Search results

This study, a conceptual paper, aims an answer the question, how significant cluster ambidexterity is for the resilience of individual clusters.

The authors draw up an abductive synopsis of empirical information and relevant theoretical sources. A case study is used to illustrate some of the findings.

The results of the analysis show that the ambidexterity of a cluster can contribute to its resilience when adverse external developments arise. Ambidexterity proves to be simultaneously a common strategy of key cluster actors and a mechanism for coping with critical situations and developments that can be activated by the cluster actors and may – eventually – lead to cluster resilience. While ambidexterity does not guarantee cluster survival, it can contribute significantly to their economic resilience under adverse conditions.

The concept is developed on a limited empirical basis and would need to be tested and deepened by comparing a wide range of case studies from different clusters.

A better understanding of the importance of ambidexterity for the development of industrial clusters contributes to a better fine-tuning of cluster support policies.

Ambidexterity as a concept originating from business administration has so far only been rudimentarily tapped for empirical and theoretical cluster research. The paper identifies and develops a path how this could be accomplished to a greater extent in the future.

This paper aims to explore how historical context influences the content and selection of rhetorical legitimation strategies. Using case study method, this paper will focus on how insurance companies and labor tried to defend their legitimacy in the context of enactment of Medicare in the USA. What factors influenced the strategic (rhetorical) decisions made by insurance companies and labor unions in their institutional work?

The study is empirically grounded in archival research, involving an analysis of over 9,000 pages of congressional hearings on Medicare covering the period 1958–1965.

The authors show that rhetorical legitimation strategies depend significantly on the specific historical circumstances in which those strategies are used. The historical context lent credibility to certain arguments and organizations are forced to decide either to challenge widely held assumptions or take advantage of them. The authors show that organizations face strong incentives to pursue the latter option. Here, both the insurance companies and labor unions tried to show that their positions were consistent with classical liberal ideology, because of high respect of classical liberal principles among different stakeholders (policymakers, voters, etc.).

It is uncertain how much the results of the study could be generalized. More information about the organizations whose use of rhetorics the authors studied could have strengthened our conclusions.

The practical relevancy of the revised paper is that the authors should not expect hegemony challenging rhetorics from organizations, which try to influence legislators (and perhaps the larger public). Perhaps (based on the findings), this kind of rhetorics is not even very effective.

The paper helps to understand better how organizations try to advance their interests and gain acceptance among the stakeholders.

In this paper, the authors show how historical context in practice influence rhetorical arguments organizations select in public debates when their goal is to influence the decision-making of their audience. In particular, the authors show how dominant ideology (or ideologies) limit the options organizations face when they are choosing their strategies and arguments. In terms of the selection of rhetorical justification strategies, the most pressing question is not the “real” broad based support of certain ideologies. Insurance company and labor union representatives clearly believed that they must emphasize liberal values (or liberal ideology) if they wanted to gain legitimacy for their positions. In existing literature, it is often assumed that historical context influence the selection of rhetorical strategies but how this in fact happens is not usually specified. The paper shows how interpretations of historical contexts (including the ideological context) in practice influence the rhetorical strategies organizations choose.