distance, commitment)?- Animator, author, principal

- Social identity, ingroup virtue (Reicher et al.)

To what extent do common alignments occur? Do they

lead to a culmination and collective commitment?

11

The analysis: Illustrations & interpretations

12

Comments on the question: ‘On the whole, should business diversification on farms be facilitated in your municipality?’

Interviewee 2: […] in these EU times […] it is more or less the case that you just have to probe different directions

Initial hesitant attitudes – Example 1

→ Stand: Moderate agreementJustifications: Common economic pressure (the EU policy)Footing: Commonplace – Collective fate

13

Comments on the question: ‘On the whole, should business diversification on farms be facilitated in your municipality?’

Interviewee 2: […] in these EU times […] it is more or less the case that you just have to probe different directions but whether this question is about the role of the municipality in the facilitation of on farm business diversification, then having seen the bottom of the cash box at least in our municipality it surely must be almost impossible to get any significant aid from that direction, surely the means of development should be sought elsewhere,

Initial hesitant attitudes – Example 1

→ Stand: Moderate agreementJustifications: Common economic pressure (the EU policy)Footing: Commonplace – Collective fate

→ Stand: Moderate disagreementJustifications: Municipal economic hardships Footing: Neutral facticity – ‘Municipal treasurer’

14

Comments on the question: ‘On the whole, should business diversification on farms be facilitated in your municipality?’

Interviewee 3: […] Along these lines pretty much, depending on the farm there may surely be those who can take on other activities besides farming.

Initial hesitant attitudes – Example 2

→ Stand: Moderate agreementJustifications: Unique situations of individual farmers

Footing: Commonplace – Individual farmers

15

Comments on the question: ‘On the whole, should business diversification on farms be facilitated in your municipality?’

Interviewee 3: […] Along these lines pretty much, depending on the farm there may surely be those who can take on other activities besides farming. But each one has to ponder his own limits, how much one can stand and invest time

Initial hesitant attitudes – Example 2

→ Stand: Moderate agreementJustifications: Unique situations of individual farmers

Footing: Commonplace – Individual farmers

→ Stand: Moderate reservation/disagreementJustifications: Time and resources as limiting factors Footing: Commonplace / common experience – Community of farmers

16

Interviewee 4: […] it requires work force back there on the farm and I think I received pretty good advice from my father back in the days […] that remember […] you’re there together with your wife at first, two young people who think they can manage all the work in the world, […] when that first child is born the other will be totally out of the game, and that is so true, […] ((the grand))parents may be around but when they get older […] suddenly there is no support around anymore? Then […] you have your hands full of work […] start getting tired and end up being in pretty bad shape eventually, so that’s why you shouldn’t take up too many things there, your strength gives out,

Interviewee 1: […] not a single development activity should be undertaken unless there is an actually existing clear demand situation […]

Towards a negative attitude & shared ingroup virtues – Example

Comments on the question: ‘On the whole, should business diversification on farms be facilitated in your municipality?’

→ Stand: Strong reservation/disagreementJustifications: Precedence of primary production &

family orientation over business activitiesFooting: Personal experiences – Community of traditional primary producers

17

→ Life-world & experiences of traditional family farming laid out as he argumentative context

→ These rhetorical resources were accessible to all speakers

→ Became formulated as collective virtues and OFBD as their threat

Co-constructing the negative attitude: Invoking the argumentative context of an ingroup

A rich variety of justifications invoked in the gradual strengthening of reservation/disagreement

18

Interviewee 1: -- I think it has again been the right thing to do that unless a clear demand emerges what’s the point in developing since the demand should originate in the farmers and be spotted by them, like I myself got together a regional development project so that I made it clear that now there’s a need for such and such things and there were then like-minded persons joining up and the project was realized and that’s how things get going, --

Turning towards a positive attitude – Example

Comments on the question: ‘The development of farm businesses is dominated by tourism and culture -orientation. The development of other business activities on farms may suffer from this state of affairs’

→ Stand: Conditional agreementJustifications: Situations where business opportunities

genuinely spotted by individual farmers themselvesFooting: Commonplace (& personal experiences) – Individual farmers

19

The invoked argumentative contexts enabled the speakers to co-construct…

→ Stand: Reservation / disagreementJustifications: Contradicts with production oriented family farming Footing: Personal experiences / commonplace – Community of

‘traditional’ farmers

→ Stand: Conditional agreementJustifications: Unique situations of and opportunities spotted by individual farmersFooting: Commonplace (& personal experiences) – Individual farmers

a strongly reserved attitude (towards facilitation of OFBD):

and a favourable one, a particularization:

20

There are thus aspects in on-farm business diversification that on the one hand threaten, and on the other fit in with, the social reality, the ’expressive order’ of the farmers.

On the basis of the course thus far (e.g. Dudley’s ’Entrepreneurial Self’), how would you elaborate on this: A) What might threaten (or be threatened)? B) What might fit in?

Question

Summing up

So what, does entrepreneurship fit into the context of farming?

Co-construction of two different attitudes1) OFBD as a threat to the virtues of traditional

farming (-> not to be facilitated)- Culmination of reserved attitudes in the course

of conversation- Ingroup virtue; invocation of the collective

identity of ‘us’ as traditional primary producers

Summing up

2) OFBD as an opportunity to particular farmers (-> facilitation a matter of individual farmers)- A particularization co-constructed by drawing on

the same rhetorical resources- A different attitude object- Collective question & identity resolved

- Allowed also ‘the odd one’ speaker an opportunity to position himself as a ‘business diversifier’

Summing up

Facilitation and reception of entrepreneurship discourse on farms not an either/or question

Depends on social constructions of entrepreneurship

the expressive order (values, norms, virtues, social comparisons) characteristic of farmers- Enables alternative constructions of

entrepreneurship- as a threat to traditional farming- as a unique opportunity spotted individually

by the person him/herself