The analytical framework

In the analytical framework (Figure 2.1), the three main analytical concepts are used: Opportunity Identification, Strategic Decision-Making and Three-fold Embedding.

Figure 2.1 Analytical framework of farm development: Opportunity Identification, Strategic Decision-Making and Three-fold Embedding (including positioning of the research questions).

These analytical concepts are placed in relation to each other; the internal loop represents the reiterative nature of this process, as part of a continuous cycle of farm development in relation to, and in interaction with, the socio-material context. The results of the process are, therefore, also linked to a moment in time, as circumstances or perceptions of the circumstances change. An analysis of the situation, thus, represents a ‘photograph’ of the situation at that moment in time. In the analytical framework, the analytical concept perceived Room for Manoeuvre (pRfM) is placed next to Opportunity Identification. The analytical concept pRfM was designed for this thesis, and is defined as: ‘the opportunities perceived as viable by the farmer in order to obtain a

(substantial part of) farm income’. The pRfM can, thus, be seen as the result of opportunity

identification. The name: ‘perceived Room for Manoeuvre’ was chosen, as it connects closely to the words used in the real life world of the farmer, who deliberates about the questions: ‘what are my opportunities? what is my room for manoeuvre?’. The pRfM is an operationalisation of the concept: ‘evoked set of opportunities’, which is defined as: ‘the full

Chapter 2

30

al. 2009, 122). The subjective nature of the perception of opportunities is incorporated within the name, ‘pRfM’. The pRfM is directly connected to the person of the farmer, while the ‘evoked set of opportunities’ may indicate a more objective approach: the farmer and the set of opportunities. The pRfM is related to the strategic awareness capability, defined as: ‘the process of continuously improving how one identifies and conceptualises one’s

own world, recognises events in this world, interprets these events and makes decisions for appropriate action to achieve positive business outcome’ (Hannon and Atherton 1998, 112). A

farmer with a higher strategic awareness capability is likely to have more opportunities included within the pRfM.

In Strategic Decision-Making, the farmer assesses (a selection of) the opportunities that are part of the pRfM. The pRfM may include opportunities that are not preferred by the farmer, even though the option is in itself perceived as viable. The concept of ‘strategy’ is in this study defined as: ‘a choice out of available routes and

means in order to realise a goal’ (Encyclo 2012). This means that continuation of current

activities is one of the opportunities, as it is a way to realise the goal: obtaining benefits for the farm (Hansen et al. 2011, 14). In the context of a farm as a running business, entrepreneurial opportunities also include the adaptation of ideas and opportunities already in practice on other farms. The strategic decisions of the farmer lead to farm practices, the characteristics of the farm as a result of the decisions of the farmer. These characteristics are shaped in the process of Three-fold Embedding for the three dimensions: socio-cultural relations, resources relations and value chain relations. The two-headed arrow in the analytical framework between farm practices and the three dimensions of Three-fold Embedding depicts the reciprocal nature of the relation. It is not a cause and effect relationship, the socio-material context affects farm practices and farm practices affect the socio-material context.

The design of the analytical framework was based on a combination of a literature study and an exploratory study in family dairy farming that is part of the research for this thesis. The combination of literature and the exploratory study enables connection between Entrepreneurship Research and real-life context: a connection that is deemed important (Bjerke 2007, 31; Watson 2013; Johannisson 2011). In the framework, the pRfM is placed at the centre in the ‘eye’ of the farmer, ‘looking’ at the opportunities for farm development to support farm income. As a result of the often implicit assessment (i.e. opportunity identification), a set of opportunities is perceived by the farmer as viable, this is the set of opportunities that is within the perceived Room for Manoeuvre.

Analytical framework

31

2

In Figure 2.1, two sets of relations can be seen with regard to the pRfM. The first set of relations regards placement of the ‘eye’ in relation to a range of seven drivers that are expected to influence the pRfM (top left of Figure 2.1). All these drivers are based on the farmer’s view of these drivers. The second set of relations regards placement of the ‘eye’ in relation to Strategic Decision-Making, which results in specific farm practices. These farm practices are then connected to the three dimensions of three- fold embeddedness (bottom right of Figure 2.1). For the relation of farm practices with Three-fold Embedding, a double-headed arrow is used, signifying the reciprocal effect. In the analytical framework, the three research questions are placed using the indicators: RQ 1; RQ 2; and RQ 3. RQ 1 aims to explore the differences between farmers in their pRfM, whilst operating in a highly comparable context. RQ 2 aims to enhance understanding of whether there are specific drivers that are important in creating differences between farmers in their pRfM or not. RQ 3 aims to increase understanding of the differences within the Three-fold Embedding of the farm practices, which are linked to differences in farmers’ perception of opportunities.

The seven drivers of pRfM (top left of the framework) cover a range from personal to business aspects, as the model is based on real-life context. The farmer’s perceptions of these seven drivers influence the individual’s subjective view on the situation of their own farm; this in turn influences his SDM process. The pRfM is not static; pRfM evolves with changes in the situation of the business and the owner-manager. The seven drivers for the pRfM are: 1) personal views and preferences; 2) personal development; 3) view on (entrepreneurial) competences; 4) view on continuation of the farm; 5) view on (farm) business situation; 6) view on market development; and 7) view on urban-rural relations. The first driver is the personal view and preference: how owner-managers view themselves and their preferences (Farmar-Bowers and Lane 2009); their personal motivations (Alsos et al. 2003; Vik and McElwee 2011); and self-conceptualisation (Burton and Wilson 2006). The second driver is personal development, consisting of: education level (Jongeneel et al. 2008; Carter 1998); experience (Hansson and Ferguson 2011); and networks of the owner-manager (Granovetter 1973; Clark 2009; Thornton et al. 2011; Ferguson and Hansson 2015). The third driver is the view on entrepreneurial competences relating to the business strategy (Bergevoet 2005; Bergevoet et al. 2004; Lans et al. 2011). The fourth driver is the view on continuation of the firm. In family- owned businesses, the influence of the family is important for the owner’s view on continuation (Gasson et al. 1988). The fifth driver is the view on the current business situation, based on material resources (Shucksmith and Herrmann 2002), and path- dependency, as a result of choices made earlier (Clark 2009). The sixth driver is the

Chapter 2

32

view on market development, that is, if and how the market is expected to change (Shucksmith and Herrmann 2002; Hansson and Ferguson 2011). The seventh (and last) driver is the view on urban-rural relations. The change in societal views over the last few decades on the urban-rural relation and the role of agriculture has created a market for diversification strategies (Atterton and Ward 2007), especially in peri-urban situations (Zasada 2011).

The Three-fold Embedding of the different farm practices that are linked to differences in the pRfM of the farmer, is studied using a re-conceptualisation of the three general dimensions of embeddedness named by Hess: 1) societal embeddedness, which signifies the importance of where an actor comes from, considering the societal (i.e., cultural, political, etc.) background; 2) network embeddedness, which describes the network of actors a person or organisation is involved in; and 3) territorial embeddedness, which considers the extent, to which an actor is ‘anchored’ in particular territories or places (Hess 2004, 177). The dimensions are carefully re-conceptualised in the specific context of dairy farming to ensure a clear and meaningful understanding of each dimension. The societal embeddedness is re-conceptualised as socio-cultural relations of the farmer; exploring how farmers view themselves as farmers, which ‘culture’ of farming does the farmer ‘belong’ to, what is the identity in values, norms and opinions. The network embeddedness is re-conceptualised as the value chain relations, exploring which value chain the farm is a part of or linked to, or which networks or spheres of influence affect farm development. The territorial embeddedness is re-conceptualised as the resource relations of the farm, exploring the origin of the resources for farm production.