Search results

Digitalisation is perceived as a new process that may add value to firms. Current theoretical understanding assumes it should be part of a firm's strategy to respond to multiple pressures in the business environment. This paper explores the occurrence of digitalisation in a rare context, that of the English agricultural industry in the United Kingdom, a place disproportionality filled with family firms. The general understanding of digitalisation in family firm settings remains embryonic. The authors' explorations make theoretical contributions to research at the intersection of rural entrepreneurship, family business and innovation.

Utilising a purposive, qualitative approach, primary data was collected from multiple interviews with 28 UK family farms, and secondary data from another 164. Interview transcripts were coded using NVivo, along with secondary data from reports, observations and websites.

The authors present empirical evidence illustrating how digitalisation manifests incrementally and radically in different types of family farms. The authors present a model that shows the areas of farming that have, and continue to be, digitalised. This increases analytical precision when identifying digitalisation activities that differ depending on the strategy to either scale or diversify. The authors propose that incremental digitalising occurs to a great extent during a scaling strategy, and that radical digitalising occurs to a smaller extent during diversification strategies in family farms.

This research uses a sample of family-run farms from the UK agricultural sector to explore nuanced elements of digitalisation. It should therefore be explored in other types of family firms located in different sectors and geographies.

This research is important because family farms are under increasing pressure and have limited financial resources to deal with the digitalisation agenda. Therefore, empirical evidence helps other farms in similar situations. The authors found digitalisation investments, that tend to be capital intensive, only matter for scalers and less so for diversifiers. Family farms can use the model presented as a tool to evaluate their farm. The tool helps them define what to do, and ideate the potential activities that might be digitalised, to feed into their wider strategy.

Family firms, in particular farms, are critical to many economies. The general consenses currently assumes all family firms should digitalise, yet the authors' evidence suggests that this is not the case. It is important to create policies that are sensitive to the needs of different types of businesses, in this case between family firm scalers and diversifiers, instead of simply incentivising digitalisation using a blanket approach usually by offering financial aid. Understanding how digitisation can support (or not) family firm resilience and growth in an effective and efficient manner can have significant benefit to individual firms, and across industries.

The proposed model extends theoretical understanding linking strategy, digitalisation activity and innovation in family farms. It shows that digitalisation is a key building block of scaling strategies, maximising digitalisation to increase efficiency. Yet, diversifying family farms minimise digitalisation, whereby they only digitalise a small amount of the farming activity. This empirical evidence contrasts with the wider narrative that farmers are slower at using new technology. This research found that some are slower because it does not align with their strategy. However, sometimes digitalisation aligns with their strategy during external changes, in which case the diversifiers are quick to act.

The purpose of this research is to develop theory, thereby attending to the existing knowledge gap regarding the impact of family firms on entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs). Reducing such a gap is both timely and relevant given the ubiquity of family firms across the globe and the lack of theoretical development at the intersection of EE and family firm literatures. By employing social capital theory in a propositional theorizing approach, this article presents unique propositions that enrich current understanding of the EE phenomenon.

Our method adopts a three-step propositional theorizing approach. The first step outlines our conceptualization, drawing on social capital theory and identifying multiple levels of analysis pertaining to EEs and family firms. The second step precisely identifies the constructs used for the theorization process, drawing upon relevant literature. The third step involves proposition building, which produces our findings.

As a result of our propositional theorizing method, we developed 10 theoretical propositions to explain interactions between family members, nonfamily entrepreneurs, family firms and new ventures in the EE, thereby focusing on the social elements of the EE and reducing its conceptual complexity while extending the explanatory power of family social capital in the EE.

Despite being increasingly relevant in research, policy and practice discourse, EEs remain under theorized. By theorizing in this context, we provide explanations of the mechanisms to explain social interactions between family members, nonfamily entrepreneurs, family firms and new ventures and how such interactions are likely to provide better access to the untapped resources in the EE. Furthermore, our theorization also identifies underexplored research areas paving the way for future scholars.

This article is relevant to practitioners and policymakers interested in creating balanced, inclusive and effective EE policies and interventions. Our theorization generates insights that complement a bottom-up approach where the state assumes a facilitating role for actors such as family firms to positively impact their EE. This research is both timely and necessary because, if unaddressed, it will lead to ineffective and potentially exclusionary policies and EE interventions.

We contribute to the literature by synthesizing the two domains and thereby advancing knowledge at the intersection of EE and family firm literatures. We strengthen the link between two burgeoning research areas through a propositional theorizing mode of theory development. Under the assumptions of a grand theory, social capital theory, we highlight the benefits that derive from social interactions in the EE between family firms and other EE actors.

In this paper, I demonstrate an alternative explanation to the development of the American electricity industry. I propose a social embeddedness approach (Granovetter, 1985, 1992) to interpret why the American electricity industry appears the way it does today, and start by addressing the following questions: Why is the generating dynamo located in well‐connected central stations rather than in isolated stations? Why does not every manufacturing firm, hospital, school, or even household operate its own generating equipment? Why do we use incandescent lamps rather than arc lamps or gas lamps for lighting? At the end of the nineteenth century, the first era of the electricity industry, all these technical as well as organizational forms were indeed possible alternatives. The centralized systems we see today comprise integrated, urban, central station firms which produce and sell electricity to users within a monopolized territory. Yet there were visions of a more decentralized electricity industry. For instance, a geographically decentralized system might have dispersed small systems based around an isolated or neighborhood generating dynamo; or a functionally decentralized system which included firms solely generating and transmitting the power, and selling the power to locally‐owned distribution firms (McGuire, Granovetter, and Schwartz, forthcoming). Similarly, the incandescent lamp was not the only illuminating device available at that time. The arc lamp was more suitable for large‐space lighting than incandescent lamps; and the second‐generation gas lamp ‐ Welsbach mantle lamp ‐ was much cheaper than the incandescent electric light and nearly as good in quality (Passer, 1953:196–197).

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Term. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

Research into educational organizations is usually concerned with one of two distinct connotations—investigation into the patterns of deploying teachers and pupils, as in team teaching, or investigations into the nature of the organizations themselves. The latter approach has great promise for providing insights into administrative behaviour. The work of Katz and Kahn, Presthus and Carlson helps to provide such insights. Much attention is now being paid to the initiation of organizational change, especially as it affects the organizational climate. The results of a recent project in this area suggest that administrators who wish to change organizational climate may 1. “Thicken the mix” through freeing communication; 2. Sharpen perception through training in interpersonal awareness; S. Improve output by not tinkering with the statics of the organization.

For the past twenty‐five years or so, the writings of George Orwell — especially his final novel 1984 — have been a popular topic for student research. From junior high through graduate school, interest in Orwell has been consistent. Book reports, term papers, and even seminars on Orwell are common‐place in the national curriculum. Now, as the year 1984 arrives, librarians at all levels — public, school, academic — must brace themselves for a year‐long onslaught of requests for biographical and critical material on Orwell.