Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present a specific case of at-home ethnography, or insider research: The German Public Employment Service (BA) commissioned its own research institute (Institute for Employment Research (Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung)) to evaluate the daily implementation of its core management instruments (target management and controlling). The aim of the paper is to explain the challenges faced by the ethnographers and to reflect on them methodologically.

At-home ethnography/insider research.

In the paper, it is argued to what extent conducting at-home ethnography, or insider research, is like “Walking the Line” – to paraphrase Johnny Cash. When examining a management instrument that is highly contested on the micropolitical level, the researchers have to navigate their way through different interests with regard to advice and support, and become micropoliticians in their own interest at the same time in order to maintain scientific autonomy. The ethnographers are deeply enmeshed in the micropolitical dynamics of their field, which gives rise to the question of how they can distance themselves in this situation. To this effect, they develop the argument that distancing is not so much about seeing what is familiar in a new light, as is mostly suggested in the literature, than about alienating a familiar research environment in order to avoid a bureaucratically contingent othering. It is shown what constitutes a bureaucratically contingent othering and how it should be met by an othering of the bureaucracy. Conclusions are drawn from this with regard to the advice and support required for the bureaucracy and concerning the methods debate surrounding insider research in general.

The paper contributes to the method debate with regard to at-home ethnography, or insider research, and particularly addresses organisational researchers and practitioners facing similar challenges when conducting ethnographic research in their own organisation.

This paper aims to use the institutional perspective to jointly explore the underlying motives that drive Chinese private small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to invest in the developed economy of Germany and the role China’s institutional environment is playing in this context.

Given the lack of recent in-depth studies, the authors use multiple case study method to present rich insights from elite interviews with executives belonging to seven Chinese SMEs and industry experts, as well as the study of firm documents, social media and the latest governmental policies.

The results indicate not only market-, resource- and strategic asset-seeking motives, but contrary to the literature, also efficiency-seeking goals. Further driving factors are the integration in global value chains and high degrees of entrepreneurial orientation. The second major finding is that China’s institutional environment induces widely divergent effects. Its ministries established new outward foreign direct investments (OFDI) support measures that are beneficial for some SMEs’ post-entry operations. However, some firms are not aware of any support measures or suffer from discrimination that hinders innovation and from which they try to escape by investing abroad.

This paper considers different levels of analysis (firm, entrepreneur, institutional environment) to investigate Chinese SMEs’ motives in Europe’s largest market. By examining why and how these firms use OFDI to a developed economy, the authors address an essential question for China’s economy that is of primary political and academic concern (“How can China get that improved innovation that often seeds entrepreneurial growth?”). In addition, the study contributes to the growing discussion of institutional escapism in emerging markets by revealing five institutional hardships Chinese SMEs are facing and how this relates to their internationalization.