Differences within individuals’ business spaces

Variance in the microspatial attributes of our informants’ business spaces had a significant impact on their learning. Though we mentioned some of these effects in isolation, it is only when explored collectively that the full importance becomes apparent.

More than that though, it is important to connect the microspatial dimension with our informants’ idiosyncratic learning needs.

Based on the coding scheme explained in the methods section, Table 27 presents the attributes of each individuals’ main business location. For density and proximity, we present codes for both business colleagues and businesses in general. For visibility, we present information on the general ease with which surrounding businesses can see the focal business, the visibility to casual passersby (e.g. a business colleague on an errand), and how one’s location in the business affects overall visibility. To this point on visibility, Kwakú provides a telling example. His business is only moderately visible to the other businesses around him, because they are directly beside him, rather than across. However, anybody walking by has to go right in front of his business, so it is highly visible for customers. Finally, Kwakú himself sits deep in the business behind some stock, so he is only seen when someone chooses to enter his business.

To summarize several points made in the previous section regarding business space: 1. How the microspatial attributes relate to business colleagues is most important. 2. Proximate business colleagues allow the timely acquisition of knowledge through

direct questioning.

3. Dense ecosystems of business colleagues form a deep repository of knowledge to learn from, and enable many opportunities to grow social networks.

4. Heightened visibility enables unsolicited learning, as well as happenstance meetings (and thus learning) while one’s colleagues are walking past on errands. While it may thus be tempting to think that all informants should aim to have ventures that are visible, in close proximity to business colleagues, and in dense systems, this is an oversimplification. Indeed, informants have diverse learning needs, so what may be a poor learning situation for one, is an adequate situation for another.

Table 27: The three main microspatial attributes of informants’ businesses

Proximity Density Visibility

Name Nearest BC Nearest bus. BC All bus. Other bus. Foot traffic Where sits in bus. Berko _{L VH L H M VH L} Mǎnu _{L H L H VL L M} Abenaa _{M VH M VH VH VH VH} Umma _{M M L VL L L L} Bobo _{L VH M H L L L} Ansah VL VH VL M M M L Samaila _{VH VH VH VH VH VH H} Dauda _{VH VH VH VH VH VH VH} Kwakú _{H VH M VH M VH L} Abba _{L VH VL VL L L VH} Fiddausi _{M VH L L H L M} Bitrus _{H VH H VH L H M} Raki _{VL M VL VL L L L} Salim H VH H VH VH VH H Yaw _{VH VH H VH VH VH VH} Kwasí _{VH VH H VH VH VH M} Okonkwo _{H VH M VH VH VH VH} Kwámè _{H VH VH VH VH VH VH} Adwoa _{M VH M VH L H M} Kwadwó _{H VH VH VH H VH VH} Kwabená _{VH VH VH VH L H H} Halima L VH L VL VL VL VH Kofí _{H VH H VH VH VH VH} Afua _{VL H L L VL L VL} Yusuf _{L H L M M VL VH} Esono _{H H M M M VL H} Yacub _{VL VL VL VL VL VL L} Danlami _{L H L L L M M} Nii _{H H M M M VL H} Ye M H H L VL L M Sisi _{VH VH VH VH VH VH VH}

BC=Business Colleague; e.g. one running the same type of business For explanation of coding scheme, see methods

Take Kwakú as an example again. Through not being visible, the potential for unsolicited learning decreased. Indeed, across our 11 interviews and our bouts of observation, never did we see any unsolicited learning or happenstance meetings. This stands in contrast to someone like Salim, Salim, or Kwámè where we saw one such incident every one or two visits. However, Kwakú’s learning needs did not necessitate unsolicited and happenstance learning. There were two major components to his learning task. First was learning about which food and drink products to sell. Given that this market was not particularly dynamic, he received enough knowledge from speaking with suppliers, and his wife, who was in the same business. Second, was learning about appropriate pricing levels. He generally accomplished this through his suppliers in Accra. However, if he had not travelled to Accra for an extended period, he sought out colleagues he knew had recently gone to Accra. From them, he learned the current pricing trends. That he was in close proximity to these colleagues made both tasks easy and routine; more than this though, he had these contacts in his social networks because they were close by. This close proximity also facilitated learning quickly. Furthermore, because of the moderate density of business colleagues, he was able to select who was in his network. This was useful given that his nearest colleague was a “wicked lady” who had “a very bad character” and would not share any information.

Salim, Salim, Kwasí, and Bitrus, on the other hand, sold clothing, a very dynamic market. Styles changed rapidly, and keeping abreast of changes was critical to selling, and avoiding a bloated inventory. The density and proximity of business colleagues enabled unsolicited learning, and learning by direct questioning. On many occasions, and especially with Salim, we saw business colleagues stop while passing by. When asked about these conversations, informants often told us they were about the “exchange rate” (i.e. how this changes sales prices) or were about what types of clothing were moving fast. (In other

cases, they were just about saying hello, which does point to the role of proximity and visibility in keeping social ties strong). The combination of visibility, density, and proximity led to a rich set of opportunities for learning. Density in particular assured a high level of accessible knowledge.

Highlighting the role of proximity, we often saw Bitrus or Salim come to Salim’s stand. They were 50 meters and 75 meters away, respectively. However, we never saw Kwasí come to Salim’s stand, or vice versa, across our 16 total visits. The two are good friends, yet were approximately 400 meters apart; too far for casual contact.

At the other end of the spectrum was Yacub’s business. He made glass beads, and was located in a residential neighbourhood. He was far from other businesses, especially of the same sort. As Table 27 shows, he ranked “very low” in all categories. However, this was not problematic to him given his experience and that he typically made beads to order. Because of his experience, he had less overall need for learning, and was able to make popular designs. This is instead of mimicking others’ designs through learning them. The fact he made to order also dampened any learning issues, as he did not have to worry about “choosing” the wrong style and being stuck with inventory. His business space therefore did not hamper his learning needs.

However, space affected people like Fiddausi. She was actually on her ninth

different venture, and had no education. Additionally, when first interviewed, she had only

been running the venture for three years. Further, she sold “provisions” including foodstuffs and cleaning products, but had limited capital with which to build up an inventory. In this somewhat dynamic industry, she thus had to ensure she was current on the appropriate products to stock. However, there were few other business colleagues around, and she was in a low-traffic part of town, inhibiting her ability to learn, especially in an unsolicited and happenstance manner. The only person she regularly spoke to about

business was her sister Umma, located approximately 250 meters away. This necessitated a specific trip though, which often meant closing the shop. Halima was in a similar situation; uneducated, little experience, and in a knowledge-poor space. Both informants thus had challenges acquiring the necessary knowledge, and in undertaking learning in a timely manner.