Walden University
College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by
Scott Hutcheson
has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,
and that any and all revisions required by
the review committee have been made.
Review Committee
Dr. Ross Alexander, Committee Chairperson,
Public Policy and Administration Faculty
Dr. Mark Stallo, Committee Member,
Public Policy and Administration Faculty
Dr. Kristie Roberts, University Reviewer,
Public Policy and Administration Faculty
Chief Academic Officer
Eric Riedel, Ph.D.
Walden University
2013
Abstract
Effective Strategy Making in Economic and Community Development
by
Scott Hutcheson
MPA, University of Tennessee, 1995
BS, Tennessee Temple University, 1988
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
School of Public Policy and Administration
Walden University
December 2013
Abstract
Civic leaders and economic and community development practitioners are charged with
developing strategies for economic growth, yet they have little evidence-based
information to guide their efforts. The purpose of this study was to narrow this
knowledge gap. The theories of collaborative governance, social innovation, and strategy
formation provided the conceptual framework. The research goals were to identify factors
of effective strategy making and determine the correlation between those factors and
effective strategy initiatives. This sequential mixed method design included purposive
samples of strategy experts and participants in strategy initiatives. Ten semistructured
interviews identified the factors and a quasiexperimental survey of 108 individuals
measured the correlation between the factors and strategy initiatives. Qualitative data
were analyzed using data analysis spiral and Spearman’s rho was used to analyze the
quantitative data. Key findings indicated that 8 factors are significantly correlated with
effective strategy initiatives: network-based organizational structures, asset-based
frameworks, iterative planning and implementation, short-term goals, easy wins, shared
implementation among several organizations, metrics to indicate ongoing adjustments,
and high levels of trust and adaptability among participants. The results of this study can
be used by civic leaders and economic and community development practitioners to
design and implement strategy initiatives. The study points to a need for further research
to better understand of each of these 8 factors. These findings could positively impact
social change by growing communities’ economic base and improving quality of life for
community residents.
Effective Strategy Making in Economic and Community Development
by
Scott Hutcheson
MPA, University of Tennessee, 1995
BS, Tennessee Temple University, 1988
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
College of Public Policy and Administration
Walden University
December 2013
UMI Number: 3604407
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3604407
Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my father and grandfather Dr. V. E.
Hutcheson, Jr. and Dr. V. E. Hutcheson. Although they are both long gone from this
earth, they have both provided to me a lifetime inspiration. I’m grateful for their legacy
and proud to represent a third generation of Drs. Hutcheson.
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge my wife Lisa and sons Henry and Oliver for their
patience and support as I progressed through the doctoral program and the writing of this
dissertation. I would also like to acknowledge my chair, Dr. Ross Alexander and
committee members Dr. Mark Stallo and Dr. Kristie Roberts for their guidance and
contributions that have made this a better piece of scholarship. Additionally I would like
to thank my colleagues and mentors Dr. Sam Cordes, Dr. Vic Lechtenberg, and Dr.
Chuck Hibberd for encouraging me to commit to obtaining a doctoral degree.
Table of Contents
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study ................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................... 2 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................ 3 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 4 Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................................ 5 Organizational Structure ......................................................................................... 6 Frameworks............................................................................................................. 6 Processes ................................................................................................................. 6 Timeframe ............................................................................................................... 7 Implementation ....................................................................................................... 7 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 7 Nature of the Study ....................................................................................................... 8 Definitions..................................................................................................................... 8 Assumptions and Limitations ....................................................................................... 9 Significance................................................................................................................. 11 Summary and Transition ............................................................................................. 11 Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 12 Search Strategy ........................................................................................................... 14 i
Purpose of the Literature Review ............................................................................... 15 Evolution of Local Economic Development............................................................... 16 Institutionalization ................................................................................................ 17 Locus of Control ................................................................................................... 20 Complexity ............................................................................................................ 22 Strategic Planning and Strategy Making in Economic Development ......................... 23 Introduction of Strategic Planning into Economic Development ......................... 24 Early Models of Strategic Planning in Economic Development .......................... 25 Evolving Models of Strategic Planning in Economic Development .................... 26 Emerging Models of Strategic Planning in Economic Development ................... 29 Contributions From the Theories of Strategy Formation, Collaborative
Governance, and Social Innovation ................................................................ 33 Strategy Formation................................................................................................ 34 Collaborative Governance .................................................................................... 36 Social Innovation .................................................................................................. 39 Contingent Lines of Inquiry for Further Exploring Effective Strategy Making
in the Context of Economic Development ...................................................... 42 Organizational Structure ....................................................................................... 43 Frameworks........................................................................................................... 43 Processes ............................................................................................................... 43 Timeframe ............................................................................................................. 44 Implementation ..................................................................................................... 44 ii
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 44 Chapter 3: Research Method ............................................................................................. 47 Overview of the Research Design............................................................................... 47 Qualitative Phase Design ...................................................................................... 48 Quantitative Phase Design .................................................................................... 49 Research Questions and Hypotheses .......................................................................... 50 Organizational Structure ....................................................................................... 51 Frameworks........................................................................................................... 51 Processes ............................................................................................................... 52 Timeframe ............................................................................................................. 52 Implementation ..................................................................................................... 52 Ethical Protection of Participants................................................................................ 52 Protection From Harm .......................................................................................... 53 Protection of Participants ...................................................................................... 53 Informed Consent.................................................................................................. 53 Right to Privacy .................................................................................................... 54 Researcher Bias ..................................................................................................... 54 Identification and Selection of Participants ................................................................ 55 Research Participants .................................................................................................. 55 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 60 Qualitative Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 60 Quantitative Data Analysis ................................................................................... 60 iii
Mixed Method Design ................................................................................................ 61 Grounded Theory Design ...................................................................................... 61 Quasi-Experimental Design .................................................................................. 62 Data Validation and Legitimation ............................................................................... 63 Findings....................................................................................................................... 65 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 65 Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................. 67 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 67 Setting ......................................................................................................................... 67 Demographics ............................................................................................................. 68 Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 68 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 69 Findings....................................................................................................................... 72 Qualitative Findings .............................................................................................. 73 Quantitative Findings ............................................................................................ 87 Evidence of Trustworthiness....................................................................................... 97 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 99 Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations ......................................... 101 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 101 Interpretation of the Findings.................................................................................... 102 Limitations of the Study............................................................................................ 103 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 104 iv
Implications............................................................................................................... 105 Reflection on the Experience .................................................................................... 108 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 108 References ....................................................................................................................... 110 Appendix A: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................... 125 Appendix B: Survey Protocol ......................................................................................... 128 Appendix C: Survey Screen Print ................................................................................... 129 Appendix D Code Occurrence Chart .............................................................................. 133 Appendix E: Code Co-Occurrence Chart ....................................................................... 134 Appendix F: Descriptive Statistics Report from SPSS for Group 1 (Effective) and
Group 2 (Ineffective) .......................................................................................... 135 Appendix G: Correlations Screen Prints from SPSS ...................................................... 141 Appendix H: Peer Review Letter .................................................................................... 142 Curriculum Vitae ............................................................................................................ 143 v
List of Tables
Table 1. Institutionalization, Locus of Control, and Complexity in Local Economic
Development ............................................................................................................. 23 Table 2. Orientation, Thought Leadership, and Tools of the Early, Evolving, and
Emerging Models of Strategy Making in Economic Development .......................... 33 Table 3. Summary of the Contributions of Strategy Formation, Collaborative
Governance, and Social Innovation to Strategy Making in Economic Development
................................................................................................................................... 42 Table 4. Codes and Numbers of Excerpts from the Qualitative Data Analysis Phase ..... 71 Table 5. The Eight Null and Alternative Hypotheses (a priori and Emergent) Tested in the
Quantitative Phase..................................................................................................... 88 Table 6. Group 1 (Effective) Full Text of Questions, Possible Responses, Codes for
Responses, and Descriptive Statistics ....................................................................... 91 Table 7. Group 2 (Ineffective) Full Text of Questions, Possible Responses, Codes for
Responses, and Descriptive Statistics ....................................................................... 94 Table 8. Effectiveness Continuum Correlation Coefficient Using Spearman’s rho ......... 97 vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Logic diagram of the study ................................................................................ 48
vii
1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Introduction
A small-town mayor watches one more factory close its doors, leaving dozens of
workers unemployed; a local minister says Godspeed to yet another solid family moving
away from the church and the town for work opportunities in another state; and a school
teacher is faced with the challenge of students trying to learn while feeling the family
stress that comes from smaller paychecks and larger bills to pay. Longworth (2007)
described some of these challenges that Midwestern communities face in which family
farms, steel mills, and auto plants have virtually disappeared and as places where
“reinvention is yet to come” (p. 44).
These challenges are not limited to just the Midwest. Difficult economic times in
the United States affect the lives of all people, and civic leaders from both rural towns
and metropolitan regions face the challenge of making the best of a bad situation. They
must come up with economic development strategies to help their communities not only
survive the bad times but also position them well for economic recovery (Hutcheson,
2012). Even in times of economic boom, civic leaders must remain vigilant, developing
strategies to keep the economy vibrant and safeguard against the next downturn.
This research sheds light on how civic leaders can lead their communities in the
formation and execution of strategies that will help improve their economy and the
quality of life for their residents. The social change that results could be far reaching,
leading to communities that are more resilient and individuals who benefit from an
enhanced quality of life. The results and findings of this study also include insights for
2
researchers interested in economic and community development, as well as those focused
on strategy making in community contexts in which multiple organizations are involved.
This chapter describes the research problem this study addressed, the research
questions explored, the hypotheses tested, the purpose of the study, conceptual
framework, nature of the study, definition of terms, assumptions and limitations, and
significance of the study. It also sets the stage for the literature review.
Background
Although a great deal of strategic planning research has been conducted,
especially with businesses, there is very little scholarship related to how strategies are
developed in the context of local communities, especially for the purpose of economic
and community development. Even in the existing literature on strategic planning, limited
research has focused on the effectiveness of strategy development models, and much of
the economic development scholarship is rooted in economics rather than coming from a
local public policy perspective. In essence, there is no established theory of the factors
leading to effectiveness in strategy making in the context of economic and community
development.
This gap in the knowledge means that people practicing economic and community
development in local and regional communities are largely working without the benefits
and assurances of scholarship that informs practice. Civic leaders at the local level often
wonder if they should hire a consultant to assist them with creating their economic and
community development strategies or if they can create strategies alone, and if they do
use a consultant, they wonder which one promotes the most effective model or process.
3
With public resources in short supply, it is more important than ever that leaders make
these decisions wisely. The knowledge gap also means that economic and community
development researchers lack scholarship in the specific area of strategy-making
effectiveness, potentially impacting the larger research context.
The examination of the literature found in Chapter 2 summarizes the history of
economic development in the United States, explains the changing nature of strategic
planning in economic development, and explores contributions from the theories of
strategy formation, collaborative governance, and social innovation. This study fills the
knowledge gap that exists both in the literature and among those charged with forming
and implementing economic and community development strategies in U.S.
communities. This study provides scholars with insights to complement their existing
work and to assist civic leaders to make better-informed decisions about how best to
grow their local economy.
Problem Statement
The research problem that this study addressed is that there is a gap in the existing
literature regarding the factors that contribute to effective strategy-making processes for
economic and community development. McGuire (2000) pointed to the need for
additional research in this area of economic development (p. 291), and Kwon, Berry, and
Feiock (2009) noted that strategic planning, in the context of economic development,
deserves more scholarly attention in the academic literature (p. 968). Civic leaders face
daunting challenges as they consider the most effective strategies for economic growth,
especially in the midst of a slow economic recovery (Markey, 2010), and in advancing
4
the quality of life in their communities (Robichau, 2010), especially in an era of
decreased public resources.
As these civic leaders consider different models and methods for creating and
implementing economic and community development strategies, they have very little
research-based information to help them make decisions and to determine if one type of
strategy development process is any different from another. This study adds to the
scholarship of economic development with original research on the factors that contribute
to effective strategy making. The study also provides civic leaders with research-based
information that can inform their decisions about designing and implementing economic
and community development strategy initiatives.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this two-phase, sequential mixed methods study was to develop
and test a new theory of strategy-making effectiveness in the context of economic and
community development. The first phase was a qualitative exploration of the variables
associated with strategy-making effectiveness for economic and community development
by collecting data from a panel of experts. I then used the findings from this qualitative
phase to develop and test a set of hypotheses that strategy-making effectiveness (the
dependent variable) is related to the independent variables identified in the earlier
qualitative phase. The reason for collecting qualitative data initially was that the variables
were unknown and there was little guiding theory to inform that quantitative analysis.
5
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The qualitative phase of the study informed the development of the hypotheses
that were tested in the quantitative phase, and the full literature review informed the
research questions that were explored in the qualitative phase, but the following
preliminary research questions guided the literature review:
Research Question 1 (qualitative): What are the factors that contribute to strategy
making effectiveness in the context of local and regional economic and community
development?
Research Question 2 (quantitative): Among individuals who have participated in
local or regional economic and community development strategy making initiatives, is
there an association between perceived effectiveness of the initiatives and the factors
identified in the qualitative phase?
The findings of the qualitative analysis determined the independent variables for
the quantitative phase. The literature review indicated that the theories of strategy
making, collaborative governance, and social innovation represented constructs that are
related to the research questions at hand. These theories, then, informed the contingent
lines of inquiry in the qualitative phase. The preliminarily identified factors held true
during the qualitative data collection and analysis, and become the independent variables
that were explored in the quantitative phase. Additional factors also emerged from the
qualitative data and they too were included as independent variables. The single
dependent variable was strategy-making effectiveness. The dependent variable was
operationalized in a survey item that provided respondents with a scale for effectiveness.
6
Each of the independent variables was also operationalized in survey items. The
following are the null and alternative hypotheses associated with the contingent lines of
inquiry. The final hypotheses were later constructed after the qualitative data had been
gathered and analyzed. Since these contingent factors held up in the qualitative phase,
they remained. Had they not, they would be eliminated from the quantitative phase.
Additional factors were identified in the qualitative phase and the hypotheses constructed
from these factors will be presented in Chapter 4.
Organizational Structure
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and network
organizational structures.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
network organizational structures.
Frameworks
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and assetbased frameworks.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
asset-based frameworks.
Processes
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and iterativebased processes.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
iterative-based processes.
7
Timeframe
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and shortterm wins.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
short-term wins.
Implementation
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
decentralized implementation.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative and decentralized
implementation.
Conceptual Framework
Bowen (2006) described the role of sensitizing concepts in grounded theory
research and pointed out that these concepts are theories that can help frame the
exploration. They provide a starting place although some might stay and others might be
ruled out as the qualitative data is collected and analyzed. Since there is no theory base
from which to draw, the grounded theory method and the use of these sensitizing
concepts is an appropriate way to frame the story. Three theories served as the sensitizing
concepts for this study: (a) strategy formation, (b) collaborative governance, and (c)
social innovation. The conceptual framework for this study was woven together from
these three theories, along with the history of economic development. Taken together,
these constructs provided the beginning framework for the literature review presented in
Chapter 2.
8
Nature of the Study
The nature of this study was mixed method with an emphasis on the qualitative
approach. The first phase of the study was a qualitative, grounded-theory exploration of
strategy-making effectiveness using data collected from economic and community
development scholars and practitioners. Phase 2 of the research was a quantitative,
quasiexperimental, contrasted-group examination that used the grounded theory construct
from Phase 1 to test the new theory among a sample population of individuals who had
participated in making economic development strategy. I collected data for the qualitative
phase from a purposive theoretical sample taking the form of a panel of experts and for
the quantitative phase I collected data using a purposive nonprobability sample, which
could be classified further as a heterogeneous expert sample.
Definitions
It is important to note the operational definition of “effectiveness” in the context
of this study. One way to evaluate effectiveness of an economic and community
development strategy would be to measure the economic impact. For instance, did a
strategy related to increasing entrepreneurship result in more new business starts, new
jobs, and so forth? Even for economists, cause and effect is difficult to prove because of
the many other variables at play in the global, national, and local economy. For the
purposes of this study, effectiveness was related to the strategy-making process, rather
than the economic impact of the implemented strategy.
9
The term strategy making could also be described as strategy formation, strategy
development, as well as other terms. For the purposes of this study, strategy making
served as the standard term to be used to describe the process of interest.
The phenomenon this study examined is related to “economic and community
development.” At times the term economic development may appear but the assumption
is that this is being considered within a community context and that community could be
a local municipality like a city, town, or county but it could also refer to a regional
community made up of several municipalities within a geographic area.
Assumptions and Limitations
A primary assumption of the study was that both of the sample populations would
have relevant knowledge in the areas of inquiry and would answer truthfully. Potential
limitations of this research included the difficulty in making generalizations from
grounded theory research, but in this study the new theory was tested in the quantitative
phase, allowing for some level of generalization and addressing that limitation.
Validation presented another potential issue to the qualitative phase, so the research
employed both member checking and clarification of researcher bias as strategies for
addressing validation concerns (Creswell, 2007, p. 208).
A potential limitation of the quantitative analysis phase was the validity and
reliability of the instrument. Although the instrument was based on constructs well
documented in the literature, this study was the first time these constructs had been used
together to assess the perceived effectiveness of strategy development processes. To
mitigate this particular weakness, the panel of experts convened for the qualitative phase
10
was re-engaged and asked to review and provide feedback as to whether or not this
collection of constructs, and the resulting instrument, provided an effective means of
evaluating perceived effectiveness of strategy making. Havercamp (2008) provided a
helpful guide to the use of expert panels for this purpose.
Another limitation of the study, as with most research that includes
quasiexperiments, was the absence of the traditional means of control, like random
assignment. To address this weakness in the quantitative phase of this research,
participants were assigned to two contrasted groups. One group included those who had
been involved in economic and community development strategy initiatives they deemed
as effective and the other group included those who had been involved in initiatives they
perceived as having been ineffective. This group assignment process was randomized
using a feature of the online survey tool that randomly presented to participants the two
different scenarios, thus resulting in randomly assigned contrasted groups.
The new theory developed in this study was based on data collected from a panel
of experts. Although, the individuals represented in this panel were credentialed and
authoritative, a different panel may have resulted in different findings. Thus, the resulting
theory is limited to the collective perspectives of the members of the panel. All of the
panel members have worked primarily in the United States, so the new knowledge
created in this study is limited to economic and community development strategy making
as it occurs in the United States.
11
Significance
This study has the potential to advance the knowledge of economic development
as well as other areas of community development in which strategies are formed and
implemented. Practitioners and policy makers may also benefit from the study’s findings.
Economic development professionals, and the civic leaders with whom they work, will
gain new insights, and policy makers may be able to incorporate into their work the
principles that emerge from the findings. The goal for social change in this research was
to provide practitioners and policy makers new information to help them make more
informed decisions about economic development strategy making processes that could
boost economic growth and enhance the quality of life in their communities.
Summary and Transition
This mixed method study resulted in a new theory of effective economic
development strategy making and added new knowledge to the literature on economic
development. Chapter 2 presents a synthesis of the existing literature to demonstrate the
contingent framework that guided the data collection. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology
that was used in the collection and analysis of the data. Chapter 4 presents an analysis of
the data, and Chapter 5 presents a summary of the research, findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for scholars and practitioners.
12
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Preface
Sid’s family was one of his county’s original settlers and he was a man who knew
how to get things done in his little town in Arkansas’ Ozark Mountains. When he thought
a ferry would increase commerce by enabling easier crossing of the White River, he
constructed it; and when he sensed that the growing community needed a dentist, he sent
his only son to Kansas City to dental school (Baxter County Bulletin, 2012). “Doc,” as
the son came to be known, continued walking in his father’s civic footsteps. When the
town needed a hotel to accommodate a developing tourism industry, Doc built one. When
the town became a city and needed a mayor, he stepped up and was elected; and later
when the school needed new leadership, he became school board president. Sid and Doc
were not the only community stewards, of course. They were two of just a handful of
citizens—all men, all white—who helped lead their communities through an era that
included two world wars and the Great Depression. That was how things got done in the
first half of the 20th century (A. Thompson, personal communication, January 7, 2013).
Today, however, many of the issues communities face are quite a bit more
complex than they were, and the knowledge and resources needed to address them is
much more specialized and dispersed. Economic and community development, in
particular, has become highly institutionalized. Even in Baxter County, Arkansas, where
Sid and Doc resided, issues and solutions for economic and community development
have evolved far beyond what any individual or small group can effectively address.
Today, organizations like the Mountain Home Chamber of Commerce and North Central
13
Arkansas Economic Development, along with elected officials, are charged with the
responsibilities of growing the local and regional economy.
Some local economies grow while others do not. The actions and decisions of
civic leaders may foster growth; or growth, when it occurs, could be due to macro
economic forces. The research problem this study addressed is that there is a gap in the
existing literature regarding what constitutes an effective economic and community
development strategy-making process, and the purpose of the study was to develop and
test a new theory of strategy-making effectiveness in the context of economic and
community development. McQuire (2000) and Kwon, Berry, and Feiock (2009) both
pointed to the need for more research in this area.
In order to better understand the dynamics of the way economic and community
development strategies are developed and implemented today and specifically how
factors lead to effective strategy making in economic development, this literature review
explores the evolution of local economic development practice; early, evolving, and
emerging examples of strategic planning and strategy making in economic development;
and the contributions of strategy formation theory, collaborative governance theory, and
social innovation theory. The chapter then presents some contingent lines of inquiry for
further examination of effective economic development strategy making. The major
sections of this literature review include (a) a discussion of the search strategy employed,
(b) an explanation of the purpose of the literature review, (c) the review, and (d) a
concluding summary. The literature review provides the scholarly foundation for this
14
two-phase, sequential, mixed methods study to develop a new theory of strategy-making
effectiveness in the context of economic and community development.
Search Strategy
The scholarship included in this literature review was collected during a
comprehensive search using the following databases: Academic Search
Complete/Premier, Business Source Complete/Premier, Political Science: A Sage FullText Collection, Expanded, Academic ASAL, Lexis-Nexis Academic, CQ Researcher,
ProQuest Central, Regional Business News, ABI Inform/Complete, ABI Inform Dateline,
Corporate ResourceNet, EconLit, ProQuest Newsstand, and Source OECD. The initial
keywords used in this database research focused on the history of economic development
and how the practice has changed over the last few decades. That exploration of the
history then led to some specific dynamics that seemed to be changing in the practice.
Some of the keywords used in that two-phase process included economic development,
strategic planning, economic development strategy, and inter-organizational
collaboration. The results of this initial search led to the subsequent searches using the
terms collaborative governance, strategy formation, and social innovation. These search
terms were used in various combinations and iterations, resulting in a collection of 92
total articles included in the review. The search also resulted in many articles that were
not directly relevant to the topic at hand, including a great deal of scholarship on military
strategic planning and specific strategic planning tools used in industry. Also, when
articles included material already adequately covered in previously reviewed articles,
these were not typically used. In addition to the journal articles, several books,
15
newspapers, and Internet resources were consulted, resulting in a total of 107 resources
included in the preparation of this literature review. Since part of this review takes a
historical look at economic and community development in the United States, some of
the scholarly resources used date back a few decades. The majority of the theory-based
literature used, however, comes from more recent studies, most conducted within the last
5 years.
Purpose of the Literature Review
The first phase of this research was a grounded theory study, and there are
varying opinions about the role of a literature review in this research approach where
discovery is expected to be emergent. Some scholars (Glasser, 1992; Hickey, 1997)
adamantly argued that grounded theory researchers should not review any literature prior
to collecting data while others posited that scholarly literature is data and a vital part of
the data collection process (McGhee, Marland, & Atkinson, 2007). This examination of
the literature was conducted in the spirit of the latter argument. Since this study began
with a grounded theory exploration, the purpose of the literature differs from other types
of study; given there are no established factors or variables of strategy making
effectiveness in economic and community development, the purpose of this literature
review was to provide context for the study and to inform the development of the initial
lines of inquiry that were explored in the grounded theory phase and the contingent
variables that were explored in the collection and analysis of the qualitative data. Also
included in this review is the historical context of the phenomena of interest—economic
and community development and strategic planning within economic and community
16
development. This contextualization can be an important component of a literature
review for a grounded theory study (Dunne, 2011, p. 121). Pozzebon, Petrini, de Mello,
and Garreau (2011, p. 185) observed that the grounded theory literature review provides
an orientation to the phenomenon rather than establishes a theoretical framework. This
literature review is organized into four main sections: (a) the evolution of local economic
development; (b) strategic planning and strategy making in economic development; (c)
contributions from the theories of strategy formation, collaborative governance, and
social innovation; and (d) contingent lines of inquiry of effective economic development
strategy making.
The origins and sources for the three theories explored include Tapinos, Dyson,
and Meadows (2011), Feser (2012), Parnell (2008), Sminia (2012), Rindova, Dalpiaz,
and Ravasi (2011), and Johanson (2009), most of whom explored strategy formation in
the context of business. The theoretical work on collaborative governance came from
public administration and policy researchers including Ospona, and Saz-Carranza (2010),
Clarke, Huxley, and Mountford (2010), Olderding (2009), Emerson, Nabatchi, and
Balogh (2012), Poister (2010), Gibson (2011), Johnston, Hicks, Nana, and Auer (2011),
and others. Social innovation theory was explored through the lens of sociology with
contributions from Bland, Bruk, Kim, and Lee (2010), Oliveria and Breda-Vazquez
(2012), Brochard (2012), and other theorists.
Evolution of Local Economic Development
In order to better understand the dynamics of economic and community
development as it is currently practiced, it is helpful to first examine the history of
17
economic development in the United States. This section of the literature review explores
the evolution of local economies by examining two specific dynamics: institutionalization
and locus of control. This section considers both of these dynamics and then describes the
current state of local economic development in terms of the complexity that has resulted
from the contemporary nature of institutionalized economic and community development
and locus of control.
Institutionalization
The history of economic and community development, as well as many other
civic functions, can be framed within the context of when and to what level these
functions became institutionalized. Returning to the story of Baxter County, Arkansas
provides an example that will be used to illustrate the evolution of local economic
development throughout this literature review. The era of Sid and Doc can be thought of
as the preinstitutional period in economic development. This was a time in community
leadership referred to as the “elitist era” (Perrucci & Pilisuk, 1970, p. 1040) in which
small groups of individuals held high concentrations of both political and economic
power in community life and there was no official governmental agency or any other
organization that typically carried the charge of economic development. Often these
groups of elite individuals did not operate within any sort of formal institutional
structure; they leveraged their own economic and political power to do what needed to be
done. The term elitist carries with it some negative connotations, but should be
considered in the context of the times. When it came to the economic development
decisions like constructing a ferry or building a hotel, there was no one else but them who
18
could take such actions. This was a time in which there was no formal institutional
framework for economic development and no economic development professionals to
consider the community’s future and advise public officials on the investment of public
resources. The term economic development did not even exist at this time. Instead,
community leaders were motivated by general societal progress (Arndt, 1981, p. 463) and
acted within that context. Civic leaders like Sid, Doc, and their peers in communities all
across the United States, did what they did because nobody else had the resources to do
it.
The rapid expansion of the U.S. economy that began after World War II ushered
in the institutionalization of contemporary economic development. Economic
development became a focus of both state and local governments (Robichau, 2010), and
by the late 1970s and early 1980s, economic development organizations emerged as a
regular fixture in larger communities. By the end of the 1980s, they had proliferated even
to smaller communities across the United States. Today there are over 13,000 economic
development organizations in the United States (Colson, 2008, p. 1), most providing
assistance to the businesses that contribute economic benefit to the community (Bartik,
2003). North Central Arkansas Economic Development, for instance, an example of one
of those 13,000 economic development organizations, provides information and
assistance to individuals and businesses considering moving into the community, and the
organization maintains a small staff to provide these services (North Central Arkansas
Economic Development, n.d.). Now, instead of only private resources supporting
economic development projects like the White River ferry, public resources are typically
19
what fund economic development. On average, local communities expend between $7
and $16 per capita annually on economic development, and local economic development
organizations employ two to three-and-a-half staff persons (Bartik, 2003, p. 3).
Perrucci and Pilisuk (1970) not only articulated the traditional elite model of
community decision making but were also among the first scholars to document the
coming evolution of a more pluralistic, network-based approach to addressing
community affairs. Civic functions like economic development have experienced just
such an evolution since the days of Sid and Doc, in terms of the institutional forms they
have taken.
The initial look at development included in this examination of the literature
revealed a preinstitutional period in which simple economic actions were accomplished
by small but powerful groups of individuals. From there, institutions were established to
formalize and professionalize economic development. In this current era, the literature
indicates that although economic development institutions have proliferated and remain
highly relevant, effective economic development now occurs within a
multiorganizational, action-oriented network structure.
Effective economic and community development practices today involve
partnerships of multiple institutions rather than any one single economic development
entity. These partnerships typically consist of voluntary groups of individuals
representing government, industry, and other organizations all working together to
enhance economic growth (Olberding, 2009, p. 394). Clark, Huxley, and Montford
(2010) expanded on Olberding’s list of economic development partners with an inventory
20
of a broad group of stakeholders that represent businesses, commuters, tourists, students,
utilities, and infrastructure and logistics providers (pp. 24–25). Another aspect of these
effective economic development partnerships is that they take on a different role and
purpose than the typical advisory committee or citizen input group. These partnerships
serve as interorganizational action networks that have value beyond just the mere sum of
their parts. These action networks focus on taking action, as the name suggests, rather
than simply sharing information (Ospina & Saz-Carranza, 2010, p. 408).
Locus of Control
Running parallel to the changes in the institutionalization of economic
development is another evolving characteristic, the locus of control in civic decisionmaking. Heifitz and Snider (1988) provided a useful conceptual model to explore this
evolution by examining three different types of public issues, the role of experts and
nonexperts in addressing these issues, and the locus of control for each type of public
issues. According to Heifitz and Snider, Type 1 issues are those in which both the
problem and the solution is clear. In a community context, the presence of a large pothole
on a main street might represent a Type 1 public issue: a clear-cut problem with a clear
solution as well—a load of asphalt. The street department is where both the specific
technical expertise and where the control over the issue resides. Type 1 issues demand a
very centralized approach.
Type 2 issues, on the other hand, offer a bit more complexity. In the public sector
there are many Type 2 issues such as high local unemployment. This problem is clear,
but the solution is somewhat more difficult to define than providing a load of asphalt.
21
There are likely many contributing factors. In this example, it will take experts to work
on this issue as well as nonexperts. Experts may come in the form lawyers who craft a
municipal tax mechanism that creates financial incentives to encourage private sector
investment that will create jobs. It will also take, however, the involvement of nonexperts
like taxpayers to approve the increased tax. In these Type 2 public issues, both the
experts and nonexperts share control.
The third type of issue is one in which neither the problem nor the solution is
clear. Long-term stagnating economic growth in a metropolitan region would represent a
Type 3 issue, and even framing the problem requires some effort. The problem could
include issues of both supply and demand, and the supply alone is multifaceted involving
the global economy, human capital dynamics, infrastructure, and other factors. An
effective intervention is going to be complex and difficult. Experts may play a role in
implementing a solution, but it may not be clear what types of experts are necessary.
There is no single area of expertise that can solve this problem. It requires a broad range
of perspectives and interventions. Control lies with the community at large, or what
Heifitz and Snider (1988) would define as the nonexperts. Type 3 public issues require a
highly multi-institutional approach because no single organization is in charge of
economic stagnation.
Economic development in a place like Baxter County, Arkansas can demonstrate
the evolution of institutionalization and locus of control. At one time, it took a very
centralized effort and a handful of men to build a ferry and take other actions to move the
community forward. In this preinstitutional era, these men could, for the most part,
22
control the situation because economic growth issues were largely of the Type 1
variety—build a bridge or construct a hotel. In the post-WW2 era through the 1980s,
economic development became institutionalized, and the types of issues these institutions
addressed were more of the Type 2 variety.
Economic development, as it occurs today, departs considerably from those early
years. In 2006, Baxter County, along with the other counties in north central Arkansas,
engaged in a comprehensive strategic planning process to identify economic development
priorities. The initiative involved hundreds of individuals from all sectors of the
community, including the region’s high school-aged youth (Peterson & Rose, 2006). The
products (i.e., strategic plans, action agendas, etc.) of this highly decentralized effort have
been used to guide the region’s economic development activity for several years. In this
current era, control over economic development is shared among multiple institutions.
Complexity
The dynamics of multi-institutional involvement, shared control, and economic
development issues that are primarily of the Type 3 variety, as defined by Heifitz and
Snider (1988), results in a high level of complexity. Kwon, Berry, and Feiock (2009, p.
969) confirmed this notion as did Hammer, Edwards, and Tapinos (2012) in their
hierarchy of complexity. Hammer et al. noted that in the eight-level hierarchy of
complexity social organizations, communities are the second most complex system. The
first are transcendental phenomena, like religion, in which the unknown is supposed to
have a systems-like and relational characteristics (Hammer, Edwards, & Tapinos, 2012,
p. 912.) In other words, in the entire physical world, there is no more complex system
23
than that of the community. Rowe (2012) added to the complexity argument by noting
that macro-level theories are difficult to apply to different geographic communities
because of place-specific variables (p. 74), so that what works in one community likely
will not be as effective in another because each community is distinct from another. The
dynamics of institutionalization, locus of control, and complexity are summarized in
Table 1.
Table 1
Institutionalization, Locus of Control, and Complexity in Local Economic Development
Locus of Control
Preinstitutional
Institutional
Multi-Institutional
Pre-WW2
1950–1990
1990–Present
Expert Elite
Expert Professionals
Nonexpert
Nonexperts
Type of Issue
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Complexity
Simple
Moderately Complex
Highly Complex
Strategic Planning and Strategy Making in Economic Development
Given that a community is a highly complex organization, the goal of growing its
economy becomes a highly complex undertaking. Much of what an economic
development organization does is try to manage that complexity by putting into place
policies and systems, and utilizing management tools. One of those tools is strategic
planning (Bryson, 2011, p. 160). To examine the role of strategic planning and strategy
making in economic and community development, it is helpful to understand how it was
first introduced to the discipline, the earliest models used in the field, some intermediate
24
models, and then a new breed of strategic planning models that are beginning to emerge
in economic development.
Introduction of Strategic Planning into Economic Development
The term strategy was first used in a military context to describe a plan for
winning a war, distinguishing the grand war-winning plan from the tactics used to win
specific battles (United States Department of Agriculture, 1995). By 1920 industry
executives had begun adopting the language of war and began using tools like the
Harvard Policy Model in their first attempts at strategic planning (Blackerby &
Blackerby, 1995.) Kwon, Berry, and Feiock (2009) noted that the public sector has
borrowed a great deal from private-sector approaches to strategic management (p. 974),
and one of those tools, strategic planning, arrived on the scene in industry during the
1960s and within a few decades made its way into schools, universities, and
municipalities (Hamilton, 2007, p. 44). Blair (2004) pinpointed the 1980s and 1990s as
the time in which many communities began to create specific plans for economic
development and that the many planning approaches and techniques used were those that
had already been being applied in the business sector to help businesses establish market
position (p. 103). Some of the first signs of strategic planning in the public sector can be
seen in the use of the tool by municipalities (Denhardt, 1985; Dodge & Eadie, 1982;
Eadie, 1983). Poister and Streib (2005) researched the 20 years or so since strategic
planning first entered the public-sector and found that 40% of U.S. municipalities were
engaging, or had recently engaged, in a strategic planning effort.
25
With so many municipalities doing strategic planning, there is no wonder that a
cottage industry grew as consultants began to sell their wares to communities to assist
them with strategic planning. Sensing a need to assist civic leaders considering strategic
planning, organizations like the Cooperative Extension Service developed resources to
help local communities navigate the complexities of the strategic planning process and
help them decide whether they should hire a consultant or conduct the planning on their
own (Bolton & Guest-Jelley, 2011; Martinelli, 2006).
Early Models of Strategic Planning in Economic Development
For some time, strategic plans for communities have looked a lot like they did for
corporations. Some cities adopted the language of the corporate sector wholesale and
proposed that what communities needed was a business plan that provides market
analysis, identifies products and services, outlines an operational plan, and makes
financial projections (Weissbourd & Muro, 2011). Sales-oriented terms like negotiation
and deal making have even found their way into the language of economic development
in strategic planning (Fainstein, 1991). Others models have been built on tried-and-true
private-sector tools like analyzing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, also
known as a SWOT analyses (Zavadskas, Turskis, & Tamosaitiene, 2011). In the 1990s,
Berry (1994) provided insights on a very business-like motivation for municipalities to
engage in strategic planning. He saw one of the primary motivators for adopting strategic
planning as an increased emphasis on fiscal conservatism and the desire to better manage
limited resources.
26
It is no wonder early examples of economic development strategic plans were
dominated by a business mindset with executive committees often comprised of the
community’s captains of industry who drove these initiatives. A 1983 article in the
Philadelphia Enquirer, for instance, mentioned that the Greater Philadelphia’s economic
development strategic plan was being helmed by a group made up of “chief executive
officers of the region’s largest corporations” (Collins, 1983). Even small town strategic
planning efforts reflected a very business-like focus. In the rural community of Lebanon,
Indiana, the female mayor, who was leading the city’s economic development strategic
planning effort, was referred to as the “She-E-O,” a play on the term CEO (Miller, 1985).
And in perhaps the ultimate example of business-influenced economic development
strategic planning, in 1986 a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Corporation, the Disney
Development Corporation, led an economic development strategic planning effort for
central Florida (Vaughn, 1986). Even some of the early scholarly work on strategic
planning in economic development drew lessons from business magazines like Fortune
and Business Week (Eadie, 1983), and few observations were made about how strategic
planning in the public sector might differ from the way it is implemented in the private
sector.
Evolving Models of Strategic Planning in Economic Development
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, scholars like Bryson and Roering (1987) gave
thoughtful consideration to some differences between corporate strategic planning
models and the ways in which they may need to be adapted for the public sector. In
response to the growing recognition that corporate models did not quite fit communities,
27
scholars and practitioners began to experiment and innovate, resulting in some new
approaches.
This was the time when strategic planning in economic and community
development began to come into its own with several new models and frameworks
coming out of the federal government and Cooperative Extension Service. The U.S.
Economic Development Administration (EDA), an agency of the Department of
Commerce, began to require Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) to
be completed by regions requesting certain grants from the EDA. They outlined seven
different components to be included in the CEDS (U.S. Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration, n.d.) including: (a) background of the economic
development situation in the region, (b) analysis of the economic development problems
and opportunities in the region, (c) goals and objectives for the region, (d) demonstration
of community and private sector participation, (e) list of strategic projects, programs, and
activities, (f) plan of action, and (g) proposed performance measures.
Also during this timeframe, researchers began to develop frameworks for
understanding communities better that informed strategic planning in economic and
community development. Many of these models were developed at land grant universities
and disseminated to local communities through the Cooperative Extension Service. One
of these models, Take Charge (Hein, Cole, & Ayres, 1990), was a program developed by
a collaboration of 12 different land grant universities. The program provided detailed
instructions for community-based strategic planning with the goal “to enable leaders,
decision makers, and residents in small communities face the future (Reed & Blair,
28
1993). The program was designed to facilitate community conversations around three
questions: (a) where have we been, (b) where are we going, and (c) how do we get there?
One characteristic that these models had in common was that they all started with
essentially a blank slate, asking the community to envision the sort of future they desired.
These models were also highly democratic with emphases on the full participation of the
citizenry, rather than only the corporate-heavy board models of earlier times.
About this same time, the Community Capitals (Emery & Flora, 2006, pp. 20–21;
Flora, 1992) model began spreading as a framework for strategic planning in
communities. Community Capitals provided a way to analyze community and economic
development efforts within a systems framework that includes seven different capitals:
(a) natural capital, (b) cultural capital, (c) human capital, (d) social capital, (e) political
capital, (f) financial capital, and (g) built capital.
Researchers at Oklahoma State University (Woods & Sloggett, 1988)
development materials to assist communities considering economic development
strategic planning and provided tools to help guide their efforts; they outlined steps for
building an economic development strategy: (a) establish a steering committee, (b) obtain
technical assistance, (c) develop basic data, (d) review economic alternatives, (e) analyze
key issues, (f) identify financial resources, (g) set priorities, and (h) implement the plan.
This evolutionary era in economic development strategic planning began with the
recognition that the private sector models were not a perfect fit in this new context, and
out of that recognition, new models and procedures emerged. These innovations where
characterized by processes that were much more democratic as well as reflective of the
29
systemic view of communities. This was also the time in which scholarly interest began
to be evident, especially among researchers at land grant universities with specific
interest in taking the research of the academy and applying it in practice.
The focus of these evolving models represented quite a departure from the early
examples of strategic planning in economic development. These models were focused on
democratic processes while the earlier models were primarily concerned with efficiency.
The scholarly foundation of the models from this era came primarily from sociology and
public administration as compared to the business and management scholarship that
undergirded the early models.
Emerging Models of Strategic Planning in Economic Development
Like in any field of practice or academic discipline, new thinking occurs,
experiments are conducted, and new models emerge. Mintzberg (1994) was one of the
early voices to observe that strategic planning, as it had come to be known, seemed to be
less about innovation and more about operation. He suggested that most strategic
planning was being used more to align existing strategies rather than to create new ones
and identified three primary fallacies of traditional strategic planning models. First, he
stated that strategic planning assumes that the world stays still while the planners plan,
rather than building in a mechanism for flexibility. Second, he identified a detachment
between planning and operations. All of the strategic thinking is done at the top of the
organization, detached from operations. Mintzberg’s suggestion was that most strategic
planning efforts were too formalized and organized into inflexible hierarchical structures.
30
Ten years later, researchers like Blair (2004) were noting that nonbusiness users
of these traditional approaches and tools were realizing that significant changes had to be
made to these models, including the addition of new ways for citizens to participate more
fully, a true “bottom-up” methods rather than the top-down-only model from industry (p.
103). Contemporary scholars (Morrison, 2012a, p. 156; Robichau, 2010, p. 38) have gone
so far as to claim that traditional, business-born strategic development just does not work,
or at least work well, in the context of economic development, and new strategy-making
models and tools have begun emerging within the field. Going even one step further,
Robichau’s (2010) research found that strategic planning, as it has been being conducted,
might not even be making a difference. His findings indicated that in municipalities with
written economic development strategic plans; there is no statistical difference in
unemployment rates as compared to municipalities that do not have a plan (p. 38).
In reaction to these converging opinions that economic development strategic
planning, as it has been primarily practiced, is less effective than it could be, some new
models and tools have emerged. Industry cluster analysis and human capital-based
approaches, for instance, distinguish economic development-related strategic planning
from the tools and models that were carried over from the traditional military and
industry-based approaches and from the blank-slate sort of models promoted in the 1990s
(Chrisinger, Fowler, & Kleit, 2012; Feser, 2009; Nolan, Morrison, Kumar, Galloway, &
Cordes, 2010; Rindermann, 2011; Wolf-Powers, 2012). These analytical tools are, in
some instances, shortcutting the established economic development strategic planning
process. An industry cluster, analysis, for instance, might lead to a cluster-based strategy
31
focusing on growing a narrow slice of a local, regional, or state economy. As an example,
Tucson, Arizona has adopted a medical diagnostics cluster strategy (Wichner, 2013) and
the City of West Palm Beach, Florida is banking on economic growth centered on media
arts (Miller, 2013.) This emphasis on building strategy from existing assets rather than
focusing only on deficits is another characteristic of these emerging models. Kretzmann
and McKnight (1996) were some of the first researchers to suggest a framework that
concentrates on existing assets and building from those assets.
These alternatives to traditional strategic planning have been called open source
economic development, (Merkel, 2010), organic strategic planning (McNamara, 2010),
and strategic doing (Hutcheson, 2008; Hutcheson & Morrison, 2012; Walzer & Cordes,
2012), and distinctions between previous models of strategic planning and these
emerging models have received an increasing amount of attention in the literature.
Some of these distinctions are drawn from the notion that the most effective
organizational structure for strategy making efforts in economic development is the
network (Barnett & Rodriguez, 2006) rather than the top-down, command-and-control
structures of traditional strategic planning. Morrison (2012) noted additional differences,
proposing that these emerging models emphasize strategic thinking more than strategic
planning and iterative and agile processes rather than mechanistic, linear ones. Morrison
also noted that metrics in these newer models are seen more as tools for learning rather
than as a means of accountability. Lastly, Morrison saw strategy execution as
decentralized among many organizations rather than centralized within any single
organization. Markey, Connelly, and Roseland (2010) suggested contemporary local
32
economic development as requiring planning frameworks that include shared decisionmaking among the multiple stakeholders, immediate targets, and metrics to track progress
(p. 8) and Rivera, Soderstrom, and Uzzi (2010) pointed to networks as a means for
managing complexity (p. 108).
As suggested earlier, efficiency is the term that best describes the orientation of
the early models, and the evolving models clearly took on a democratic focus. These
emerging models seem to be best characterized and oriented toward innovation. The
leaders for most of these emerging models are, however, for the first time coming from
within the new but growing community of economic development scholarship as opposed
to the management perspective of the early models and the sociological and public
administration discipline that influenced the evolving models. The body of literature that
documents these various models and processes for economic development strategy
making is largely descriptive in nature with no apparent empirical research on either the
effectiveness of these models with regard to the variables used, methodologies employed,
or the outcomes considered to measure their effectiveness. Table 2 provides a summary
of the orientation, thought leadership, and tools of the early, evolving, and emerging
models of strategy making in economic development.
33
Table 2
Characteristics of Early, Evolving, and Emerging Models of Strategy Making in
Economic Development
Orientation
Thought Leadership
Tools and Frameworks
Early Models
Evolving Models
Emerging Models
Efficiency
Democratic Participation
Innovation
Business
Sociology
Economic Development
Management
Public Administration
Business Plans
CEDS
Market Analysis
Take Charge
SWOT
Community Capitals
Open Source Economic
Development
Strategic Doing
Contributions From the Theories of Strategy Formation, Collaborative Governance,
and Social Innovation
Since these emergent models seem to less about planning, even the term strategic
planning does not adequately communicate the practice. With that in mind, strategy
making becomes the more apt description. During the earliest stages of the literature
review, the notions of strategy making, networked-based organizational structures, and
multiorganizational, decentralized execution helped to uncover a trio of theories that
represent potential building blocks for the new theory explored in this research. This
section of the literature review considers contributions from the theories of strategy
34
formation, collaborative governance, and social innovation to economic development
strategic planning.
Strategy Formation
The term strategy is a ubiquitous one, used on ball fields and battlefields as well
as boardrooms, yet there is little consensus on how a strategy is developed or even if it is
something that can be developed, as opposed to something that just emerges (Tapinos,
Dyson, & Meadows, 2011). Mintzberg’s (1978) seminal work on strategy formation
pointed out that what people know about strategy from the literature is largely theoretical
rather than empirical (p. 934). Thirty-five years later, the literature on strategy formation
remains descriptive. No collective theory of strategy formation coalesces in the literature,
but several more contemporary researchers identify various characteristics and qualities
of strategy formation. Feser (2012), for instance, argued that the functions of planning
and strategy making are distinct and different from one another and introduced the term
strategic intuition as a more accurate description of how strategy is formed (pp. 10–11).
Parnell (2008) further parsed the term by differentiating yet another aspect, strategy
diffusion, to explain the trajectory a strategy takes.
One of Sminia’s (2012) contributions to the understanding of strategy formation
is the suggestion that the real way strategies are formed lies somewhere between
intentional strategy planning and the how strategies emerge. Sminia explained that this
phenomenon occurs because of the many unexpected variables that can emerge during
the strategy formation process (p. 97). Sminia also examined both process theory and
process methodology to shed light on strategy formation and concluded that strategy
35
making might best be thought of as a process-diagnostics function in which leadership is
constantly evaluating the emergent path the organization is on, determining whether that
path is favorable or not, then evaluating whether deviation from this path is needed or
even possible (p. 116). Although Sminia’s work is informative, its relevance to this
research is questionable. These scholarly contributions are focused on strategy within a
single organization, like a business, in which firm leadership exercises some level of
control over organizational resources. That same dynamic may not be present in a
community.
Although Rindova, Dalpiaz, and Ravasi (2011) also examined strategy formation
within the context of a single firm, their research is rooted in the field of cultural
sociology that may have more transferability to this research. In their work they thought
of a society being built upon specific values, assumptions, beliefs, and expectations that
represent a toolkit that can be used for strategy formation. Those who form strategies and
seek change draw from the toolkit available to them as a means of forming strategies.
One specific aspect of this research that may be most relevant to strategy making in
economic development is that having a toolkit allows for a repertoire of tools that can be
drawn upon as needed so that a strategy formation process can be flexible and iterative
(Rindova et al., 2011, p. 422). Evidence that an iterative approach to strategy may be
valid goes all the way back to Lindblom’s (1959) theory of incrementalism in which
public actions are most effective when they occur incrementally rather than in one fell
swoop. A slight adaption of this theory leads to iterativism, the notion that the most
effective governance process may be those that focuses less on one-time interventions
36
like new legislation and more on iterative steps that progress incrementally with
nimbleness that can allow for changing course quickly when needed.
Rindova et al. (2011) suggested that effective strategy formation processes are
those that that draw from the values, assumptions, beliefs, and expectations of the culture
in which they are being enacted and that those very same values, assumptions, beliefs,
and expectations are used as tools, as needed, to adapt the strategy as it is formed and
assure flexibility in the process.
Johanson (2009) is one of the few researchers to consider strategy formation
outside the scope of industry. Although Johanson’s examinations of the phenomenon
were still within the context of a single organization, that organization was a public
agency. Johanson acknowledged some of the same factors as the other researchers
including the notion that unknowable and unstable variables must be accounted for when
forming strategies. He pointed to strategic governance as a means to manage this
uncertainty and defined effective strategic governance as the ability for the public agency
to form collaborative, interorganizational networks to share in the governance of strategy
formation and execution (p. 887).
Collaborative Governance
The interorganizational nature of a community creates some significant
challenges to governance. As discussed earlier in this literature review, economic
development occurs in a multiorganizational context in which nobody can tell anybody
else what to do (Morrison, 2007, p. 5), and the traditional command-and-control models
of governance do not work in this context (Ospina & Saz-Carranza, 2010, p. 431). A
37
typical economic development strategy initiative, even in a small community, can involve
dozens of organizations, each with their own cultures, values, perspectives, and priorities.
The rural Arkansas community, where men like Sid and Doc once made the
decisions about how to grow their economy and improve the quality of life, is now part of
a regional, multicounty organization charged with economic development. This group
brings together representatives from the dozens of municipalities in the region and the
various organizations that have a stake in the future of this regional community (North
Central Arkansas Regional Economic Development, n.d.). The lists of suggested
economic development stakeholders (Clarke, Huxley, & Mountford, 2010; Pammer,
1998) can be extensive.
The best chance for getting anything accomplished in this environment is through
collaborative governance (Ansell & Gash, 2008), a notion confirmed by a number of
scholars including Kwon, Berry, and Feiock (2009) who echoed Johanson’s observation
that strategy formation in the public realm can be enhanced by collaboration (p. 968).
Olberding (2009) added to the evidence that collaborative governance contributes to the
effectiveness of economic development strategy making with a review of scholarship
related to collective action and cooperative behavior as a means for productivity gains
and the effective use of resources in communities (p. 401).
In an effort to describe how collaborative governance should be organized,
Merkle (2010) articulated a pathway to collaboration that is characterized by networked
organizational structures. Merkle also suggested that one of the compelling reasons for
38
governing within a collaborative network is because it is an effective and efficient means
of connecting existing assets relevant to economic development (p. 6519).
Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2012) also pointed out that the collaborative
governance is often characterized by a network-based organizational structure that is
optimal for building trust and that trust among the actors within the network has been
found to be an instrumental factor in organizational effectiveness evidenced by reduced
transaction costs, improved investments, more stability in relationships, and greater
stimulation of learning, knowledge exchange, and innovation (p. 13). Poister (2010) also
linked collaboration and network effectiveness.
Ospina and Saz-Carranza (2010) added to the scholarship of collaboration by
examining leadership in interorganizational action networks and the paradox that can
occur in that setting. Their study is concerned with managing dynamics (unity and
diversity) inside an interorganizational network as well as dynamics (confrontation and
dialogue) outside the network. Their findings include suggesting strategies that network
leaders use to accomplish the work of the network. These strategies include (a)
strategically facilitating the interactions of the network members, (b) cultivating personal
relationships among network members, (c) promoting openness among network
members, (d) strategically managing the network’s credibility to external stakeholders,
(e) working at various levels of action with external stakeholders, and (f) cultivating
multiple external relationships within stakeholder organizations.
Olson, Balmer, and Mejicano (2011) found several critical factors for effective
interorganizational collaborations, including: (a) a shared vision and purpose, (b)
39
communication, (c) measurable and achievable targets, and (d) creation of value. Gibson
(2011) contributed additional findings that point to how collaborative networks can
effectively function. One of his recommendations is that these networks can be most
effective when they focus on intermediate outcomes or “small wins” as well as longerterm, larger-in-scope goals (p. 5). Johnston, Hicks, Nan, and Auer (2011) and (Chiclana
et al., 2013) discussed additional characteristics of collaborative governance including the
use of consensus as the optimal means for decision-making.
In summary, the evidence supporting collaborative governance as an effective
means of managing economic development strategy making initiatives points to some
specific factors and characteristics. A network organizational structure seems to
contribute to effectiveness, and collaborative governance networks seem to be effective
in connecting assets and building trust. These networks also have been found to be
efficient, and one key to their success is to focus on more immediate outcomes and small
wins. Decision-making in collaborative governance networks is best done through
consensus.
Social Innovation
The last theory informing this exploration of effective strategy making in
economic development is that of social innovation. Bland, Bruk, Kim, and Lee (2010)
saw social innovation as being best accomplished within these collaborative governance
networks and suggested that these networks can be specifically designed, developed, and
institutionalized to include mechanisms that can facilitate the innovation process (p. 13).
One way to think about innovation is through the lens of science and technology, the way
40
in which for instance, an idea for an electronic device is born, goes through the
development process, and then makes its way into the marketplace. Innovation is also a
way to consider economics, with a focus in increasing efficiencies. Social innovation is a
different matter altogether. Mulgan, Tucker, Ali, and Sanders (2007) offered that social
innovation involves “innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of
meeting a social need and that are predominantly developed and diffused through
organisations whose primary purposes are social” (p. 10).
Neumeier (2001) reviewed various definitions of the term and came up with a set
of central factors of social innovation as they pertain to rural development. First,
Neumeier observed that only collective action can lead to social innovations; single
individuals cannot do it on their own. Social networks are the organizational structure for
social innovations. Second, social innovation is more likely to occur when the focus is on
assets rather than needs. Third, social innovation occurs when network actors focus on
actually doing something that leads to tangible results (pp. 54–55). Oliveira and BredaVazquez (2012) were concerned with the application of social innovation theory in urban
development and came to many of the same conclusions as Neumeir did for a rural
context. Oliveria and Breda-Vazquez also suggested that social innovations are more
effective when the involved actors are heterogeneous and that this diversity can lead to
gains in diffusion and sustainability (p. 527). Mere involvement of a diverse set of actors
may not be enough, however. Bouchard’s (2012) work in social innovation found that
effectiveness is enhanced when the work is decentralized among the diverse actors (p.
41
54). In other words, social innovation occurs best when the work is spread out among
many.
Closely related to social innovation is civic innovation (Hutcheson, 2012) which
can be thought of as occurring on a continuum that begins with (a) the acknowledgement
phase of mutual awareness then progresses through (b) the exploration stage in which
actors share information and the (c) cooperation stage coming next in which actors share
resources. Next is the (d) collaboration stage in which the actors may coexecute a project,
then finally (e) the innovation phase, which is where actors cocreate something that they
could not create on their own. Two other factors are at play in the continuum including
the territorial protection notion known as turf which decreases as actors progress through
the continuum and the issue of trust which increases as the relationship progresses.
In summary, social innovation theory makes a number of contributions relevant to
strategy making in economic development, if economic development is considered the
social good and strategy is thought of as the innovation. First, the chance for
effectiveness is enhanced when the basis of the strategy is assets rather than needs.
Second, social innovation is more than an idea; it is action, ideally with very tangible
results. Third, social innovation is accomplished best by a diverse set of actors in a
network, and fourth, that the work should be widely dispersed among those diverse
actors.
Although none of the three theories explored have been applied directly to
strategy making in the context of economic development, the history of economic
development and the entry, evolution, and emerging ways in which strategy making has
42
and is occurring, point toward these notions of strategy formation, collaborative
governance, and social innovation as having the potential for providing insights into the
research at hand. Table 3 provides an overview of those insights and contributions.
Table 3
Summary of Theories Contributing to Strategy Making in Economic Development
Strategy Formation
Collaborative Governance
Social Innovation
Diffusion
Network Structures
Collective Action
Intuition
Connected Assets
Network Based
Iterative
Focused in Small Wins
Asset Focused
Accounting for Unanticipated
Variables
Decision Making by Consensus Focused on Doing (tangible results)
Facilitates Trust
Heterogeneous
Efficient
Decentralized Implementation
Management of Internal
Stakeholders
Co-creation
Flexible
Account for Contextual Values,
Assumptions, Beliefs, and
Expectations
Collaborative
Management of External
Stakeholders
Intra-organizational
Contingent Lines of Inquiry for Further Exploring Effective Strategy Making in the
Context of Economic Development
In weaving together the history of economic development; the examination of the
introduction, later evolution, and recent emergence of strategic planning models; and the
consideration of the contributions from the theories of strategy making, collaborative
governance, and social innovation, several stands of observations begin to emerge and
form the lines of inquiry that were used in the gathering of qualitative data. This section
of the literature review considers those observations and sets the stage for the formation
43
of the questions that will be explored in the interviews with a panel of experts. Each of
the lines of inquiry are identified and summarized in this section of the literature review.
Organizational Structure
One of the factors identified in the literature was the structure used in organizing
the strategy-making initiative. The history of economic development began with no
structure, evolved into an institutional structure, evolved further into a multi-institutional
structure, and the configurations of both the intraorganizational and interorganizational
structures included hierarchies and networks. Recent scholars pointed toward networked
organizational structures as being more effective than hierarchical ones.
Frameworks
Another factor that emerged in the literature was the framework of strategy
initiatives, in other words, focusing strategies on mitigating deficits or building on assets.
The models and processes that emerged during the evolutionary era of economic
development strategic planning indicated that the asset-based framework is more
effective than one focused on liabilities. Scholarship from all three contributing theories,
strategy formation, collaborative governance, and social innovation, confirm the
effectiveness of this asset-based orientation.
Processes
Planning and doing are two different components of the strategy making process
and two different processes that can lead to different levels of effectiveness. According to
the literature, a process that integrates planning and doing iteratively rather than as
separate and distinct activities is more effective. This integrated, doing-based approach is
44
noted in most of the emerging models of economic development strategy making and
confirmed in the social innovation literature as more effective than linear processes
(planning followed by doing).
Timeframe
Some strategy-making efforts tend to focus mostly on longer-term goals while
others stress the importance of shorter-term wins. The scholarship of collaborative
governance points to the importance of short-term wins, and the emerging models of
economic development strategy making also point to this approach as a priority and as a
predictor of effective strategy-making effectiveness.
Implementation
When it comes to moving into action, the literature indicates that strategy
initiatives in which tasks are shared among a wider group of stakeholders is a more
effective approach than when implementation tasks are held by a smaller group. Both the
preinstitutional era of economic development as well as they early institutional period
had implementation centralized within a small group or a single organization. Although
the evolutionary models called for more democratic participation, that broader
involvement was primarily evident in the planning phases rather than the implementation
phase. Social innovation theory urges decentralized implementation as a key to
effectiveness.
Conclusion
The world has changed a great deal from Sid and Doc’s day, including the way in
which communities grow. But their generation represents the beginnings of how civic
45
leaders took deliberate actions to improve the lives and livelihoods of their selves and
their fellow residents. This literature review traces the history from those early days
characterized by a handful of elites stepping up as stewards, through the
institutionalization of civic functions like economic development, to the adoption and
adaptation of strategic planning as a means of dealing with increasing complexity.
Strategic planning, which entered into the field of economic development by way
of the corporate sector, evolved to include more democratic models. Lately a third wave
of change is evident by emerging models characterized by innovation as the primary
orientation for strategy making. The notions of strategy making, collaboration, and
innovation pointed toward further exploration of the contributions from the theories of
strategy formation, collaborative governance, and social innovation. Finally, from this
examination of the history of economic development, the evolution of strategic planning,
and the contribution of this trio of theories, five contingent lines of inquiry emerged to
help frame the proposed grounded theory research into effective economic development
strategy making: (a) organizational structure, (b) frameworks, (c) processes, (d)
timeframe, and (e) implementation. Although these lines of inquiry point toward some
possible factors of effective strategy making, they served merely as starting points in the
collection of qualitative data. These factors were explored and expanded upon, and
additional factors emerged during that process. The emergent factors, which will be
discussed in Chapter 4, along with the factors identified in the literature review, were
tested in the quantitative phase of the study.
46
The nature of a grounded theory research suggests that little exists in the literature
that sheds light on the given research question at hand. This study fills this gap in the
literature. The scholarship reviewed and synthesized in this chapter established the
context for the methodology that was used to make the scholarly contributions explained
in Chapter 4.
47
Chapter 3: Research Method
Overview of the Research Design
The purpose of this two-phase study was to develop and test a new theory of
strategy-making effectiveness in the context of community and economic development.
This chapter provides an overview of the methodology that was used in the study,
including the design for both phases of the research, the research questions and
hypotheses, a discussion of the ethical protection of participants, the selection of
participants, a description of the research participants, an overview of the data analysis
performed, the research design, and how the findings will be articulated in Chapter 4.
The research took the form of a mixed method, sequential, exploratory study to
develop a framework for understanding effective economic development strategy
making. The first phase of the study was a qualitative, grounded-theory exploration of
strategy-making effectiveness that collected data from a panel of economic development
scholars and practitioners. Phase 2 of the research was a quantitative, quasiexperimental,
contrasted-group examination, using the grounded theory construct from Phase 1, to test
the new theory among a sample population of individuals who have participated in
economic development strategy making efforts. The mixed-method notation for the study
was QUAL −> quan, and Figure 1 presents a diagram for the logic of the study.
48
Figure 1. Logic diagram of the study.
A mixed-method study was selected because a qualitative, grounded theory-only
study would have provided just part of the answer to the research question at hand. The
two-phase design resulted in not only a contingent theory but also a theory that was put to
an initial test, yielding a more robust understanding of the factors that contribute to
effective strategy making in economic and community development. My role in the
qualitative and quantitative phases was that of interviewer in Phase 1 and surveyor in
Phase 2, both of which can be categorized as observer.
Qualitative Phase Design
The qualitative component of the study utilized the grounded theory approach to
develop a list of factors associated with economic development strategy-making
effectiveness, although any of the other approaches to qualitative research could certainly
yield interesting results. A narrative approach to economic development strategy-making
effectiveness, for instance, might have told the stories of a small number of economic
development professionals, perhaps even one, and how they perceived effectiveness.
Using the phenomenological approach, a researcher could have looked at communities
that have engaged in strategy making after the shutdown of a major employer. A case-
49
study approach could have been designed to examine two different communities that
have each used a different method of strategic planning, and an ethnographic approach
could describe the norms, beliefs, language, and behaviors of a community that is
optimally ready for a strategic planning initiative. The grounded theory approach,
however, represented the best fit for the goals of this research and the most effective way
to set the stage for the second phase of quantitative research in which the new theory was
tested. Creswell (2007, p. 78) pointed out that the grounded theory approach is
appropriate when the researcher is relying primarily on the views of the participants
imbedded in the phenomenon being studied, making this approach particularly
appropriate for the goals of this research. The setting for the qualitative phase of the study
was the community of practitioners and scholars with expertise in economic development
strategic planning, and the setting for the quantitative phase was a community of
individuals who have participated in economic and community development strategy
initiatives. Further discussion of the setting is included in this chapter’s section on the
research participants.
Quantitative Phase Design
This phase of the study was a quantitative, quasiexperimental, contrasted-groups
designed to measure the perceived effectiveness of economic development strategy
making. The contrasted-group design was selected because the research questions
focused on differences between individuals belonging to two different groups: (a) those
who had participated in economic development strategy making initiatives they perceive
as having been effective and (b) those who had participated in economic development
50
strategy initiatives they perceive as having been ineffective. I was able to assign
participants to the two contrasting groups using a feature of the online survey tool in
which each scenario (effective examples and ineffective examples) was randomly
presented to participants. This component of the design is discussed in greater detail later
in this chapter.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The qualitative phase of the study informed the development of the hypotheses
that were tested in the quantitative phase, and the literature review informed the research
questions that were explored in the qualitative phase. The following preliminary research
questions guided the literature review and were further explored in the qualitative phase:
RQ1 (qualitative): What are the factors that contribute to strategy making in the
context of local economic development?
RQ2 (quantitative): Among individuals who have participated in local economic
development strategy making initiatives, is there an association between perceived
effectiveness of the initiatives and the factors identified in the qualitative phase?
The findings of the qualitative analysis determined the independent variables for
the quantitative phase. The literature review research indicated that the theories of
strategy making, collaborative governance, and social innovation represented constructs
that were related to the research questions at hand. They, then, informed the contingent
lines of inquiry that were explored in the qualitative phase. The research design included
the expectation that should those factors hold true during the qualitative data collection
and analysis, they would inform the independent variables that would be explored in the
51
quantitative phase. Also, if additional factors emerge from the qualitative data, they too
would be included as independent variables. The single dependent variable was strategymaking effectiveness and was operationalized in a survey item that provided respondents
with a scale for effectiveness and ineffectiveness.
Drawing on the theories and models from the literature, each of the contingent
independent variables were also operationalized in survey items. The following were the
null and alternative hypotheses associated with the contingent lines of inquiry. The final
hypotheses were constructed after the qualitative data had been gathered and analyzed.
The research design included an assumption that if these contingent factors held up in the
qualitative phase, they would remain. If they did not, they would be eliminated from the
quantitative phase. If additional factors were identified, they too would be used to
construct hypotheses.
Organizational Structure
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and network
organizational structures.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
network organizational structures.
Frameworks
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and assetbased frameworks.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
asset-based frameworks.
52
Processes
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and iterativebased processes.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
iterative-based processes.
Timeframe
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and shortterm wins.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
short-term wins.
Implementation
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
decentralized implementation.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative and decentralized
implementation.
Once the final list of factors was determined, each of the independent variables
was operationalized in survey items that provided respondents with a scale. A copy of the
survey can be found in Appendix C.
Ethical Protection of Participants
In order to assure the ethical protection of participants, Institutional Review Board
(IRB) approval was sought and achieved prior to the collection of any data. Also,
participants were informed that their responses were anonymous and presented with an
53
overview of the study and a confidentiality statement. The IRB approval reference
number is 08-01-13-0314292
Protection From Harm
In research involving human subjects, participants may not be exposed to physical
or psychological harm (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). McNabb (2002, p. 28) provided a
detailed description of this harm as including physical, cultural, psychological distress as
well as physical pain. This research involved voluntary in-person and telephone
interviews as well as an electronic survey. None of the participants were exposed to any
sort of physical or psychological harm during the course of their participation.
Protection of Participants
The names and the organizational affiliations of the panel of experts asked to be
interviewed in the qualitative phase were included in the earlier research proposal to
demonstrate their credibility as experts in their field. Although the nature of the questions
asked of them was not highly sensitive in nature, the participants were still offered
confidentiality and anonymity. Participants will be granted access to the findings of the
study, but to ensure confidentiality, a protocol will be put in place that will prohibit any
one participant to view any other participant’s individual responses. For the qualitative
phase, full confidentiality and anonymity was granted to the survey participants. No
names or any other attributable identifiers were assigned to survey responses.
Informed Consent
For the panel of experts, the individuals interviewed were provided with an
informed consent form sent to them electronically including a statement that their return
54
electronic communication indicating their willingness to participate and as an expression
of their consent. Survey participants were also provided with an electronic consent form
including a statement that their participation in the survey would serve as their consent.
Right to Privacy
Both sets of participants in this study had the right to privacy. No specific
comments or responses were attributed to any one individual or in a manner in which
others might assign particular data to a specific individual.
Researcher Bias
The goal of this study was to add to the body of knowledge about strategy making
in economic development and to promote social change by providing civic leaders with
research-based information to help them make better-informed policy and resource
decisions to grow their economy. As a person who is directly involved in economic
development and the principal investigator of this research, I understand the importance
of recognizing and addressing any research bias. Creswell (2007) suggested several
strategies for addressing researcher bias including both clarification of bias and member
checking. Member checking was accomplished by asking the panel of experts to review
the factors identified in the qualitative research. Also, the semistructured interviews and
survey protocols included objective, nonleading questions.
An additional strategy for addressing researcher bias was to continuously identify
potential areas of bias during the data review and analysis. I attempted to separate my
perspective as someone with knowledge in this field from my role as researcher. Of
course, this bifurcation is not totally possible but diligent attention to that separation and
55
how it could impact the direction of the research was paramount. I also used open coding
when analyzing the qualitative data. Corbin and Strauss (1990, p. 423) noted that open
coding is an effective strategy to mitigate against subjectivity and bias.
Identification and Selection of Participants
Research participants were selected through consultation with administrators of
the University of Oklahoma Economic Development Institute (OU/EDI) and the Director
of the Purdue Center for Regional Development (PCRD). I provided each administrator
with the criteria for participants, and they each, in turn, provided me with data and
information that led to the identification of the participants. In the case of the panel of
experts, these data came in the form of specific names and contact information. For the
survey participants, the data and information were in the form of contact lists which
includes email addresses. The participants for the interviews in the qualitative phase were
selected in consultation with OU/EDI faculty, and the participants for the quantitativephase survey were selected in consultation with the PCRD Director. Since I have an
affiliation with both universities, some of the participants from both phases knew me.
Some of the participants in the qualitative phase were colleagues, and some of the
participants in the quantitative phase may have been those with whom I have worked on
collaborative projects. Some may also have had me as an instructor at some time in the
past.
Research Participants
For the qualitative phase of the study, participants were drawn from a sample
population of individuals who have specialized expertise in economic development
56
strategic planning, specifically those who are scholar–practitioners, teaching and doing
research in this and related topics as university faculty or as professional development
educators while also having practical experience in designing and executing economic
development strategic planning efforts. This specialized expertise serves as the eligibility
criteria. Those who met the criteria were eligible, and those who did not meet these
criteria were ineligible.
According to Patton (2002), qualitative inquiry usually includes a relatively small,
purposefully selected sample that focuses more on depth rather than breadth of data.
Patton also pointed out that unlike in quantitative statistical sampling, where bias is
considered a weakness, bias can be a strength in qualitative sampling (p. 230). One of the
multiple sampling strategies explained by Patton, and the one that aligns best with this
study, is theoretical sampling. Patton suggested that this is often a good fit for groundedtheory research (p. 239). Another sampling strategy that, although not mentioned by
Patton, seems to match the goals of this research, is expert sampling described as
involving the assembly of a sample of subjects with known expertise in a specific area.
The group is sometimes referred to as a “panel of experts” (Trochim, 2006).
Since the goal of this research was to develop a theoretical construct of economic
development strategy-making effectiveness, drawing from this specialized population
made a good deal of sense. The sample was drawn from my professional network of
colleagues.
Creswell (2007) recommended a sample of 20–30 individuals for a grounded
theory study and proposed that that is a good range to assure a well-saturated theory (p.
57
126–128). Patton did not offer a specific range but recommended that the researcher set a
minimum sample size based on expected, reasonable coverage of what is being studied.
Patton also suggested that the researcher establish criteria that serve as a sort of alert that
the sample size is adequate (p. 246).
Population size is difficult to determine but is likely quite small. The sample size
of 20–30 as recommended by Creswell may, in fact, be larger than the total population.
Based on the researcher’s familiarity with the community of scholar practitioners, a good
faith estimate is that the total population is likely 15–20; thus the minimum sample size
was 10. I recruited from scholar practitioners associated with the following organizations:
International Economic Development Council, University of Oklahoma Economic
Development Institute, and the Purdue Center for Regional Development.
For the quantitative phase, participants were drawn from the population of
individuals who have participated in economic development strategy initiatives. This
population is likely quite large and widely dispersed. For instance, over several months
during 2009, 35 individuals from 17 different organizations worked together to create a
set of policies and strategies to grow the economy of Portland, Oregon (City of Portland,
2009), and in 2011, representatives from tiny Roma, Texas engaged in a similar effort to
plan for economic growth in the Texas Rio Grand Valley (USDA Rural Development,
2011). Across the United States, in both rural regions and large metropolitan
communities, it is likely that thousands of individuals participate in this sort of strategy
work focused on economic development. Besides local and multicounty regions like
58
Portland and the Rio Grand Valley, economic development planning is done at other
levels—statewide, multistate regions, national, and even internationally.
Getting an accurate estimate of the specific size of this population is difficult, but
a few facts may be helpful in better understanding the scope of the population. According
to information available from Colson (2008), there are an estimated 13,000 economic
development organizations in the United States, each representing a local or regional
community. Assuming that, at some point, they all engage a group of stakeholders in a
process to do policy planning, the total population for which this research is relevant,
numbers in the many thousands.
Since research involving this entire population would be infeasible, a sampling
strategy was necessary. The Purdue Center for Regional Development (PCRD) provided
access to a convenient sampling frame in its database of over 9,000 individuals, from
across the United States, with some connection to economic development, a great many
of whom have likely participated in strategy development efforts. The sample was drawn
from this population of 9,000. The sampling population met the following criteria: (a)
individuals who were in the PCRD contact database and (b) individuals who had likely
been engaged in one or more economic development strategy making initiative within the
last 5 years.
For this quasiexperimental phase of the research, a nonprobability sample design
was used and a purposive sample, specifically, which could be classified even further as a
heterogeneous sample and an expert sample. My subjective judgment led me to the
conclusion that this purposeful sample was adequate for generalizing to a broader
59
population, and the following are some of the characteristics of the sample that helped
lead to this conclusion. The sample includes individuals from over 30 states in the United
States, from both small and large communities, and with a number of organizational and
institutional affiliations.
A random sample of 300 was drawn from the mailing list. One issue that emerged
when sampling only organizations in the PCRD contact database is that there is a
possibility that since all of the units were directly connected to PCRD, they may have
been predisposed to have at least some level of interest in models for strategy
development taught and promoted by Purdue. In order to widen the sample beyond just
these 300, a variation of the snowball sample (Wasserman, Pattison, & Steinley, 2005)
was also employed. In the affinity organizations variation (Sadler, Lee, Lim, & Fullerton,
2010) of the snowball sample technique, the primary recipients of the survey are invited
to forward the survey onto other individuals who meet the stated criteria (i.e., those who
have participated in a strategy development process within the last 5 years) and who are
affiliated with their own organization or with another relevant organization. Expanding
the population beyond just the original 300 helped to make the findings more
generalizable to the broader population.
Informed consent was requested from participants in both the qualitative and
quantitative phases. The nature of the data gathering process did not require a formal
procedure for exiting the study. Participants in the qualitative phase were sent a summary
of findings upon completion of the study, and participants in the quantitative phase were
provided instructions on how they can access the summary of the findings once they are
60
available. Data were collected using Qualtrics, an online survey tool. Once collected, the
data were coded and imported into SPSS for analysis.
Data Analysis
Qualitative Data Analysis
For the first phase of the research, I utilized qualitative analysis software.
Buchanan and Jones (2010) provides insights on the efficacy of using software programs
for interview data and concludes that it is a valuable aid to reduce the complexities of
qualitative research. The authors suggested that grounded theory methodologies in
particular are well served by these programs’ capacities to help bring to the surface
concepts and themes from the data.
Data analysis spiral (Creswell, 2010, pp. 150–151) served as the framework for
data analysis. Creswell noted that grounded theory analysis typically includes three
phases of coding: open, axial, and selective (p. 160). Patton (2002) pointed out that the
grounded theory approach calls for inductive analysis (p. 452); and this spiral approach
seemed inductive, indeed, and therefore an appropriate framework for this study.
Quantitative Data Analysis
For the qualitative analysis data was examined using bivariate analysis and in
order to measure the strength of the relationships, correlation coefficients seemed
appropriate (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 2008, p. 362). I used Spearman’s rho test
to examine relationships between the variables as well as the strength of relationships.
The variables tested in the study included one dependent variable (strategy-making
effectiveness) and several independent variables (that were determined after the
61
qualitative phase) and correlations were used be determined for all of the independent
variables so there were multiple correlations. The statistical analysis was performed using
SPSS and the results are displayed in tables that can be found in chapter 4.
Mixed Method Design
Grounded Theory Design
Data for the qualitative, grounded theory phase were collected through interviews,
in person when possible, and electronically though telephone when in-person interviews
were not feasible. The interview protocol, including semi-structured interview questions
and follow-up prompts derived from the literature review, is included in Appendix A.
A primary assumption of the study was that the sample population for the
qualitative phase would have relevant knowledge in the areas of inquiry and would
answer truthfully. Potential limitations of this phase was the difficulty in making
generalizations from grounded theory research but since this was a mixed method study,
the new theory was tested in the subsequent quantitative phase, allowing for some level
of generalization and addressing that limitation. Validation presented another potential
issue to the qualitative phase so the research employed both member checking and
clarification of researcher bias as strategies for addressing validation concerns (Creswell,
2007). More information about these validation strategies is discussed in the data
validation and legitimation section of this chapter.
Participants in this phase of the research were recruited via an email inviting them
to participate. Included in the email was be a statement detailing the specific disclosures,
rights, and expectations deemed required as a result of the classification obtained during
62
the human subjects review. Participants responded via return email indicating their
willingness to participate and were also invited to call by phone with any questions they
may have had.
The final protocol also detailed how the interviews were recorded, transcribed,
and stored. I obtained approval from the Walden University Institutional Review Board
(IRB) for the protocol. Interviews were recorded using a Livescribe pen. All data files
were backed up on the university’s servers (P. Smoker, personal communication, July 13,
2012). The interview protocol and instrument used in this phase of the study can be found
in Appendix A. This instrument was designed using the findings from the literature
review.
Quasi-Experimental Design
In the quantitative, quasi-experimental, contrasted-group phase, data were
collected via an electronic survey in which participants were asked to provide answers
related to their experiences in economic and community development strategy making
initiatives. Ordinal-level data were collected for both the dependent variable and the
independent variables and ranking scales were used to measure both the dependent and
the independent variables
In order to establish content validity the instruments were developed by drawing
on the findings of the literature review. To establish empirical validity, expected results
were assessed against the external criteria established in the literature. The literature also
served as the basis for construct validity. Reliability of the quantitative instrument was
63
established using the split-half method as described by Frankfort-Nachmais and
Nachmais (2008).
The tests for this research were norm-referenced. Although data was
gathered from individuals, the real unit of interest was the strategy development
processes and the questions to be answered were related to finding out what factors were
associated with effective strategy making models.
Data collected in the qualitative phase were used to develop a survey instrument
to gather additional data in the quantitative phase. Data were collected in this phase via
an electronic survey in which participants were asked to provide answers related to their
experiences in economic development strategy initiatives. Participants were invited to
participate via email with a hyperlink to the electronic survey. Participants were also
invited to forward the invitation on to others they felt met the criteria for participants.
The electronic survey platform Qualtrics was be used for this research. One
feature of Qualtrics is the ability to randomize specific sections of the survey. As
discussed earlier, this feature was used to sort respondents into the contrasted groups in a
way that half of the participants were asked to respond to the survey based on a strategymaking initiative they perceived as effective, and the other half were asked to consider
one they perceive as ineffective.
Data Validation and Legitimation
In Leech and Onwuegbuzie’s (2010) guidelines for conducting and reporting
mixed research they suggest researchers use frameworks such as Onwuegbuzie and
Collin’s (2007) Quantitative Legitimation Model for validity issues related to the
64
quantitative phase of mixed method research (p. 65) and Onwuegbuzie and Leech’s
(2007) Qualitative Legitimation Model for the qualitative phase of the research.
Onwuegbuzie and Collins (2007, p. 302) explain that in qualitative research the
traditional terms of research validity have been largely replaced with terms like
legitimation, trustworthiness, and credibility and refer researchers to Creswell (2007) for
suggested strategies for assuring data validation and legitimation. Toward that end, I
employed both member checking and clarification of researcher bias as a means for
addressing these issues. Member checking was accomplished by asking the panel of
experts to review the factors identified in the qualitative research. As disclosed earlier, I
have a great deal of experience with the research topic and to control for researcher bias I
designed a semi-structured interview protocol to assure each that the same lines of
inquiry were pursued with each participant.
In order to establish content validity for the quantitative phase, the instrument
developed drew upon the findings of both the literature review and the qualitative phase.
To establish empirical validity, expected results were assessed against the external
criteria established in the literature. The literature also served as the basis for construct
validity. Reliability of the quantitative instrument was established using the split-half
method as described by Frankfort-Nachmais and Nachmais (2008).
Although the instrument was based on constructs well documented in the
literature, this study was the first time these constructs were used together to assess the
perceived effectiveness of strategy development processes. To mitigate this particular
weakness, the panel of experts convened for the qualitative phase was reengaged and
65
asked to review and provide feedback as to whether or not this collection of constructs,
and the resulting instrument, provide an effective means of evaluating perceived
effectiveness of strategy making. Havercamp (2008) provides a helpful guide to the use
of expert panels for this purpose.
Another limitation of the study, as with most research that includes quasiexperiments, was the absence of the traditional means of control, like random sampling.
To address this weakness, in the quantitative phase of this research participants were
assigned to two contrasted groups. One group was those who had been involved in
economic development strategy initiatives they deemed as effective and the other group
included those who had been involved in initiatives they perceived as having been
ineffective. This group assignment process was randomized using a feature of the online
survey tool that randomly presented to participants the two different scenarios, thus
resulting in randomly assigned contrasted groups.
Findings
The findings for the qualitative phase were presented as a set of hypotheses that
were then used in the second quantitative phase of the mixed-method plan. Creswell
suggests that the presentation as hypotheses is appropriate in grounded theory research
(p. 161). The findings of the quantitative phase are presented in both tables in Chapter 4.
Summary
This chapter has provided an overview of the methodology that was used in the
study including the design for both phases of the research, the research questions and
hypotheses, a discussion of the ethical protection of participants, the selection of
66
participants, a description of the research participants, an overview of the data analysis
performed, the research design, and how the findings are articulated. It also sets the stage
for Chapter 4, a discussion of the results.
67
Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
The purpose of this two-phase, sequential, mixed-methods study was to develop
and test a new theory of strategy-making effectiveness in the context of community and
economic development. The first phase was a qualitative exploration of the variables
associated with economic and community development strategy making. Findings from
the qualitative phase were then used to develop and test a set of hypotheses during the
quantitative phase. The research question explored during the qualitative phase was, what
are the factors that contribute to strategy making effectiveness in the context of local
economic development? The quantitative phase was designed to answer the second
research question, among individuals who have participated in local economic
development strategy making initiatives, is there an association between perceived
effectiveness of the initiatives and the factors identified in the qualitative phase?
This chapter presents the results of the study and is organized in the following
seven sections: (a) setting, (b) demographics, (c) data collection, (d) data analysis, (e)
results, (f) evidence of trustworthiness, and (g) a summary. Each section includes a
discussion of both the qualitative and quantitative results.
Setting
The qualitative phase of the study involved collecting data in semistructured
interviews. Interviews were conducted via telephone and face-to-face. Interview
participants represented several different organizations, and there were no known current
personal or organizational conditions that influenced participants or their experiences that
68
may have affected the study results. The same was true of the participants in the
quantitative phase. Data in this phase were collected via an electronic survey. The
participants were from different places in the United States, representing many different
organizations.
Demographics
Demographics like sex, age, and other personal characteristics were not factors in
the design of the study and were not collected in either phase of the research. What is
known about the purposive survey sample is that they are likely to have all been adults of
working age and include both males and females. The 10 individuals who served as the
panel of experts included adults of working age except for one recent retiree. The group
included both male and female participants. Participants in the qualitative phase included
individuals who have specialized expertise in economic development strategic planning,
specifically those who are scholar–practitioners. Participants in the quantitative phase
were individuals who have been involved in an economic or community development
strategy initiative within the last few years.
Data Collection
Before the data collection process began, approval was obtained from the Walden
University’s Institutional Review Board to conduct research. Approval was received on
August 1, 2013 and the assigned approval number was 08-01-13-0314292.
In the qualitative phase, data were collected from 10 individuals who served as a
panel of experts. Four of the interviews took place face-to-face, with three of those on the
campus of Purdue University and one on the campus of Indiana University. Six of the
69
interviews were done via telephone. I conducted the interviews from my office at Purdue
University and also from my home office. Those participating in the six telephone
interviews participated from six different locations throughout the United States. The
interviews were conducted August 6–19, 2013. Each interview lasted from 23–45
minutes. Data were collected in both written notes and audio recordings, using a
Livescribe pen and notebook. There were no variations from the data collection plan
presented in Chapter 3, and no unusual circumstances occurred.
In the quantitative phase, data were collected from individuals who have
participated in an economic or community development strategy initiative within the last
few years. A total of 108 individuals participated in the survey. A link to the survey was
sent via email on August 21, 2013. The survey was closed a week later on August 29,
2013. Data were collected using Qualtrics survey software. As in the qualitative phase,
there were no variations from the data collection plan presented in Chapter 3, and no
unusual circumstances occurred.
Data Analysis
In the qualitative phase, audio recordings of the interviews were used to create
verbatim transcripts in Microsoft Word. The 10 transcripts were then loaded into
Dedoose, an online qualitative research data analysis program. In order to move
inductively from coded units to larger representations including categories and themes, I
used the data analysis spiral framework (Creswell, 2010, pp. 150–151) that served as the
framework for data analysis. Creswell noted that grounded theory analysis typically
70
includes three phases of coding: open, axial, and selective (p. 160). These three phases
were integrated into the spiral framework.
The process began with data management including developing a secure
electronic file system for both audio files and transcript files and then importing the text
files into the analytical software. All total, the written data included 56 single-spaced
pages with 31,235 words, an amount of data, coincidentally, with approximately the same
number of words as this dissertation. The next step in the analysis included reading
through all the transcripts several times. To accomplish this, I printed hardcopies so that
notes could be made in the margins. The Dedoose program includes a function for
memos, but I found the hardcopies and a pen a better way to accomplish this step in the
spiral. These memos consisted of short thoughts, ideas, and early concepts that came to
mind during these first read throughs.
The next step in the data analysis spiral is the describing, classifying, and
interpreting loop. The classifying or coding began by applying the factors that emerged in
the literature review. These were the initial codes loaded into the analytical program. At
this point, I began to review the electronic versions of the transcripts rather than the
printed hardcopies. During this review, excerpts from the transcripts were assigned to the
preliminary categories and additional categories emerged as well as did subcategories,
creating a category tree consisting of “parents” and “children.” The excerpting and
coding took place in an iterative fashion with each informing the other, excerpts leading
to new codes, and new codes emerging in one transcript being used to help comb though
the others in search of other supporting excerpts. Several codes emerged that were later
71
collapsed into another existing code or abandoned because of lack of corroborating data.
At the end of the classifying and excerpting process, there was a combination of five a
priori and two emergent parent codes for a total of seven, with 11 child codes. Each of
the two surviving emergent codes originally surfaced as discrepant cases, each in a
different transcript. It seemed particularly compelling and salient, so using the search
function in the analytical program, additional data were found leading to their inclusion
in the final list of codes. Table 4 includes details of the final list of codes and the number
of excerpts associated with each. Appendices D and E include charts of code assignments
and co-occurrences.
Table 4
Codes and Numbers of Excerpts from the Qualitative Data Analysis Phase
Codes (parents and children)
Organizational Structure
Hierarchies
Networks
Frameworks
Asset Based
Deficient Based
Processes
Iterative
Implementation
Centralized
Dispersed
Number of Excerpts
31
9
18
43
41
4
18
18
19
3
17
72
Codes (parents and children)
Number of Excerpts
18
Timeframes
Early Wins
14
Longer Term
5
Social Capital
17
Readiness for Change
11
Trust
4
9
Metrics
Total Number of Coded Excerpts
336
In the quantitative phase, survey data were exported from the Qualitrics program
into SPSS. Within SPSS, some data scrubbing was necessary. For instance, one of the
artifacts of the Qualtrics program is that text blocks, like instructions, are classified as a
“question” although they are not answered. These resulted in some blank rows within
SPSS. These blank rows were removed. There were no discrepant cases in the
quantitative data.
Findings
This section discusses the findings of both the qualitative and quantitative phases.
For the qualitative phase, findings will be organized by the seven parent codes previously
presented. These represent the themes that emerged in the data analysis. The findings of
the quantitative data phase focus on the discussion of the statistical analysis.
73
Qualitative Findings
Research Question 1 asked what are the factors that contribute to strategy making
effectiveness in the context of local economic development? The answer to that question
emerged from the literature review and the collection and analysis of the qualitative data.
What follows is a discussion of each of these seven factors.
Organizational structure. Organizational structure was one of the a priori
factors. There was strong evidence in the literature that the way in which a strategy
initiative is organized plays a fundamental role in whether or not the effort is effective
(Gibson, 2011, p. 5; Merkle, 2010, p. 6,519; Neumejier, 2001, pp. 54–55.) The data
gathered during the qualitative phase of the research confirmed the importance of this
factor. Organizational structure represented one of the most robust discussion items in the
interviews with over 31 excerpts coded within this theme area. Discussion of
organizational structure was focused on the ways in which the organizations involved in a
strategy initiative worked together and what form the structures take in effective
initiatives. Two dominant structures emerged including hierarchies and networks,
specifically whether the structure was primarily hierarchical with a clear top and bottom,
or more networked with hubs and spokes. The predominant observation among
interviewees was that effective strategy initiatives often have some elements of both
hierarchical and networked structures, rather than being an either/or proposition.
Some of the terms and phrases used to describe hierarchical structures includes
“bureaucratic,” “government-driven,” “like when you run a company,” “control,” “clear
74
accountability,” “manage money,” and “you know who your boss is.” In total nine
excerpts from the interviews provided insights into hierarchical organizational structures.
Twice as many interview excerpts (18) were focused on describing networkedbased organizational structures. Some of the terms and phrases included “grass roots,”
“share resources,” “coalitions of the willing,” “glue parts together,” “no organization
controlled it” “flat,” “spreads out evenly,” “core group,” “horizontal ties,” “relationships
across different entities in the community,” “engage much more broadly with
stakeholders,” “managed network,” “quickly spot opportunities,” “larger breadth of
knowledge,” and “adaptive.”
Several interviewees pointed to the notion that the optimal organizational
structure that helps lead to effective strategy initiatives should have elements of both a
hierarchical structure as well as a network structure, rather than one or the other. For
instance one interview put it this way, “ I would say that the best structure is what I
would call a managed network which includes some hierarchical components because
typically in the strategy process you are managing money. You have to have some clear
accountability.” Another added, “the flat and networked, rather than the hierarchical
approach is needed…there does need to be a core group that it is leading it because if it is
too horizontal it is more like anarchy.” An example of this dual structure was offered by
another interviewee who described a strategy initiative undertaken by a city in the
Southwestern United States. In this example, the chamber of commerce was driving the
strategy and built a hierarchical structure for accountability but also a flat and adaptive
75
structure that could spot problems quickly. One interviewee summed up the role
organizational structure plays as follows,
One of the axioms of management is that "structure follows strategy" (similar to
architecture's "form follows function"). You can tell a lot about how successful a
strategy is likely to be based on how it is organized from the start. Structure
provides a window into the mindset of the people driving the strategy process. A
structure reveals how the organizing group manages the tension between control
and engagement, between being closed and open…effective economic
development requires a tight core of collaborative leaders committed to open
engagement.
The qualitative data gathered about organizational structure confirmed that initial
hypothesis that networked organization structures are likely to be more effective than
hierarchical ones in the context of economic and community development strategy
making.
Frameworks. Frameworks was also an a priori factor identified in the literature
review. There was strong evidence in the literature that an asset-based framework led to
effective strategy making (Merkle, 2010, p. 6519; Neumejier, 2001, pp. 54–55.) This was
confirmed in the qualitative data. In terms of both volume of discussion and richness of
content in the interview data, this theme ranked on top with 43 excerpts coded as
contributing to this theme. The parent code included two child codes of “asset-based” and
“deficit based.” Asset-based represented far more content than deficit based and cooccurred in nearly 100% of excerpts also coded as “frameworks” while the “deficit-
76
based” code co-occurred only 11% of the time with “frameworks.” All ten interviewees
discussed asset-based frameworks and only three of them offered insights on deficitbased frameworks. The discussions about deficit-based approaches included a warning
about using that as a primary framework, “the ones that have been less successful are the
ones that start with a ‘what’s wrong?,’” indicated one of the interviewees. Three others
saw them as a necessary component of the overall framework noting, “there is some of
the deficit you need to look at,” “you cannot be asset-based to the point that you are
‘Pollyannaish’ and say, ‘we don’t have any deficits, we don’t have any problems,’” and
lastly another described an asset-based framework as a means to “mitigate” the
community’s deficits.
The most significant contributions from the data on asset-based frameworks
maybe the insights the interviewees provided about what should be done with a
community’s assets, how they can drive the strategy development process.
A story told by one of the interviewees focused on a community that had been
struggling economically for quite some time. An asset mapping exercise revealed that
they had a number of human capital assets they were not really aware they had, some
specialized engineering talent, specifically. They began to connect those assets by
convening representatives from that industry, started a marketing and branding effort to
promote this cluster of assets, including changing the name of a minor league sports team
to a name that reflected that new brand.
One interviewee described how digging deep into a community’s assets reveals its
true “competitive advantage” over other communities. When describing his work in
77
helping economic development professionals understand how to identify assets that
represent “rare economic value” one interview offered an example he often encounters.
When he asks economic development professionals to list their greatest economic assets
they often mention characteristics like “we’re a great place to raise a family,” “we have
low utility costs,” and a “ business-friendly tax structure.” He points out to them that
nearly every other community boasts of the very same assets. He goes on to tell them,
What you've given me, for your competitive advantages, are a whole lot like
someone who sells me a car and says that it comes with a transmission, it comes
with the steering wheel, it comes standard with a wind shield, it comes with tires.
This is a great vehicle. You'll love it. And you've offered nothing that is unique to
that vehicle because everyone of us has to have all of those things.”
Other interviewee pointed out that identifying assets gets a community only
halfway there. They need to also “mobilize,” “connect,” and “leverage” their assets.
Another story that was offered in one of the interviews focused on a distressed urban
community that had ben experiencing a homicide rate. Residents in this community
developed and supported a zero tolerance policy by connecting their faith-based assets
together and leveraging the collective power of those vital community institutions.
The qualitative data gathered in relation to frameworks confirms the hypothesis
that asset-based frameworks are likely to more effective in the context of economic and
community development strategy making.
Processes. Processes was also an a priori factor that emerged in the literature,
specifically that iterative planning and implementation processes were more effective
78
than were sequential processes in which a distinct planning phase is than followed by a
distinct implementation phase (Rindova, Dalpiaz, & Ravasi, 2011, p. 422.) This was
confirmed in the qualitative phase of the study. The data on processes focused on the
interplay between the planning and implementation phases of a typical economic or
community development strategy initiative. Twenty-six excerpts were coded as being
relative to this theme and the child code of “iterative” had a 100% co-occurrence with
processes. The importance of processes in strategy development was summed up by one
interviewee as follows:
Process matters. Economic development takes place in the complex ‘civic space’
outside the four walls of any one organization. At the same time, economic
development is virtually everyone's part-time job. No one has the time for
elaborate, complex processes. That means that process, to be effective, needs to
be both simple and lightweight. When process becomes slow, people begin to
drift away. To counteract the tendency, an effective process needs to deliver
powerful learning experiences to the participants.
A central component in the discussion of planning and implementation process
centered on the notion that, although these were once considered distinct phases of a
strategy development process that occurred in a sequence with planning being followed
by implementation, that is no longer the case. The prevailing opinion among the panel of
experts was that effective strategy-making initiatives are iterative, with planning and
implementation occurring in an integrated fashion. One of the reasons for this
predominant view was that often the sequential processes in which planning and
79
implementation is not integrated results in the plan that is never implemented. One
interviewee noted, “a consultant comes to town and volunteers invest dozens or more
hours of their time, and you get a nice looking, bound document and then life goes on
without it.” Another confirmed that notion by saying, “we put the words on paper…we
deliver it with some moderate fanfare. People embrace it and two years later it's the 17th
plan gathering dust on the shelf.” Interestingly, phrases related to plans “gathering dust
on shelves,” was mentioned by several interviewees. The benefits of an iterative process
were expressed with terms and phrases like, “doing and learning at the same time” and to
be “nimble,” “responsive,” able to “move quickly,” and “make adjustments on the fly.”
An example offered by one of the interviewees focused on of how an iterative strategy
process was particularly effective. He noted that an economic development strategy effort
in a city in the southeastern U.S. was done in time buckets of thirty days. He noted, “we
met every thirty days to come up with a very quick plan to come up with what was
possible” and added, “you make adjustments on the fly so you are constantly learning and
doing at the same time. It’s a very different notion than the traditional strategy process
that comes out of the business world.”
The qualitative data gathered related to processes supports the hypothesis that
iterative planning and implementation processes are likely to be more effective that
sequential processes in the context of economic and community development.
Implementation. Implementation was an a priori theme that emerged in the
literature review and specifically the notion that to be the most effective, the
responsibilities for implementation of an economic or community development strategy
80
should be shared among multiple organizations rather than centralized among a single
organization (Mulgan, Tucker, Ali, & Sanders 2007, p. 10.) This notion was confirmed
by the qualitative data. In total 19 excerpts were coded as “implementation” with 17 of
those were also coded as “dispersed.” Several of the interviewees noted that role of
economic and community development, in general, is shared among many groups like
“local government,” “nonprofits,” and “volunteer organizations.” One interviewee
offered the following thoughts on the dynamics of implementation:
Transformation of a regional economy can only take place when larger networks
become mobilized and aligned. It is simply a matter of economics. No group,
standing alone, has the economic power to transform the economy as large and
complex as a community or region. So, for example, when local government tries
to transform its economy on its own, we end up with sports stadiums, failed
downtown pedestrian malls, and empty spec buildings.
Although there was a clear consensus that a more dispersive approach to
implementation is preferable, a smaller core group leading the charge is a necessary
component as well. One interviewee added that that core group can be a “centralized
entity,” if that “centralized entity was constituted of all these different kinds of interests.”
Other interview noted that not having a core leadership group can lead to “anarchy.”
Some of the benefits of dispersive implementation that were reflected in the
interviews included the observation that it helps to “get things done,” results in a “shared
sense of ownership,” and facilitates the “leveraging of resources.” One interviewee
observed that in many cases it would be easier to have implementation more centralized
81
because, “the more autonomous organizations you have involved the more difficult the
project is to carry out.” Yet as another interviewee points out, in the long run the
strategies are more “sustainable” when the responsibilities for implementation are shared
among multiple actors. In illustrating the power of dispersive implementation, the
exponential value represented by leveraging the networks of multiple organizations, and
having a solid core as the hub of the network, one of the interviewees offered the
experience of a community in which he worked by saying, “you have to have networks
upon networks. [Name of city withheld] was able to not get tens or twenties of people
involved but hundreds of people involved. You have to have both. You build it out from
the center, from the core.”
The qualitative data gathered regarding implementation support the hypothesis
that implantation disseminated among several organizations rather than centrally with one
organization is likely to be more effective.
Timeframes. Timeframes was an a priori theme that emerged out the literature
review. Specifically that short-term wins are a predictor of effectiveness in economic and
community development strategy making (Gibson, 2011, p. 5; Markey, Connelly, &
Roseland, 2010, p. 8). This notion was confirmed in the qualitative analysis but the
volume of discussion about timeframes of strategies was less than the other a priori
themes, there was less unanimity among interviewees, and the relationship between
short-term wins and longer-term goals was not necessarily perceived as an either/or
proposition. Instead, most interviewees saw the need for both. In total, 18 excerpts were
82
coded under the parent code of “timeframe” with 14 also being coded as “early wins” and
4 as “longer-term goals.”
Nearly all the interviewees noted that the time horizons for which economic
development strategies should be made is shorter than it once was and one said that he
often encounters those who, “want a plan for five years but we keep our plans to three
and tell them the last year is anybody’s guess.” Another reflected on how his own
thinking has changed, “I probably shifted a little bit over time and emphasize the short
run.” The reasons why the shorter time horizons are now considered were reflected in
comments like, “think how fast things are changing and who would have thought two
years ago that the most important issues in America would be national security?” making
the point that a quickly changing global landscape means that economic opportunities
exist now that could not be planned for even a few months ago. Another noted that,
“assumptions and parameters that were built into long-term strategies may be, you know,
turned on their head by the time the long term actually arrives.”
Some specific benefits of strategies that result in quick wins were offered like the
observation that “you’ve got to have some low-hanging fruit to keep people interested”
and that also helps to “build social capital, and internal cohesion, and solidarity” and
“builds a little bit of pride.” “Early winds build momentum,” “offer tangible results –
concrete and observable,” they help to “push out negative mindsets that stalled action in
the past,” and can help “overcome that lack of faith,” added other interviewees.
One interviewee pointed out that the term “low-hanging fruit” can be deceiving
noting, “that was not low-hanging fruit but one of the top branches that we needed and
83
we didn’t realize it.” A similar notion was expressed in a story told by another
interviewee as he noted the view he saw out of his downtown office one day several years
ago:
They were there because it was, they were some of the cheapest offices in town…
It was just prostitutes and winos after 7:30 or 8:00…I saw them laying bricks [on
the street] and I thought, “what a horrific waste of money!” It wasn’t a waste of
money. They weren’t laying bricks, as the old saying goes, they were building a
cathedral. Well, that takes a long time. So, people look back now and say, “Wow,
look at what [name of city withheld] did. Isn’t that cool?”
Investing in brick streets in a distressed area of the city may have seemed like an
easily dismissed; low-hanging-fruit sort of strategy but it was an early step in the longerterm transformation.
Another story offered by one of the interviewees was an illustration of how an
effective economic development strategy initiative should have a “portfolio of initiatives”
that include some early-win “slam dunks,” and some “mid-level stretches.” He noted that
one community developed an “early-win” strategy to set up a government procurement
center in the chamber of commerce to help small companies obtain more government
contracts. He noted that this was a “simple idea that started generating additional sales of
$10, 15, 20 million per year. The ‘stretch idea’ was “setting up a bio-medical research
foundation at a medical center.” That was a longer-term strategy that now generates
“about $20 million a year into that community now.”
84
The qualitative data gathered related to timeframes supports the hypotheses that
implementation timelines that include shorter-term small wins are likely to more effective
than those that only have longer-term goals.
Social capital. This was not one of the a priori themes that emerged in the
literature. It was revealed, rather, in the analysis of the qualitative data. Several different
terms, phrases, and stories were told that reflected the qualities of people, both
individually and collectively, in effective economic and community development strategy
initiatives. Characteristics like “servant leadership,” “integrity,” “champion,” and “people
committed to the ‘common good’ were among the terms used to describe individual
characteristics. The collective aspects of social capital were primarily embedded in two
terms: “trust” and “readiness for change.” In total there were 17 excerpts coded as
contributing to this social capital theme. There were very different opinions about social
capital expressed among the interviewees. One noted that, “social capital is important but
it is an abstract concept that does not lead to action.” Another was emphatic in his
assertion that, social capital characteristics were the “necessary component before
anything else happens.” Where agreement existed, it was primarily related to the issues of
trust and readiness for change. Although the word “trust” was used only a few times, it
was an underlying notion of much of the discussion about social capital. One interviewee
pointed out that the need for building trust is especially important when a strategy
initiative brings together a group of individuals with “no history” of working together.
Several other interviewees pointed out that multiple groups have to be willing to share
resources and that this, of course, requires a certain level of trust.
85
The notion of “readiness for change” was expressed in a number of ways as well.
One interviewee pointed out that not much research has been done on “community
readiness for change” and that most of the scholarship on that topic has been related to
individuals, specifically in alcohol and drug abuse. He pointed out, “changing behavior is
really, really hard. It’s hard for you, it’s hard for me.” He saw parallels in communities,
with many people being resistant to change. Another was very matter-of-fact in his words
about readiness for change, “some people don’t want to change. You can either live in the
past or you change. If you don’t change, sorry”.
One interview summed readiness for change, trust, and other aspects of social
capital as follows:
It’s really a question of what people are talking about. What are the conversations
that they are having? What is the character of those conversations? If the
conversations are leaning towards opportunities and assets, and looking at the
transformation and the possibilities, and those are the dominate conversations,
meaning that for every negative conversation, you hear two or three or maybe
four or five positive conversations then you can get a sense of the readiness for
change. If on the other hand it is flipped and the dominate conversations are
negative or frustrating, then the community isn’t really ready to change much. I
used to tell people that I could sense if a community was ready for change by
whether or not I could hear the music. If I walk into a community and I’m
hearing people talk about opportunities… let’s go do something. Then you start
to hear the music. But if you go into a community and all you hear is negative
86
talk then you are probably wasting your time to try. Part of the first predictor as to
whether a community is ready is just listening to the conversations that the people
are having; what talk is taking place.
Data and metrics. Data and metrics was not one of the a priori themes from the
literature. It emerged, rather, in the course of the data collected in the interviews. A total
of 14 excerpts were coded as being part of this theme, including interesting insights into
the role data and metrics play in effective economic and community development
strategy initiatives. That role was summed up by one of the interviewees as, “attitudes
toward metrics needs to change. Metrics become a learning tool rather than an
accountability tool. You need data to tell you what is working because you can’t forecast
this stuff”. Another interviewee pointed out that data and metrics are “most often
associated with evaluation. I guess maybe that’s a limited or narrow way to think about
metrics.” He also notes that, “I think data are really important for informing, on an
ongoing basis, the planning and the doing.” Still another pointed out, “It’s not to measure
whether you have accomplished something; it’s to measure along the route to make sure
you can accomplish something.” The role of data as a learning tool was reflected in this
comment, “In many ways, the sophistication of a group moving toward an innovating
network can be measured by how it deals with the question of metrics. Sophisticated
innovating networks embrace metrics as a learning tool.”
Research Question 1 asked, what are the factors that contribute to strategy making
effectiveness in the context of local economic development? The qualitative phase of this
study answered that question with a confirmation of the five a priori factors that resulted
87
from the literature review and an additional three that emerged from the data analysis.
Together, these eight provided were used to execute the quantitative phase of the study.
The findings of the qualitative phase of this study indicate that the three
contributing theories of collaborative governance from the public administration
literature, social innovation from the scholarship of sociology, and strategy formation
from the management literature provided a valid framework for constructing the lines of
inquiry explored in this phase and the factors of effective strategy making identified in
this phase begin to fill the gap in the economic and community development literature.
Quantitative Findings
Research Question 2 asked, among individuals who have participated in local
economic development strategy making initiatives, is there an association between
perceived effectiveness of the initiatives and the factors identified in the qualitative
phase? Along with this research question, the qualitative phase of the study was driven by
the five priori hypotheses that were constructed from the themes derived from the
literature review. The analysis of the qualitative data during the first phase of this study
revealed two additional themes thus three emergent hypotheses were constructed from
those themes and added to the original five, one of the emergent themes included two
emergent hypotheses. Table 5 presents the hypotheses that were tested in the qualitative
phase of the study. This section includes a discussion of the findings related to the eight
hypotheses, preceded by the presentation of the study’s descriptive statistics.
88
Table 5
The Eight Null and Alternative Hypotheses (a priori and Emergent) Tested in the
Quantitative Phase
Hypothesis
a priori or Emergent
Organizational Structure
a priori
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
network organizational structures.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative
effectiveness and network organizational structures.
Frameworks
a priori
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
asset-based frameworks.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative
effectiveness and asset-based frameworks.
Processes
a priori
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
iterative-based processes.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative
effectiveness and iterative-based processes.
Implementation
a priori
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
decentralized implementation.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative and
decentralized implementation.
Timeframes
a priori
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
short-term wins.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative
effectiveness and short-term wins.
89
Hypothesis
a priori or Emergent
Social Capital – Readiness for Change
Emergent
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
readiness for change.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative
effectiveness and readiness for change
Social Capital – Trust Among Participants
Emergent
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
high levels of trust among participants.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative
effectiveness and high levels of trust among participants
Metrics
Emergent
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative effectiveness and
data and metrics used as a learning tool.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative
effectiveness and data and metrics used as a learning tool.
According to Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias (2008, p. 321) descriptive
statistics are used to summarize and organize data in a way that is meaningful and
effective. They serve to reduce complex findings to an understandable form. Descriptive
statistics for the ten survey questions can be found in Tables 6 and 7. Table 6 provides
data for Group 1 (Effective) and Table 7 for group 2 (Ineffective). This table also
includes the full text of the ten questions. Note that the first two questions on
effectiveness were randomly presented to respondents. Half were given the question
about effective strategy initiatives while the other half were given the question about
ineffective strategy initiatives. For questions three through ten, respondents were
presented with a slider bar and asked to slide it toward the side with the phrase that best
represented that topic of that question. They were also asked to move the slider closer to
90
the descriptive phrase, the better the phrase described the topic of the question the closer
they moved it to the phrase. Responses were coded with a 10-point scale. These choices
are also presented in tables 6 and 7.
The survey was sent to 300 individuals with a response of 108. Since there was a
snowball component included in the sampling strategy a true response rate is difficult to
determine. The total n, however is 108.
Group 1, those who considered an effective economic or community development
strategy initiative, included an n of 57. The mean response of the question related to the
level of effectiveness for the considered initiative was 4.95. The “significantly effective”
response was coded as a 5 with completely effective as a 6 and “somewhat effective” as a
4. The standard deviation for this question was .666.
Seven of the eight factors represented in the other questions had mean scores of
over 7 on a scale of 1-10. One code was between 6 and 7. Beginning with highest to
lowest, the means were 7.825 toward readiness to change, 7.820 toward high levels of
trust, 7.714 toward asset based frameworks, 7.608 toward metrics used to learn what
works, 7.526 toward network organizational structures, 7.411 toward iterative planning
and implementation processes, 7.123 toward dispersed implementation, and 6.464 toward
near-term, easy-win goals. Standard Deviations ranged from 1.960 (role of metrics to
2.612 (implementation). Appendix F includes a Descriptive Reports from SPSS for both
Group 1 and Group 2.
The composite picture of an effective economic or community development
strategy initiative, based on the means, is one that has a network organizational structure
91
and involves a group of actors that are ready for change and have a high level of trust for
one another. The initiative is framed primarily around building on the community’s
existing assets, and the planning and implementation processes are iterative.
Implementation includes some short-term easy-win goals is and the responsibilities for
implementation is centralized among multiple organization. Metrics are used to learn
what is working and to make adjustments along the way.
This composite picture of an effective economic or community development
strategy initiative based on the mean responses represents a statement that in and of itself
could have social change implications. Practitioners and policy makers could use the
findings represented in this composite picture to change the way in which strategy
initiatives are constructed and the way in which policy outlines strategy initiatives. These
social change implications will be discussed in more detail in chapter 5.
Table 6
Group 1 (Effective) Full Text of Questions, Possible Responses, Codes for Responses,
and Descriptive Statistics
Question
N
Min.
Max.
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Effectiveness
Q2. For the effective economic or community
development strategy initiative you have in mind,
how would you describe its level of ineffectiveness?
Available responses were: somewhat effective (4),
significantly effective (5), and completely effective
(6).
57
4
6
4.95
.666
92
Organizational Structure
Q3. What was the organizational structure like?
57
2
10
7.526
2.346
56
1
10
7.714
2.180
56
2
10
7.411
1.989
56
2
10
6.464
2.579
57
1
10
7.123
2.612
51
2
10
7.608
1.960
Descriptive phrases were (10) network, with hubs
and spokes and (1) hierarchical with a clear top and
bottom
Framework
Q4. What was the orienting framework?
Descriptive phrases were (10) focused primarily on
asset, building on what is already in place and (1)
focused primarily on deficits, addressing challenges
Processes
Q5. What was the planning & implementation
process like?
Descriptive phrases were (10) iterative, with
planning and implementation integrated and (1)
sequential, with a planning process followed by
implementation
Timeframe
Q6. What was the timeframe for strategy
implementation?
Descriptive phrases were (10) focused primarily on
modest, near-term, “easy win” goals or (1) focused
primarily on transformational longer-term goals
Implementation
Q7. Where were the responsibilities for
implementation?
Descriptive phrases were (10) dispersed, among
several organizations and (1) centrally, with one
organization
Role of Metrics
Q8. What was the role of metrics?
Descriptive phrases were (10) used primarily to
learn what works and make adjustments and (1) used
primarily for accountability
93
Social Capital: Readiness for Change
Q9. What was the community’s attitude toward
change?
53
2
10
7.359
2.086
57
1
10
7.82
2.019
Descriptive phrases were (10) ready for change and
(1) not ready for change.
Social Capital – Trust
Q10. What was the level of trust among key
organizational representatives?
Descriptive phrases were (10) high level of trust and
(1) low level of trust
Group 2, those who considered an ineffective economic or community
development strategy initiative, included an n of 51. The mean response of the question
related to the level of ineffectiveness for the considered initiative was 2.12. The
“completely ineffective” response was coded as a 1 with “significantly ineffective as a 2
and “somewhat ineffective” as a 3. The standard deviation for this question was .785.
All eight factors represented in the other questions had mean scores of less than
4.2 on a scale of 1-10. Beginning with lowest to the highest, the means were 3.254
toward metrics used for accountability, 3.520 toward readiness for change, 3.570 for low
levels of trust, 3.755 toward sequential planning and implementation processes, 3.900
toward long-range timeframes, 4.00 toward deficit-based frameworks, 4.02 toward
centralized implementation, and 4.04 toward hierarchical organizational structures.
Standard Deviations ranged from 1.931 (role of metrics) to 2.767
(implementation).
The composite picture of an ineffective economic or community development
strategy initiative, based on the means, is one that has a hierarchical organizational
94
structure and involves a group of actors that are not ready for change and have a low
level of trust for one another. The initiative is framed primarily around addressing the
community’s deficits and the planning and implementation processes are sequential.
Implementation is focused mostly on long-term goals and the responsibilities for
implementation are centralized with a single organization. Metrics are used as a
mechanism for accountability.
Table 7
Group 2 (Ineffective) Full Text of Questions, Possible Responses, Codes for Responses,
and Descriptive Statistics
Question
N
Min.
Max.
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Ineffectiveness
Q2. For the ineffective economic or community
development strategy initiative you have in mind,
how would you describe its level of ineffectiveness?
51
1
3
2.12
.887
51
1
10
4.039
2.545
51
1
10
4.00
2.441
Available responses were: somewhat ineffective (3),
significantly ineffective (2), and completely
ineffective (1)
Organizational Structure
Q3. What was the organizational structure like?
Descriptive phrases were (10) network, with hubs
and spokes and (1) hierarchical with a clear top and
bottom
Framework
Q4. What was the orienting framework?
Descriptive phrases were (10) focused primarily on
asset, building on what is already in place and (1)
focused primarily on deficits, addressing challenges.
Processes
95
Question
Q5. What was the planning & implementation
process like?
N
Min.
Max.
Mean
9
3.755
Std.
Deviation
2.146
48
1
50
1
10
3.900
2.306
50
1
10
4.02
2.767
49
1
9
3.245
1.931
50
1
9
3.52
2.367
49
1
10
3.57
2.273
Descriptive phrases were (10) iterative, with
planning and implementation integrated and (1)
sequential, with a planning process followed by
implementation
Timeframe
Q6. What was the timeframe for strategy
implementation?
Descriptive phrases were (10) focused primarily on
modest, near-term, “easy win” goals or (1) focused
primarily on transformational longer-term goals.
Implementation
Q7. Where were the responsibilities for
implementation?
Descriptive phrases were (10) dispersed, among
several organizations and (1) centrally, with one
organization
Role of Metrics
Q8. What was the role of metrics?
Descriptive phrases were (10) used primarily to
learn what works and make adjustments and (1) used
primarily for accountability
Social Capital: Readiness for Change
Q9. What was the community’s attitude toward
change?
Descriptive phrases were (10) ready for change and
(1) not ready for change.
Social Capital – Trust
Q10. What was the level of trust among key
organizational representatives?
Descriptive phrases were (10) high level of trust and
(1) low level of trust
96
In this study “effectiveness of economic and community development strategy
initiatives,” served as the dependent variable. As explained earlier, half the respondents
were given a question prompting them to consider an effective scenario and the other half
an in effective scenario. Each group was given three choices to describe the level of
effectiveness. When these two three-point scales are put together, they present a six-point
continuum of effectiveness ranging from completely effective to completely ineffective.
In the correlation analysis, effectiveness was observed as a single six-point
ordinally measured variable. In order to analyze both groups together on a full six-point
continuum, a new column was created in SPSS merged the two sets of responses. This
allowed for correlation coefficients to be run using this 6-point continuum of
effectiveness with an n of 108.
Correlation coefficients were calculated pairing the effectiveness continuum with
each of the eight independent variables, measure on a 10-point scale. Spearman’s rho was
used to measure significance. The results of the correlation analysis for this study are
presented in Table 8 showing that all eight correlations were significantly significant with
the highest level of significance in trust and effectiveness (.745) and the lowest (yet still
significant) with .473 timeframes and effectiveness. Therefore, all eight null hypotheses
are rejected. Appendix G provides the screen prints from SPSS.
97
Table 8
Effectiveness Continuum Correlation Coefficient Using Spearman’s rho
Effectiveness Continuum and Organizational Structure
N
108
Correlation
Significance
Coefficient
(2-tailed)
.628**
.000
Effectiveness Continuum and Frameworks
107
.635**
.000
Effectiveness Continuum and Processes
105
.723**
.000
Effectiveness Continuum and Implementation
107
.491**
.000
Effectiveness Continuum and Timeframes
106
.473**
.000
Effectiveness Continuum and Metrics
100
.717**
.000
Effectiveness Continuum and Readiness for Change
103
.660**
.000
Effectiveness Continuum and Trust
106
.745**
.000
** correlation is significant at a 0.01 level
Evidence of Trustworthiness
In order to establish trustworthiness of the qualitative phase of this research, I
employed a number of strategies to address issues of credibility, transferability,
conformability, and intracoder reliability.
To address issues of credibility, I employed member checking and clarification of
researcher bias. Member checking was accomplished by asking the panel of experts to
review the factors identified in the qualitative research. This was done electronically by
emailing the ten panel members the list of factors that emerged from the analysis.
Panelists were asked to respond indicating their agreement or disagreement that the
factors presented were, in their opinions, relevant to effectiveness of economic
development strategy initiatives. Panelists were also invited to provide additional
comments via return email or in a follow-up telephone conversation. All ten of the
panelists expressed their agreement and a few offered additional comments about the
98
factors. In these cases, their comments were considered additional data, coded, and used
in additional analysis. These additional comments provided more examples or deeper
reflections on the existing themes but did not result in any substantive changes to the
previously identified themes. The documents used in the member checking process have
been included in my data files and are available upon request. Clarification of researcher
bias was addressed, as planned, by disclosing in the consent documents my role and
experience as a practitioner in the of economic and community development.
Transferability is often a challenge in qualitative research, especially in grounded
theory. This issue of transferability was one of the factors that compelled me to make this
a mixed method study so that the newly developed theory could be used in the quasiexperimental quantitative phase, demonstrating significantly more confidence in the
transferability of the findings.
To address issues of dependability and conformability, I employed a competent
peer strategy calling on Lynn Shaw, Ph.D. to serve as my auditor. Dr. Shaw is a professor
at Ivy Tech Community College with professional experiences similar to mine. Dr. Shaw
is very familiar with qualitative methods and semi-structured interviews. She assessed
both the dependability and credibility of my qualitative methods and findings and the
degree to which any researcher influence was present in the documentation. I made
available to her interview notes, audio recordings, transcripts, coded excerpts, and a nearfinal draft of chapter 4 of this dissertation. Dr. Shaw rated both the dependability and
credibility of the research as “excellent.” Appendix H includes a letter from Dr. Shaw.
99
Since I was only researcher coding the qualitative data intracoder reliability was
accomplished by executing a second coding one month following the initial coding.
Rather than recoding all the data, I enlisted the assistance of a colleague to select one of
my ten transcripts. I then recoded by hand, using the themes identified in the original
analysis. A comparison of the two coded documents resulted in 95% of the original codes
being coded again and classified under the same themes.
Research Question 2 asked, among individuals who have participated in local
economic development strategy making initiatives, is there an association between
perceived effectiveness of the initiatives and the factors identified in the qualitative
phase? According to the quantitative analysis, the answer to that question is qualified
“yes.” Of the eight factors identified in the qualitative phase, all of them were confirmed
as associated with effective economic and community development strategy initiatives.
Correspondingly, all of the null hypotheses were rejected.
Summary
This chapter presented the findings of this study and provided a discussion of how
the methodology was executed including the collection and analysis of data. Specifically,
Chapter 4 explained key elements in the research process including the coding of the
qualitative data resulting in themes and additional hypotheses. Key elements of the
presentation of the quantitative findings including additional information on how the
survey was conducted, the data was coded, and the statistical analysis that was
performed. The chapter also proposed answers to the two research questions and
discussed he hypotheses and began to consider the social change implication of the
100
findings. Finally, this chapter ended with a presentation of the strategies used to assure
trustworthiness. Chapter 5 continues the discussion of the findings by considering their
implications, including the potential social change impact.
101
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Introduction
The purpose of this two-phase, sequential, mixed-methods study was to develop
and test a new theory of strategy-making effectiveness in the context of community and
economic development. The first phase was a qualitative exploration of the variables
associated with economic and community development strategy-making effectiveness by
collecting data from a panel of experts. Findings from this qualitative phase where then
used to develop and test a set of hypotheses that strategy-making effectiveness (the
dependent variable) is related to the independent variables identified in the earlier
qualitative phase. This research was conducted to fill both a gap in the scholarly literature
and, by extension, the gap in research-based information that will help civic leaders and
practitioners make decisions and take actions about growing their economy and
improving the quality of life for their residents of the communities they serve. Prior to
this study, there was no economic and community development scholarship on the factors
that lead to effective strategy making. This study not only fills that gap but offers a
grounded theory that can guide other researchers to add to the scholarship in this field.
The findings of this study represent the first time a theory of effective economic
and community development strategy making has been developed and tested. Although
the study did not attempt to prove causation, the findings indicate that there are a set of
factors that, when present, are significantly correlated to the effectiveness of economic
and community development strategy making initiatives. These include (a) a network
organizational structure, (b) an asset-based framework, (c) a process in which the
102
planning and implementation is integrated, (d) responsibilities for implementing the
strategy that are shared among multiple organizations, (e) a set of goals that includes
“early wins,” (f) a readiness for change, (g) high levels of trust among strategy initiative
participants, and (h) data and metrics that are used primarily as a learning tool.
These findings are consistent with the literature presented in Chapter 1 related to
the three contributing theories of collaborative governance from public administration,
social innovation from sociology, and strategy formation from business.
Interpretation of the Findings
A grounded theory approach was selected as the first phase of this study because
of the glaring lack of evidence in the literature related to economic and community
development strategy making. In order to build a theoretical framework for the study,
three related theories were explored. These included collaborative governance, social
innovation, and strategy formation. These three theories led to the set of five contingent
factors of effectiveness that were explored in the study. These five a priori factors were
confirmed in the study, and an additional two factors emerged during the qualitative
phase. So, in essence, this research confirmed what was found in the peer-reviewed
literature described in Chapter 2.
The grounded study approach often includes the identification of a central
phenomenon demonstrated by what is extensively discussed by the participants
(Creswell, 2007, p. 160). With that in mind, the theme or factor of asset-based
frameworks could be considered as the central phenomenon in the findings, with 43
interview excerpts coded as “process” and 41 of those coded as “asset based.” Additional
103
evidence for this as a central factor in effective economic and community development
strategy making was added in the quantitative phase and expressed by the fact that the
highest level of correlation was for asset-based frameworks and effectiveness.
All of the a priori factors that were confirmed in study were present in one or
more of the three contributing theories that informed this research. Asset-based
frameworks are included in both the theories of social innovation (Neumeier, 2001) and
the collaborative governance (Merkle, 2010). Network organizational structures is
another component of these two theories as well as the theory of strategy formation
(Johanson, 2009). Iterative process was considered in the discussions of strategy
formation as well (Sminia, 2012). Dispersed or decentralized implementation can be
found in social innovation theory (Bouchard, 2012) and Gibson (2011) points to
intermediate outcomes or small wins as a vital factor in collaborative governance theory.
One of the emergent themes, trust among participating organizations is also found in one
of the contingent themes. Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh (2012) note that collaborative
governance builds trust and that trust is an instrumental factor in effectiveness of
collaborative governance.
Limitations of the Study
In chapter 1 three limitations of the study were identified, including the
difficulty in making generalizations from grounded theory research, the validity and
reliability of the quantitative instrument, and the absence of a traditional means of
control. Chapter 1 also outlined a strategy to address all three of these, a quantitative
phase to mitigate against the generalization limitation, member checking to address the
104
instrument issues, and quantitative design that included a creative means of assigning
participants to two contrasting groups. Even though these limitations were adequately
addressed and no additional issues of limitations, generalization, and trustworthiness
rose, the study, like all studies, is not without some lingering limitations.
Although issues of generalization of the grounded theory approach were
addressed by adding a qualitative component, generalization or transferability of the final
results is still limited. Those who responded to the survey, for instance, were all affiliated
in some way to the Purdue Center for Regional Development since the sampling strategy
began with a random sample of 300 from the contact database of 9,000. An affinity
variation of the snowball sampling technique was added to the sampling strategy in an
attempt to draw in other respondents who were not directly affiliated with the Purdue
center. First, the researchers had no way of knowing if any of the respondents actually
included any of these once-removed individuals and even if some of them were among
the respondents, the very notion of their affinity with the first group of 300 could mean
that they are all predisposed to some common experiences and understanding related to
economic and community development strategy making.
Recommendations
Although it sounds like a play on words, this study rooted in the grounded theory
approach really does break new ground in the understanding of why some economic and
community development strategy initiatives are effective while others are not. The
addition of a quantitative phase lays down the first few foundation blocks on this soil. It
will take others to add to the foundation and eventually build something that will have
105
significant impact on the understanding of this phenomenon. This study can help frame a
number of new research questions. The following are a few recommended ones that could
add some of those additional foundation bricks.
First, would the same findings result if the survey were to be administered to
another population sample with no affiliation, either directly or once-removed, from the
Purdue center? Secondly, knowing that these eight factors correlate with effectiveness is
helpful but is there causation? Does trust among participating organizational
representatives predict an effective strategy process or is there something about an
effective strategy process the builds trust among the participants? Third, just because
there is now some evidence that these factors are correlated with effective initiatives, and
even if we jump to making assumptions of causation like a networked organizational
structure leads to more effective strategy making initiatives, questions arise like what sort
of networked structures are most effective? Lastly, we are left with questions that may be
of most interest to the scholar practitioner - how do we go about assuring that these
factors are present in a strategy making initiative? How, for instance, would a local
economic development professional assess readiness for change? This study answers a
few question but helps surface many, many more. These are few recommendations for
where to start.
Implications
The potential impact of this research for social change will most likely to be at
three levels: organizational, community, and public policy. At the organizational level,
the findings of this research could potentially change the way in which economic and
106
community development is practiced. As discussed in the literature, economic and
community development is a relatively new practice. The organizations that are dedicated
to this work, and professionals who lead them, have had very little research-based
information on the factors that can help lead to effective strategy making processes.
Although this study stops short of causation, it provides a clear set of factors that shed
light on the phenomenon and will inform the practice. The findings of this study will, of
course, need to be disseminated, in order for social change to begin occurring. As both a
scholar as well as a practitioner in the field of economic and community development and
as a part of the national land grant university system there are several avenues for
dissemination I will pursue. These include presentations to organizations like the
International Economic Development Council, the National Association of Community
Development Extension Professionals, and the Community Development Society. Also,
the findings of this study will be incorporated into educational programming that will
reach economic and community development professionals around the nation. As a part
of the land grant university I also have the benefit of developing and executing evaluation
protocols that can measure any social change that occurs as a result of the dissemination
of these findings.
As the findings of this research are tested by practitioners, where they do indeed
lead to more effective strategy initiatives, the social change implications could be
significant for local and regional communities and those who live in them. Ideally,
economic development efforts that are more effective will lead to communities that
benefit from more effective strategies for economic growth resulting in all the traditional
107
signs of successful economic development – new jobs, higher wages, increased tax
revenues, etc. These metrics can be tracked using the aforementioned mechanisms.
The findings of this research could also help inform public policy at the local,
state, and federal levels. Perhaps not from this one study alone, but if the findings of this
research were to be replicated and expanded upon, it could potentially change the way in
which government agencies invest in economic and community development. For
instance, the U.S. Economic Development Administration could use these findings to
make changes to policies related to the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
program.
Although this research may not have broken any new ground methodologically or
empirically, it has certainly staked a claim theoretically. Prior to this research there was
no theory of economic and community development strategy making. Now there is at
least a framework for a theory – developed and tested for the first time, setting the stage
for others to put it through its paces, debate it, refine it, and apply it in other contexts.
The findings of this research also resulted in some specific recommendations for
the practice of economic and community development. Practitioners can test drive this
theory, and apply its principles wholesale or in pieces and parts. They can try positioning
themselves as a hub in a network rather than somewhere in a hierarchy. They can see
what happens when they build a new economic growth strategy by linking and leveraging
their assets, rather than starting from a perspective in which their deficits are the
organizing principle for a strategy.
108
Reflection on the Experience
Writing this dissertation provide for me an opportunity to codify the work I’ve
been doing over the last twenty years, applying academic rigor to hunches I’ve developed
in my years of practice. This work I do, attempting to help communities and regions have
brighter futures is, in many ways, a family legacy. Sid, who was mentioned in the
beginning of this study, the Arkansas man who built his town a ferry and attended to
some of the healthcare needs of his fellow residents by sending his son to dental school,
was Sid Hutcheson, my great grandfather. His son, of course, was my grandfather who
served his community in many ways beyond just dental care. My hope is that, in the same
spirit as these earlier generations, my gifts and abilities are helpful communities. This
dissertation and the resulting Ph.D., provides me with a new base of knowledge and
added credibility with which to disseminate it. I can’t build a ferry and I didn’t become a
small town-dentist, but I can write, and teach, continue to research, and equip the next
generation to know a more about how to best help communities and regions plan for the
future.
Conclusion
This study started with two research questions and then answered them. The
findings provide a better understanding of economic and community development
strategy making and what factors, when present, seem to lead to higher levels of
effectiveness. Although it will be left with other researchers to confirm, refute, or fine
tune these findings, there is now new evidence to suggest that when people, who are
ready for change, come together in loosely joined networks to link and leverage their
109
assets, build trust as they move forward in an iterative process in which the planning and
doing are integrated, share the responsibility for action among multiple organizations,
and include near-term, early wins in their goals, they are more likely to be effective in
their efforts.
110
References
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543–571.
doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032
Arndt, H. W. (1981). Economic development: A semantic history. Economic
Development and Cultural Change, 29(3), 457–466.
Barnett, C. B., & Rodriguez, O. (2006). Connections matter: Using networks for
economic development. Public Management, 88(2), 10–12, 14–15.
Bartik, T. (2003). Local economic policies. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research. Retrieved from
http://research.upjohn.org/up_workingpapers/91/
Baxter County Bulletin. (2012, February 20). A look back: Ferry was only way to cross
the White River at Norfork. Retrieved from
http://www.baxterbulletin.com/article/20120220/NEWS01/302200013/A-LookBack-Ferry-only-way-cross-White-River-Norfork
Berry, F. S. (1994). Innovation in public management: The adoption of strategic
planning. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 322–330. Retrieved from
http://www.fu.uni-lj.si/personal/zdravkop/mvju/clanek2.pdf
Blackerby, P., & Blackerby, R. F. (1994). Strategic planning. Armed Forces Comptroller,
39(2), 21–26.
111
Blair, R. (2004). Public participation and community development: The role of strategic
planning. Public Administration Quarterly, 28(1/2), 102–147. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41288215
Bland, T., Bruk, B., Kim, D., & Lee, K. T. (2010). Enhancing public sector innovation:
Examining the network-innovation relationship. Innovation Journal: The Public
Sector Innovation Journal, 15(3), 1–17. Retrieved from
http://www.innovation.cc/scholarly-style/bland_enhancing_public15v3a3.pdf
Bolton. E., & Guest-Jelley, A. (2011). Working with nonprofit organizations in
community settings: The strategic plan. University of Florida Extension.
Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fy837
Bouchard, J. (2012). Social innovation, an analytical grid for understanding the social
economy: The example of the Québec housing sector. Service Business, 6(1), 47–
59. doi: 10.1007/s11628-011-0123-9
Bowen, G. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 1–9. Retrieved from
http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_3/PDF/bowen.pdf
Bryson, J. M., & Roering, W. D. (1987). Applying private-sector strategic planning in the
public sector. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(1), 9–22.
doi:10.1080/01944368708976631
Bryson, J. M. (2011). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide
to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement (4th ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
112
Buchanan, J., & Jones, M. L. (2010). The efficacy of utilising Nvivo for interview data
from the electronic gaming industry in two jurisdictions. Review of Management
Innovation & Creativity, 3(5), 1–15. Retrieved from
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1775&context=commpapers
Chiclana, F., Tapia García, J. M., del Moral, M. J., & Herrera-Viedma, E. A. (2013)
Statistical comparative study of different similarity measures of consensus in
group decision making. Information Sciences, 221(1), 110–123. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002002551200607X
Chrisinger, C. K., Fowler, C. S., & Kleit, R. G. (2012). Shared skills: Occupation clusters
for poverty alleviation and economic development in the US. Urban Studies,
49(15), 3403–3425. doi:10.1177/0042098011433489
City of Portland. (2009). Economic development strategy: A five-year plan for promoting
job creation and economic growth. Retrieved from
http://pdxeconomicdevelopment.com/docs/Portland-Ec-Dev-Strategy.pdf
Clarke, G., Huxley, J., & Mountford, D. (2010). Organising local economic development:
The role of development agencies and companies. Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/41/44682618.pdf?contentId=446
Collins, H. (1983, November 30). Area leaders are banking on Philadelphia’s
revitalization. Philadelphia Enquirer, D13.
Colson, J. (2008). The Attributes of Successful Business Attraction. Angelou Economics.
Retrieved from http://www.angeloueconomics.com/Articles/Success.html
113
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.. (1990) Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and
evaluative criteria. University of California, Department of Social and Behavioral
Sciences. Retrieved from http://zfsonline.org/index.php/zfs/article/viewFile/2741/2278
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denhardt, R. (1985). Strategic planning in state and local government. State and Local
Government Review, 17(4), 174–179. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4354834
Dodge, W., & Eadie, D. (1982). Strategic planning: An approach to launching new
initiatives in an era of retrenchment. Management Information Service Report,
14(9), 1– 13. doi:10.1080/13645579.2010.494930
Dunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(2), 111–124.
Eadie, D. (1983). Putting a powerful tool to practical use: The application of strategic
planning in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 43(5), 447–453.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for
collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
22(1), 1–29. doi:10.1093/jopart/mur011
114
Emery, M., & Flora, C. (2006). Spiraling-Up: Mapping community transformation with
community capitals framework. Journal of the Community Development Society,
37(1), 19–35. doi:10.1080/15575330609490152
Fainstein, S. (1991). Promoting economic development: Urban planning in the United
States and Great Britain. Journal of the American Planning Association, 57(1),
22–33. doi:10.1080/01944369108975469
Feser, E. (2009). Clusters and strategy in regional economic development. Industry
Clusters 3, 26–38. Retrieved from
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=edwardfeser
Flora, C. B. (1992). Rural communities: Legacy & change. Westview Press: Boulder,
CO.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (2008). Research Methods in the Social
Sciences, 7th ed. Worth: New York.
Gibson, R. (2011). A primer on collaborative multi-level governance. Department of
Geography, Memorial University. Retrieved from
http://research.library.mun.ca/310/1/primer_collaborative.pdf
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence vs. forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Hamilton, F. (2007). Economic development strategic planning. Economic Development
Journal, 6(1): 44–50.
Hammer, R. J., Edwards, J. S., & Tapinos, E. (2012). Examining the strategy
development process through the lens of complex adaptive systems theory.
115
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 63(7): 909-919.
Havercamp, S. (2008). Assessing the face, content, construct and validity of the Florida
questionnaire for situational information: Observations of two expert panels.
Human Services Research Institute. Retrieved from http://apd.myflorida.com/qsiwsc-training/docs/assessing-the-fcc-validity-of-the-fl-qsi.pdf
Heifetz, R., & Sinder, R. (1988). The power of public ideas. R. Riech (Ed.). Harvard
University Press.
Hein, C., Cole, R., & Ayres, J. (1990). Take charge: Economic development in small
communities - Empowering rural communities for the 1990's. North Central
Regional Center for Rural Development.
Hickey, G. (1997). The use of literature in grounded theory. Nursing Times Research,
2(5): 371–378. doi: 10.1177/174498719700200510
Hutcheson, S. (2008) Economic Development 2.0: Innovation-Based Revitalization
Efforts. Western Illinois University Rural Research Report 19(4). Retrieved from
http://www.iira.org/pubs/publications/IIRA_RRR_695.pdf
Hutcheson, S. (2012). Effectiveness of economic development strategy models: A
quantitative research design. Unpublished manuscript.
Hutcheson, S. (2012). Strategic doing as a development tool: Transform your community,
change your world. Proceedings from the Community Development Society
Annual Conference. Retrieved from http://www.commdev.org/attachments/118_Track%202%20Strategic%20Doing%20as%20a%20De
116
velopment%20Tool%20Transform%20Your%20Community%20Change%20You
r%20World-%20Hutcheson.pdf
Hutcheson, S., & Morrison, E. (2012). Transforming regions through strategic doing.
CHOICES: Public Sector Options for Creating Jobs (27)2. Retrieved from
http://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/public-sectoroptions-for-creating-jobs
Johanson, J. (2009). Strategy formation in public agencies. Public Administration, 87(4),
872-891. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01767.x
Johnston, E. W., Hicks, D., Nan, N., & Auer, J. C. (2011). Managing the inclusion
process in collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 21(4): 699–721.
Kretzmann, J., & McKnight, J. P. (1996). Assets‐based community development.
National Civic Review, 85(4), 23–29.
Kwon, M., Berry, F., & Feiock, R. (2009). Understanding the adoption and timing of
economic development strategies in US cities using innovation and institutional
analysis. Journal Of Public Administration Research & Theory, 19(4), 967–988.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2010). Guidelines for conducting and reporting
mixed research in the field of counseling and beyond. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 88(1): 61–69. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00151.x
Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2005). A handbook for teacher research from design to
implementation. Cranbury, NJ: Pearson Education.
117
Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review
19(2): 79–88.
Longworth, R. (2007). Caught in the Middle: America’s Heartland in the Age of
Globalism. Bloomsbury, USA: New York.
Markey, S., Connelly, S., & Roseland, M. (2010). ‘Back of the envelope’: Pragmatic
planning for sustainable rural community development. Planning, Practice &
Research, 25(1): 1–23. doi:10.1080/02697451003625356
Martinelli, F. (2006). Strategic planning: Q&A with faculty. University of Wisconsin
Extension.
Retrieved from http://www.uwex.edu/ces/cced/nonprofits/management/q-a1.cfm.
McGhee, G., Marland, G. R., & Atkinson, J. M. (2007) Grounded
theory research: Literature reviewing and reflexivity. Journal of Advanced
Nursing 60(3), 334–342. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04436.x
McGuire, M. (2000). Collaborative policy making and administration: The operational
demands of local economic development. Economic Development Quarterly,
14(3, 278–291. doi: 10.1177/089124240001400307
McNabb, D. E. (2002). Research methods in public administration and nonprofit
management: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. NY: M.E. Sharpe.
McNamara C. (n.d.). All about strategic planning. Free Management Library. Retrieved
from http://managementhelp.org/strategicplanning/index.htm#anchor4293674666
Merkel, B. (2010). COINS: An economic development tool for education, economic and
workforce development in Open Source Economic Development. Procedia-Social
118
and Behavioral Sciences, 2(4): 6516–6531. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.04.061
Miller, K. “Panel: Move FSU digital arts school to Tallahassee; Committee says it can't
justify West Palm locale without collaborators.” Palm Beach Post 9 February
2013: A1.
Miller. H. “Anderson and Lebanon: Small towns with big ideas.” Indiana Business 1995,
August: 29.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review,
72(1): 107–114.
Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24(9): 934–
948. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/205833133?accountid=14872
Morrison, E. (2007). The new opportunities for rural development. The Rural Research
Report, 18(8), 1–11. Retrieved from
http://www.iira.org/pubs/publications/IIRA_RRR_685.pdf
Morrison, E. (2012). Community visioning programs: Processes and outcomes (N.
Walzer and G. Hamm (Eds.). Rutledge: Hoboken, NJ.
Morrison, E. (2012). Comparing strategic planning and strategic doing. Retrieved from
http://pcrd.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/02/comparing-strategic-planning-andstrategic-doing.html
Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., & Sanders, B. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why
it matters and how it can be accelerated. Said Business School, Oxford
119
University. Retrieved from
http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/centres/skoll/research/Documents/Social%20Innovation.
pdf
Neumeier, S. (2011). Why do social innovations in rural development matter and should
they be considered more seriously in rural development research – proposal for a
stronger focus on social innovations in rural development research. Scociologia
Ruralis, 52(1): 48–69.
Nolan, C., Morrison, E., Kumar, I., Galloway, H., & Cordes, S. (2010). Linking industry
and occupation clusters in regional economic development. Economic
Development Quarterly, 25(1), 26–35. doi: 10.1177/0891242410386781
North Central Arkansas Economic Development (n.d.). Working for you. Retrieved from
http://www.ncared.com/
Olberding, J. (2009). Toward evaluating the effectiveness of regional partnerships for
economic development in U.S. metropolitan areas. International Journal of
Public Administration, 32(5): 393–414. doi:10.1080/01900690902799904
Oliveira, C., & Breda-Vazquez, I. (2012). Creativity and social innovation: What can
urban policies learn from sectoral experiences? International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research, 36(3): 522–38. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01024.x
Olson, C., Balmer, J, & Mejicano, G. (2011). Factors contributing to successful
interorganizational collaboration: The case of CS2day. Journal of Continuing
Education in the Health Professions, 31(S1): S3–S12. doi: 10.1002/chp.20143
120
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling
designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report 12(1): 281–316.
Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR12-2/onwuegbuzie2.pdf
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). A call for qualitative power analyses.
Quality & Quantity, 41(1): 105–121. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-0051098-1
Ospina, S., & Saz-Carranza, A. (2010). Paradox and collaboration in network
management. Administration & Society, 42(4), 404–440. doi:
10.1177/0095399710362723
Pammer, Jr., W. J. (1998). Linking economic development to strategic planning: Issues
for community problem solving. Public Administration Quarterly, 22(3): 277–
300. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40862321
Parnell, J. A. (2008). Strategy execution in emerging economies: Assessing strategic
diffusion in Mexico and Peru. Management Decision, 46(9): 1277–1298. doi:
10.1108/00251740810911948
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Perrucci, R., & Pilisuk, M. (1970). Leaders and ruling elites: The interorganizational
bases of community power. American Sociological Review, 35(6), 1040–1057.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2093381
121
Peterson, M., & Rose, M. (2006). 21st Century vision: A report from the people.
University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. Retrieved from
http://www.ncared.com/images/21st_pdfs/report_people.pdf
Poister, T. H. (2010). The future of strategic planning in the public sector: Linking
strategic management and performance. Public Administration Review, 70(1):
246–254.
Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. (2005). Elements of strategic planning and management in
municipal government: Status after two decades. Public administration review,
65(1), 45–56. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/197177463?accountid=14872
. Pozzebon, M., Petrini, M., de Mello, R. B., & Garreau, L. (2011). Unpacking
researchers' creativity and imagination in grounded theorizing: An exemplar from
IS research. Information and Organization, 21(4), 177–193.
. Reed, B., & Blair, R. (1993). Economic development in rural communities: Can
strategic planning make a difference? Public Administration Review, 53(1): 88–
92. Retrieved from Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/197163079?accountid=14872
Rindermann, H. (2012). Intellectual classes, technological progress and economic
development: The rise of cognitive capitalism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 53(2): 108–113.
122
Rindova, V., Dalpiaz, E., & Ravasi, D. (2011). A cultural quest: A study of
organizational use of new cultural resources in strategy formation. Organization
Science, 22(2), 413–431. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0537
Rivera, M. T., Soderstrom, S. B., & Uzzi, B. (2010). Dynamics of dyads in social
networks: Assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annual Review of
Sociology, 36, 91–115. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134743
Robichau, R. (2010). The effects of economic development strategies in local
municipalities. Perspectives in Public Affairs, 7: 26–41.
Rowe, J. (2012). The case for employing Deleuzian philosophical concepts for
understanding local economic development. Applied Geography, 32: 73–79.
Sadler, G., Lee, H., Lim, R., & Fullerton, J. (2010). Recruitment of Hard-to-Reach
Population Subgroups via Adaptations of the Snowball Sampling Strategy.
Nursing & Health Sciences, 12(3), 369–374. doi:10.1111/j.14422018.2010.00541.x
Sminia, H. (2009). Process research in strategy formation: Theory, methodology and
relevance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 97–125. doi:
10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00253.x
Tapinos, E., Dyson, R. G., & Meadows, M. (2010). Does the Balanced Scorecard make a
difference to the strategy development process? Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 62(5), 888–899.
Trochim, W. (2006). Nonprobablity sampling. Web Center for Social Research Methods.
Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/sampnon.php
123
U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration, n.d.).
Comprehensive economic development strategies: Summary of requirements.
Retrieved from
http://www.ct.gov/ecd/lib/ecd/CEDS_Flyer_Wht_Backround%5B2%5D.pdf.
United States Department of Agriculture. (1995). Strategic planning: Cooperative
information report 45, section 10. Retrieved from
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/CIR%2045_10.pdf
USDA Rural Development (2011). Opportunities for a prosperous tomorrow: A regional
economic development strategy for rural south Texas. Retrieved from
http://strreds.wikispaces.com/file/view/STRREDS%202011-2015%20FINAL.pdf.
Vaughn, V. “Looking to the future new president of Disney Development takes on big
challenge. Orlando Sentinel 6 January 1986: 19.
Walzer, N., & Cordes, S. M. (2012). Overview of innovative community change
programs. Community Development, 43(1): 2–11.
doi:10.1080/15575330.2011.653979
Wasserman S., Pattison P., & Steinley D. (2005). Social networks. Encyclopedia of
Statistics in Behavioral Science. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Retried from
doi: 10.1002/0470013192.bsa720
Weissbourd, R., & Muro, M. (2011). Metropolitan business plans: A new approach to
economic growth. Brookings Institution. Retrieved from
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Events/2010/12/08%20metro%20summit/120
8_metro_summit_business_framing_paper.PDF
124
Wichner, D. “Tuscon is urged to seize lead in medical diagnostics.” McClatchy – Tribune
Business News 28 March 2013.
Wolf-Powers, L. (2012). Human-capital-centred regionalism in economic development:
A case of analytics outpacing institutions? Urban Studies, 49(15), 3427-3446. doi:
10.1177/0042098012440123
Woods, M. D., & Sloggett, G. (1988). Strategic planning for economic development in
rural areas and small towns of Oklahoma. Division of Agricultural Sciences and
Natural Resources, Oklahoma State University.
http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-1630/
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Tamosaitiene, J. (2011). Selection of construction
enterprises management strategy based on the SWOT and multi-criteria analysis.
Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 11(4): 1063–1082.
125
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
The following are the questions that will be used in the interviews. The main
questions are numbered and the follow-up questions or probes are alphabetized under
each question.
For each of the next few questions, consider both the effective and ineffective
economic or community development strategy initiatives in which you were involved or
of which you are familiar. I’ll first ask you to answer relative to the effective ones and
then the effective ones.
What can you tell me about the way in which the initiatives were structured in
terms of the organization or organizations involved?
Was the structure hierarchical, a network, or some other sort of structure?
How were decisions made, by vote, by consensus, in some other way?
How important do you think the organizational structure was on the overall
effectiveness of the initiatives?
Is there anything else you think is important for me to know regarding the
organizational structure?
Can you give me an example that illustrates what you’ve just described?
What can you tell me about the framework of the initiatives in terms of whether
they were focused primarily on existing assets and building on those assets, on the limits
and deficits in the community, or perhaps both?
How important do you think the framework was on the overall effectiveness of
the initiatives?
126
Is there anything else you think is important for me to know regarding the
framework?
Can you give me an example that illustrates what you’ve just described?
What can you tell me about the processes used in the initiatives in terms of
whether the planning and doing were sequential or more integrated with one another?
How important do you think the planning/doing process was on the overall
effectiveness of the initiatives?
Is there anything else you think is important for me to know regarding the
planning/doing?
Can you give me an example that illustrates what you’ve just described?
What can you tell me about the timeframes of the initiatives in terms of whether
the focus was primarily on early, short term wins, longer-term wins, or both?
How important do you think the timeframes were on the overall effectiveness of
the initiatives?
Is there anything else you think is important for me to know regarding the
timeframes?
Can you give me an example that illustrates what you’ve just described?
What can you tell me about implementation of the strategies in the initiatives in
terms of the responsibilities for implementation?
Did the responsibilities for implementation rest primarily with a single
organization; was it shared among many organizations, or something in between?
127
How important do you think the responsibilities for implementation was a factor
in the overall effectiveness of the initiatives?
Is there anything else you think is important for me to know regarding the
responsibilities for implementation?
Can you give me an example that illustrates what you’ve just described?
Besides those we’ve discussed already, what other factors do you think have a
significant impact on the effectiveness of the development and implementation of
economic and community development strategies?
128
Appendix B: Survey Protocol
The first item of the survey will be randomly assigned to participants. Half will
receive an item stated as follows: For the following questions, please consider an
effective community-based economic development initiative in which you have been
involved within the last few years. Please remember to answer all of the questions with
the effective initiative in mind.
In addition to those instructions, thee participants will be provided with a threepoint likert scale to measure effectiveness: (1) somewhat effective, (2) significantly
effective, and (3) completely effective.
The other half will receive an item stated as follows: For the following questions,
please consider an ineffective community-based economic development initiative in
which you have been involved within the last few years. Please remember to answer all
of the questions with the ineffective initiative in mind.
In addition to those instructions, thee participants will be provided with a threepoint likert scale to measure ineffectiveness: (1) somewhat ineffective, (2) significantly
ineffective, and (3) completely ineffective.
Once the factors are identified in the qualitative phase they will be used to
construct the survey questions. The following is an example of the survey questions using
one of the five contingent factors from the literature review. The final survey questions
will follow the same format.
129
Appendix C: Survey Screen Print
130
131
132
133
Appendix D Code Occurrence Chart
134
Appendix E: Code Co-Occurrence Chart
135
Appendix F: Descriptive Statistics Report from SPSS for Group 1 (Effective) and Group
2 (Ineffective)
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet5.
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=QE QOS QF QP Q9_1 QIM QM QC QT
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.
Descriptives
Notes
27-AUG-2013
06:54:42
Output Created
Comments
Input
Missing Value
Handling
Syntax
Resources
/Users/jhutches/Drop
Data
box/Group_1_Effectiv
e_Data_Subset.sav
Active Dataset
DataSet5
Filter
<none>
Weight
<none>
Split File
<none>
N of Rows in Working Data
57
File
User defined missing
Definition of Missing
values are treated as
missing.
All non-missing data
Cases Used
are used.
DESCRIPTIVES
VARIABLES=QE
QOS QF QP Q9_1
QIM QM QC QT
Processor Time
Elapsed Time
/STATISTICS=MEAN
STDDEV MIN MAX.
00:00:00.01
00:00:00.00
[DataSet5] /Users/jhutches/Dropbox/Group_1_Effective_Data_Subset.sav
136
Descriptive Statistics
N
Min
Max
For the effective economic or
community development
strategy initiative you have in
mind, how would...
What was the organizational
structure like?-Organizational
Structure
What was the orienting
framework?-Orienting
Framework
What was the planning and
implementation process
like?-Planning &
Implementation Process
What was the timeframe for
strategy implementation?Timeframe for Strategies
Where were the
responsibilities for
implementation?Responsibilities for
Implementation
Where was the role of
metrics?-Role of Metrics
What was the community's
attitude toward change?Attitude toward Chage
What was the level of trust
among the key organizational
representatives?-Level of
Trust
Valid N (listwise)
57
4
6
Mean
Std.
Deviation
4.95
.666
57
2.00 10.00
7.5263
2.34601
56
1.00 10.00
7.7143
2.18019
56
2.00 10.00
7.4107
1.98885
56
2.00 10.00
6.4643
2.57939
57
1.00 10.00
7.1228
2.61227
51
2.00 10.00
7.6078
1.96039
53
2.00 10.00
7.3585
2.08561
57
1.00 10.00
7.8246
2.01886
46
137
What was the community's
attitude toward change?Attitude toward Change
What was the level of trust
among the key organizational
representatives?-Level of
Trust
QEI
For the effective economic or
community development
strategy initiative you have in
mind, how would...
For the ineffective economic
or community development
strategy initiative you have in
mind, how woul...
What was the organizational
structure like?-Organizational
Structure
Valid N (listwise)
10
3
1.00 10.00
5.4951
2.93683
10
6
1.00 10.00
5.8585
3.01248
10
8
57
1.00
6.00
3.5833
1.61838
4
6
4.95
.666
51
1
5
2.12
.887
1.00 10.00
5.8796
2.99444
10
8
0
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet8.
GET
FILE='/Users/jhutches/Documents/Group_2_Ineffective Dataset.sav'.
DATASET NAME DataSet9 WINDOW=FRONT.
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=QI QOS QF QP Q9_1 QIM QM QC QT
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.
Descriptives
Notes
Output Created
Comments
Input
27-AUG-2013 07:04:52
Data
/Users/jhutches/Documents/Grou
p_2_Ineffective Dataset.sav
138
Missing Value
Handling
Active
Dataset
Filter
Weight
Split File
N of Rows in
Working
Data File
Definition of
Missing
Cases Used
Syntax
Resources
Processor
Time
Elapsed
Time
DataSet9
<none>
<none>
<none>
51
User defined missing values are
treated as missing.
All non-missing data are used.
DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=QI
QOS QF QP Q9_1 QIM QM QC
QT
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV
MIN MAX.
00:00:00.01
00:00:00.00
[DataSet9] /Users/jhutches/Documents/Group_2_Ineffective Dataset.sav
Descriptive Statistics
N
Min
Max
Mean
For the ineffective
economic or
community
development
strategy initiative
you have in mind,
how woul...
51
1
5
Std.
Deviation
2.12
.887
139
What was the
organizational
structure like?Organizational
Structure
What was the
orienting
framework?Orienting
Framework
What was the
planning and
implementation
process like?Planning &
Implementation
Process
What was the
timeframe for
strategy
implementation?Timeframe for
Strategies
Where were the
responsibilities for
implementation?Responsibilities for
Implementation
Where was the role
of metrics?-Role of
Metrics
What was the
community's
attitude toward
change?-Attitude
toward Change
51
1.00
10.00
4.0392
2.54528
51
1.00
10.00
4.0000
2.44131
49
1.00
9.00
3.7551
2.14603
50
1.00
10.00
3.9000
2.30572
50
1.00
10.00
4.0200
2.76634
49
1.00
9.00
3.2449
1.93144
50
1.00
9.00
3.5200
2.36678
140
What was the level
of trust among the
key organizational
representatives?Level of Trust
Valid N (listwise)
49
42
1.00
10.00
3.5714
2.27303
141
Appendix G: Correlations Screen Prints from SPSS
142
Appendix H: Peer Review Letter
143
Curriculum Vitae
SCOTT HUTCHESON
HIGHER EDUCATION CAREER HIGHLIGHTS
2011 - Present
Assistant Director of Extension Economic and Community Development,
Purdue University.
Establish strategic direction for the university’s statewide economic and
community development efforts including programmatic supervision of nearly 60
professional staff. Responsible for resource and partnership development and
faculty relations to support the program and serving on the Extension leadership
team that guides all of the university’s Extension efforts.
2011 - Present
Assistant Director, Purdue Center for Regional Development, Purdue
University.
Assist in leading the nation’s premier university center focused on regional
development. Specific responsibilities include resource and partnership
development with federal and state agencies, staff supervision, marketing and
branding of the center’s work, and creation of innovative models for regional
development recognized (both nationally and internationally) as among the most
innovative in the field.
2005 - 2011
Senior Associate, Purdue Center for Regional Development, Purdue
University.
Provided leadership to the center’s highest-profile projects including a $15 million
regional economic development initiative that is recognized as one of the nation’s
top projects focused on regional economic growth.
2005 - 2011
Assistant Program Leader, Economic and Community Development, Purdue
Extension.
Provided administrative leadership to the Economic and Community Development
program area of Purdue Extension.
1997 – 2001
Leadership and Community Development Specialist, Purdue University.
Designed and managed programs related to community leadership and economic
development, taught seminars and workshops, and provided technical assistance to
government, nonprofit, and community-group clients.
CORPORATE & NONPROFIT CAREER HIGHLIGHTS
2001 – 2005
Senior Principal, Thomas P. Miller & Associates.
Provided leadership in policy analysis projects related to higher education,
economic development, and human capital projects for corporate, government, and
college/university clients.
144
1995 – 1997
Planning Associate, United Way of Central Indiana.
Responsible for leading projects through program design, implementation,
management, and evaluation.
1990 - 1992
Project Manager, AMR (parent company of American Airlines).
Responsible for managing corporate training program development and delivery.
COURSE DEVELOPMENT & TEACHING HIGHLIGHTS
2012
Purdue University Strategic Doing Certificate Program.
Co-created this national certificate program for economic development,
workforce development, and other professionals focused on accelerating
collaboration.
Stronger Economies Together.
Developed and taught course entitled Growing Regional Economies by Growing
Networks as part of the Stronger Economies Together program co-sponsored by
USDA Rural Development, Washington, DC and the Southern Center for Rural
Development, Mississippi State University.
2011 - Present
University of Oklahoma Economic Development Institute.
Serve as faculty member teaching economic development professionals. Courses
taught include Economic Development Strategy, Advanced Strategy Lab, and
Asset Mapping.
2011 - Present
International Economic Development Council.
Serve as an instructor to teach economic development professionals. Courses
taught include Incubators, Accelerators, and Technology Parks as Hubs for
Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
2005-Present
Purdue Extension Economic and Community Development.
Create and teach professional development courses for Purdue Extension
Economic and Community Development Professionals.
EDUCATION
2013
Doctor of Philosophy Candidate – Public Policy and Administration, Walden
University.
1995
Masters of Public Administration, University of Tennessee.
1988
Bachelors of Science in Communication, Tennessee Temple University.
CONTINUING EDUCATION HIGHLIGHTS
2012
National Center for Economic Gardening, Program Director Certification.
145
2011
Stronger Economies Together, Instructor Training, USDA Rural Development
and the Southern Center for Rural Development.
2007
Energizing Entrepreneurship Consultant Course, Center for Rural
Entrepreneurship.
2006
Economic Development Course, Ball State University.
2006
Business Retention & Expansion Certification Course, University of Minnesota.
2000
Myers-Brigs Type Indicator Facilitator Qualification Course, Florida State
University.
GRANT WRITING HIGHLIGHTS
Successfully secured and served as Principle Investigator on more than $31 million in research and
programmatic investment from public and private funders.
2011
Purdue Center for Regional Development, Purdue University
Developed a proposal that resulted in $100,000 of funding from the U.S. Economic
Development Administration Chicago Regional Office for the development of the
Motorsports & Vehicle Production Network.
Purdue Center for Regional Development, Purdue University
Developed a proposal that resulted in $25,000 form the National Association of
Manufacturers for the development of an action plan to incorporate industry skill
standards into university educational pathways.
2006
Purdue Center for Regional Development, Purdue University
Led an inter-institutional team in the development of a proposal that resulted in $15
million from the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training
Administration for a regional talent and innovation initiative
2005
Purdue Center for Regional Development, Purdue University
Part of a grant writing team that developed a proposal that resulted in $160,000
from the U.S. Economic Development Administration for the establishment of an
EDA Center at the university.
Purdue Center for Regional Development, Purdue University
Developed a proposal that resulted in $180,000 in funding from the Indiana State
Department of Agriculture for a regional economic development pilot project.
RESEARCH, PRESENTATIONS & PUBLICATIONS HIGHLIGHTS
Frequent presenter and panelist for national meetings and conferences sponsored by federal entities and
agencies including The White House, U.S. Economic Development Administration, and U.S. Department
of Labor; universities; industry and professional organizations, etc. The following are highlights of
presentations and peer-reviewed publications.
146
2013
Building Collaborative Capacity for Policy Change
Rural Policy Leadership Institute, Dallas, TX.
2012
Business Growth as an Economic Development Strategy
American Public Power Association Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN.
From Recession to Recovery: Know Your Region
Economic Development Administration, Naperville, IL.
Focusing on Business Growth as an Economic Development Strategy
International Economic Development Council, St. Louis, MO.
Linking and Leveraging Assets for Economic and Community Development
National Association of Community Development Extension Professionals, Park
City, Utah.
The Indiana Business Growth Network: A Strategy for Supporting SecondStage Companies
Indiana Economic Development Association Conference, Indianapolis, IN.
The Research University as an Economic Development Partner
Economic Development for Front-Line Professionals, Ball State University,
Indianapolis, IN.
Civic Leadership and Change in Regional Communities
Purdue Center for Regional Development, West Lafayette, IN.
Strategic Doing as a Development Tool: Transform Your Community, Change
Your World
Community Development Society Annual Conference, Cincinnati, OH.
Networked Engagement: Purdue’s Approach to Workforce Innovation
Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities, Washington, DC
Strategic DOING: Supporting Job Creation and Accelerating Civic Innovation
in Indiana
Co-authored with Ed Morrison for the Agriculture & Applied Economics
Association.
2011
Universities as Network Weavers for Economic Development
National Outreach Scholarship Conference, East Lansing, MI.
Incubators and Accelerators as Network Hubs for Innovation and
Entrepreneurship
Developed and taught workshop for professional economic development
professionals who are members of the International Economic Development
Council.
147
The Purdue University Experience: Nurturing an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem
in the Midwest of the United States
Book chapter co-authored with Nathalie Duval-Couetil for an upcoming University
of Essex publication. Expected publication in 2014.
The Indiana Business Growth Network: A Statewide Strategy for Supporting
Second-Stage Companies in Indiana
Annual Economic Gardening Conference. Orlando, FL.
Incubators and Accelerators as Hubs for Entrepreneurship & Innovation
International Economic Development Council. Indianapolis, IN.
2010
From Rustbelt Holdover to Innovation Stronghold: Continued Transformation
of the Central Indiana Economy
Policy Memo prepared for the Brookings Institution. Washington, DC.
Sustainable Communities: Local & Regional Food Systems
North Central Regional Center for Rural Development. East Lansing, MI.
For Local Government: Engaging with Local Officials
National Outreach Scholarship Conference. Raleigh, NC.
A Strategy for Regional Transformation in the Central Indiana Economy
Brookings Institution Auto Communities Working Group. Washington, DC.
From Rustbelt Holdover to Innovation Stronghold: Continued Transformation
of the Central Indiana Economy
White House Summit on Auto Communities. Washington, DC.
Role of the University in Regional Economic Development
International Economic Development Council. Columbus, OH.
Talent-Based Strategies for Business Growth: Matching University Graduates
with Industry Needs
National Association of Manufacturers. Washington, DC.
Building Regional Innovation and Entrepreneurship Systems
Rural Entrepreneurship Convening. USDA Rural Development. Nebraska City, NE.
2009
2+2=>4: A Case for University “In-Reach” Efforts to Support Economic
Development
National Association of Community Development Extension Professionals. San
Diego, CA.
A Regional Innovation Portfolio: New Tools for Regional Development
Regional Innovation During Boom or Bust Conference. South Bend, IN.
148
Role of the Research University in Supporting Regional Redevelopment &
Recovery
U.S. Department of Labor Recovery and Re-employment Research Conference.
Washington, DC.
Creating High-Energy Networks to Support Innovation
Edward Lowe Foundation. Big Rock Valley, MI.
Home Grown Indiana: A Food Lover’s Guide to Good Eating in the Hoosier
State
Book co-authored with Christine Barbour celebrating Indiana’s food and
agricultural entrepreneurs. Published by Indiana University Press.
2008
Economic Development 2.0: Innovation-Based Revitalization Efforts
Western Illinois University Rural Research Report. Vol. 19, No. 4.
A Model of University Support for Local & Regional Innovation-Based
Economic Development
University of Kentucky Economic Development Faculty Symposium. Lexington,
KY.
2007
The Effectiveness of Regional Innovation & Entrepreneurship Networks
U.S. Department of Labor Workforce Innovations Academy. Dallas, TX.