Skip to content

Writing – number 1

Monday 30 June 2014

After a very long hiatus, I am returning to this blog site to post. In large measure, this is part of a project to increase my written output. I have engaged a writing coach to help me overcome my most serious pathology — a lack of discipline. That is, I am capable of writing, but I do so only under the external discipline of a deadline. When submission deadlines are on the horizon, I can sequester myself in my office and write intensively for several days and be content with the outcome. The process is messy — literally, as I surround myself with open books, photocopies and open PDF files of journal articles, and scribbled notes that accumulated in the run-up to the writing event. And, of course, I cannot have two simultaneous writing projects ongoing.  Two phenomena militate against switching between writing projects: the physical mess and the requisite processes of thinking, composing, reference-checking, and editing that overlap during the course of meeting a deadline. Neither the open reference materials nor the incomplete thoughts from one project can be put aside in favor of another. Thus, it is necessary to develop a personal discipline that enables a more fluid writing process.

I will introduce you to the coach’s method as one of the themes of this blog in the coming weeks. At this juncture I will presage the presentation to say that an important element is the separation of thinking/composing from the act of writing. That is, one should develop the paragraphs that will be written at a particular point in time prior to the writing session. I will elaborate on this in the next few weeks as part of my devoirs.

As a second part of my training, I will also post short pieces from my current research projects. I will shuffle these in among the posts on writing as a way to practice the movement between projects. I will attempt to “think, then write” on a couple of these projects to see if I can overcome my pathological lack of discipline and my habits of confounding the different steps in writing and of burying my work space in open texts as some extravagant form of external memory.

The current projects involve the major thrust of my research on entrepreneurship: the phenomenon of collective entrepreneurship. I am participating on large projects funded by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the directorate of the USDA for competitive research grants. I am also interested in the cognitive and social processes that bring individuals or small firms together to entrée into collective entrepreneurial ventures. I will post on where these empirical and conceptual projects take me in the coming months as they unfold.

Otsogery, Adumbration, and the Intellectual Scavenger Hunt

Wednesday 19 September 2012

I am thoroughly enjoying a romp through On The Shoulders of Giants: A Shandean Postscript, by Robert K. Merton. I was provoked to read this book by a series of posts on a blog called, which is one of the three blogs that I read on a regular basis. It is a forum for sociologists, in the main, and the threads often touch on economic sociology – a sub-field that I find informative as a practicing non-sociologist. The recent thread introduced a STUNNING NEW APPROACH to economic sociology called “relational work” that is meant to overtake such useless approaches as Granovetter’s embeddedness. (I’ll make a separate post on this later.) I have difficulty with the central arguments about the originality of relational work, as it looks (to a practicing non-sociologist) to be derivative of Georg Simmel’s work a century ago, as well as significant elements of cultural anthropology and social psychology. When I and others raised the question, one of the disciples waded in with a scold that we were committing the “fallacy of adumbration”, which he attributed to Robert K. Merton, but cited Alejandro Portes.

So I read the section of Merton’s classic, Social Theory and Social Structure, in the 1968 edition, wherein he spent the first three dozen pages discussing whether an erudite scientist (or sociologist) would correctly identify pre-discoveries, anticipations, or adumbrations of a new work that appeared in the past. There are two things that I learned from reading Merton (1968) that I could not from reading Portes or the poster. (1) Adumbration (foreshadowing) is not the same as adumbrationism, which is the mean-spirited search for anticipations and adumbrations and the subsequent claim that there is “nothing new here”. (2) It is more important that the scientist (or sociologist) be aware of the taxonomy or systematics of ideas – how they are related – than their priority (in the chronological sense). To declare relational work as a new approach without doing the necessary systematics is the real fallacy.

Anyhow… let’s leave the rant aside. The development of Merton’s writing on adumbrationism began with his presidential address to the American Sociological Society (1957), continued through the elaboration of this material in Social Theory and Social Structure to the publication of the delightful On the Shoulders of Giants – hereafter OTSOG – in which he brings to fruition a two-decade search for priority in the aphorism by Isaac Newton, “If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”. This particular search for priority is couched in a general discussion of the transmission of knowledge, plagiarism and misattribution, and the general nonlinearity of the accumulation of knowledge. He trades on the nonlinearity by adopting the convolved style of Tristram Shandy, which celebrates his erudition and focus on systematics in the guise of establishing priority, a design captured in the coined word otsogery.

I haven’t the mind or the relentless spirit of R.K. Merton, but I do enjoy chasing down quotes, aphorisms, and original sources. I like my students to use original sources, too. Wikipedia doesn’t count. There are two of these intellectual scavenger hunts that I enjoyed very much.

In his seminal book, The Mechanisms of Governance, the Nobel Laureate in Economics, Oliver Williamson argues for pursuing his “interdisciplinary joinder of law, economics, and organization in a ‘modest, slow, molecular, definitive way’ ”. He footnotes this statement with a quote,

“The longer I live, citizen …” – This is the way the great passage in Peguy begins, words I once loved to say (I had them almost memorized) – “The longer I live, citizen, the less I believe in the efficiency of sudden illuminations that are not accompanied or supported by serious work, the less I believe in the efficiency of conversion, extraordinary, sudden, and serious, in the efficiency of sudden passions, and the more I believe in the efficiency of modest, slow, molecular, definitive work. The longer I live the less I believe in the efficiency of an extraordinary, sudden social revolution, improvised, marvelous, with or without guns and impersonal dictatorship – and the more I believe in the efficiency of modest, slow, molecular, definitive work.”

I could not fathom how Charles Péguy could have denounced sudden, wondrous conversion and sudden, extraordinary social revolution when he was (1) a famously devout Catholic;  a mystic whose poetry includes an exceptional hommage to Joan of Arc, and (2) a famously ardent socialist who believed strongly in the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. In fact, after giving up on the Catholicism of his youth while at the École Normale Supérieure, he returned to his faith in the middle of the first decade of the century, when he was in his early 30s. He was slain in the first battle of the Marne in 1914 at the age of 41.

Thus, it was hard to understand a quote that twice alludes to advancing age and a personal and social apostasy that was written by a man who died in full flower as a religious mystic and as a champion for human rights and the left. So, I went to the library and found Charles Péguy’s Oeuvres en Prose Complètes and read them back to front looking for this passage. I discovered the true passage early in the volume (nowhere close to his death) and translated for Williamson. I sent him my translations and the following.

The quote in Williamson’s text contains two red herrings. The first is, “this is the way the great passage in Peguy begins”. In fact, the quoted passage begins with the second clause of the fourth sentence of the twentieth paragraph of an essay presented as a dialogue. The second confusion is that the quote appears to be a single argument against sudden personal illuminations and sudden social revolutions. In fact, the passage is two distinct arguments in counterpoint. One party to the dialogue denies the value of sudden personal revelation and the other denies the value of sudden social revolution.

The young socialist atheist revolutionary (Péguy) consults a “citizen doctor: socialist, revolutionary, moralist, internationalist” as he has come down with the grippe while preparing for the Socialist Congress.

— … “And genius demands patience to work, doctor, and the longer I live, citizen, the less I believe in the effectiveness of sudden illuminations that are not accompanied by or supported by serious work, the less I believe in the effectiveness of sudden, wondrous, extraordinary conversions, the effectiveness of sudden passions, – and the more I believe in the effectiveness of modest, slow, molecular, definitive work.”

– “ The longer I live, responded the doctor gravely, the less I believe in the effectiveness of a sudden, extraordinary social revolution, wondrously improvised, with or without guns and impersonal dictatorship, – and the more I believe in the effectiveness of modest, slow, molecular, definitive, work for society.”

The conversation continues around the doctor’s thesis that one cannot believe in the “big questions” when unable to believe in the personal-level issue of faith. This essay was, in fact, written when Péguy was 26 and before his return to the church. He had just launched a publishing venture in support of socialist causes in January 1900, called Cahiers de la quinzaine, (Fortnightly Journals). This was to be his pulpit as a polemicist until his death, as well as a place where like-minded individuals published before they became famous.

The citation should read:  Péguy, Charles. “Encore de la grippe”, Cahiers de la quinzaine, volume I, number 6, March 20, 1900.

Williamson thanked me by return e-mail within the hour but admitted that he liked his erroneous, purloined quote “as it better suited his argument”. Nonetheless, my e-mail became part of his graduate course syllabus until he quit teaching.

The second scavenger hunt was the search for the aphorism, “If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door”. A quick perusal of the WWW suggested that the aphorism was attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson and was reported by two Unitarians (Sarah Yule and Mary Keene) for a compilation in 1889. Some folks suggest that this quote or a more elaborate one — “If a man can write a better book, preach a better sermon, or make a better mousetrap, than his neighbor, though he build his house in the woods, the world will make a beaten path to his door.” – was uttered by Emerson when he visited the Barbary Coast on a lecture tour in 1871. In any case, both quotes are a pale simulacrum of what Emerson would likely say.

So I repaired to the library again and started to read Emerson’s compiled writings. The citation that I have is Works, Volume VII, 1912 edition. In it the transcription of a journal entry that Emerson wrote while on a stagecoach tour of the Mohawk Valley in  New York during 1855, one finds his discourse on Fame.

“If a man has good corn, or wood, or boards, or pigs to sell, or can make better chairs or knives, crucibles, or church organs, than anybody else, you will find a broad, hard-beaten road to his house, tho it be in the woods. And if a man knows the law, people will find it out, tho he live in a pine shanty, and resort to him. And if a man can pipe or sing, so as to wrap the prisoned soul in an elysium; or can paint landscape, and convey into oils and ochers all the enchantments of spring or autumn; or can liberate or intoxicate all people who hear him with delicious songs and verses, ’tis certain that the secret can not be kept: the first witness tells it to a second, and men go by fives and tens and fifties to his door. “ (page 528)

Now THAT is Emerson.

I’m looking for the next scavenger hunt. Perhaps Merton will provoke something in particular.

Excusing myself (in advance) for sporadic posting

Monday 22 August 2011

The new academic year is upon us! Unlike my colleagues who face 15 weeks of rhythmic behavior tied to classroom presence, I will be marching to several different drummers in contrapuntal syncopation. I will be teaching two executive courses: one for food industry executives in Canada, which will take me away for about a week each in Calgary and Halifax; and an entrepreneurship course for aggies, which will be taking place in Vermont and Kansas City.

I will have a week in the UK around a conference on evolutionary thinking in economics. This is not to say that economic thinking is evolving, rather it is about using evolutionary models of structure and behavior when thinking about economics. My colleague from the philosophy department, André Ariew, is joining me on this adventure, as we are writing together on the philosophy of organization sciences (including economics). I will be posting about this topic sporadically over the next few months.

I will have a few days in Australia around a speech on entrepreneurship in the agri-food sector in Melbourne at the end of October. Plus a day in transit each way…

Finally, there will be multi-day sojourns to Washington DC, Pittsburgh PA,  and Fort Collins CO.


Dinner in Alsace

Friday 22 July 2011

I organized a foray into the adjoining region — Alsace — last night with three philosophers of biology for a meal and lively discussion of research. I was joined by André Ariew of the University of Missouri, Elliott Sober of the University of Wisconsin, and Tim Lewens of Clare College, Cambridge University. The drive was about 140 kilometers each way, but the food and discourse were well worth it.

We ate at the Michelin three-star restaurant L’Auberge de l’Ill. This restaurant has been on my “bucket list” since a graduate school buddy – Bob Carney — raved about it. He was right, even 35 years later! Here is the tasting menu for the evening, minus the amuse-guele and a few other ancillary additions (chocolate truffles!). You will be disappointed with Google Translate if you try it…

– Le tourteau émietté aux herbes thaï, nage de concombre aux coquillage du moment et lait de coco

– Le filet de St Pierre poêlé aux spaghettis à l’encre, emulsion de pimentos au bouillon de calamar

– L’oeuf poché et jeune poireau grille sur une poêlée de champignons des prés et des bois

– Le carré d’agneau roti, beignet d’artichaut farci et pommes de terre cuites comme en vallée de Munster parfumées aux olives et au thym

– Les fromages (choices from 25+ on the cheese cart — all magnificent)

– La petite douceur inspire du cocktail Bellini à l’ècume de champagne et à la pêche blanche

– La gourmandise d’abricots au miel d’acacia et à la lavande

Hello from Nancy…

Wednesday 20 July 2011

Not a name, the city in eastern France.

I am in Nancy for the quadrennial Congress of Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. I will have a symposium paper in a few days, but now I am enjoying being an economist listening to philosophers of science (especially biology) examining a variety of interesting topics, followed (variously) by coffee, great food, beer, and wine. Nancy is in the Lorraine region and has a long, colorful history tied to Germany,Poland, Lithuania, Tuscany, and the Holy Roman Empire. It was a center of the Art  Nouveau movement and remains an important university city.

Dinner tonight at Place Stanislas with Jean Gayon of the Institut d’histoire et de philosophie des sciences et des techniques (CNRS and University of Paris) and Werner Callebaut of the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Austria, along with Missouri colleagues André Ariew and Chris Pincock (both of Philosophy). We took on the issues surrounding evolutionary models in economics and biology, fueled by andouillette and braised pork jowls, an excellent Rhone wine, and the local eau de vie called Mirabelle. This will be truly memorable.

Place Stanislas at night

Two posts on the History of Entrepreneurship Thought — elsewhere

Wednesday 13 July 2011

I have just written a couple of posts on contributions of Fritz Redlich to the study of entrepreneurship. They appear at the blog of the McQuinn Center on Entrepreneurship as this and that.

Redlich was a fascinating character who is not well known by current entrepreneurship scholars. He was trained in the manner of the  Youngest German Historical School, finishing his doctorate in Berlin, literally, on the eve of Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination. After WWI, he entered the family chemicals business and worked as a private scholar. He eventually completed the major work required for his habilitation (and eventual access to a professorship) just before the Nazis nationalized the family business and forced him into exile in the US. For an excellent biographical sketch, I recommend the eulogy written by Kenneth Carpenter and Alfred Chandler in 1979.

Redlich wrote several papers on entrepreneurship. Many exist only in German and there is no widely available synthesis of them. Others were written in English, as a result of counsel by Joseph Schumpeter to continue his studies on American business leaders and to publish them in English. The posts I note above look at two of these papers.

I have been remiss at keeping this site active. I guess trying to be active here, there, and there has dissipated my energies — which are at a low level, anyhow…

Moving on soon — Kathleen Sprouse

Wednesday 27 April 2011

Kathleen at Kunde Winery, Sonoma, CA

Kathleen Sprouse has been an active, productive research assistant for the past two academic years. She will graduate in a couple of weeks. She plans to take a trip to Europe with her sisters (sounds like fun!), then she will prepare herself to enter graduate school. She will begin her masters in Agricultural Economics at Michigan State University, continuing her research interest in entrepreneurship.

Kathleen will complete her degree at MU in agricultural journalism with a minor in agribusiness management. She did an undergraduate research internship in 2009-2010, during which she created an interview protocol for entrepreneurs, using a combination of closed-end questions and narrative analysis. She is adding to her sample of entrepreneurs this year, then she intends to write a manuscript sometime this summer. Her protocol includes videotaping the interviews and coding the videos for particular narrative points. This research design will be carried on over the coming years as part of our long term plan to create and archive some searchable data on ag entrepreneurs.

Kathleen was named as a Mizzou 39 scholar in February; that is, one of 39 outstanding seniors at the University of Missouri. This is a coveted and signal honor here. The “39” is derived from the founding date of the University.

She has also been the designer of the communication package for The Entrepreneurship Project. Go there and see some of her posts and videos — great stuff! I hope we’ll have additional posts about her ongoing research soon.

Meet Lucy McGowan

Tuesday 26 April 2011

Lucy McGowan - Research Intern

Lucy McGowan is a third-year undergraduate at the University of Missouri. Her major is Food Science, but she has developed a passion for the study of entrepreneurial behavior in the overlapping sectors of wineries, regional foods, and tourism. Her passion has resulted in a study of the networking among older and new wineries in the growing Missouri wine industry, using survey methods and the UCINET network anlysis software. She completed a poster presentation today as part of an all-campus celebration of undergraduate research.

Lucy began her project by reading widely, including Georg Simmel (in translation) on tertius gaudens, as well as a number of classic pieces by Lin Freeman, Ron Burt, and David Krackhardt. She taught herself to use UCINET. It was very rewarding for me to observe her methods. She began her empirical work by attending the statewide wine and grape conference, meeting and interviewing staff from the state board and leaders in the industry to better understand the structure of the industry. She tested questions based upon her literature review with these informants and created a web-based survey, which was forwarded to all members in the industry. I would recommend this design to any graduate student.

A manuscript will be forthcoming as part of her summer research internship. I’ll follow up with another post.

The Entrepreneurship Project for Agriculture

Sunday 04 July 2010

We are one month away from the first module of a new off-campus education program called the Entrepreneurship Project for Agriculture. There is a new blog site here to present the program, communicate with the participants, and show off the outcomes.

The project is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture’s competitive grant program for Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development. The USDA funds education programs annually under this title. I was fortunate to be one of the successful grantees from the 2009 program, primarily because my co-PI, Peter Hofherr, is the ideal person to design and lead such a program. There is a brief introduction his bona fides on the site. I am also blessed to have Jill Lucht as program coordinator; she is passionate about small farms, collaborative ventures in food marketing, and alternative agriculture.

Each education program consists of four intensive four-day modules, including a day of site visits with successful entrepreneurs in production agriculture and firms who link to farmers, including public markets, restaurants, retailers, and wholesalers. We will do this in St. Louis, Kansas City,  Marin/Sonoma, and Columbia during the next five months. After each module, we will post pictures and videos, the schedule of activities, and other materials. I’ll note the updates on this site as well.

Forage for Thought 2 – research issues to be explored

Thursday 01 July 2010

In a previous post, I was rather unkind toward the empirical analysis of the grass-fed social movement in this paper by Weber, Heinze, and DeSoucey. I was distressed that the analysis muddied the focal phenomenon of activist interest in an alternative production system to the beef industry norm – corn-based fattening in  commercial feedlots. The alternative, a grass-based diet as espoused by Michael Pollan and others, represents both a social movement and a framing for entrepreneurs to enter the market and connect to consumers. However, this story was confounded by the fact that the researchers festooned the analysis with allusions to other social movements: slow food, organics, local foods, and community-based agriculture.  I also expressed some pique that the primary data collection didn’t distinguish among the respondents (ranchers, journalists, chefs, consumers,…); these actors live in different places in the incipient market and have different roles in the social construction of the new market niche.

So why return to this paper? There are a number of reasons. First, the hypothesis of the paper is important. The authors “suggest that social movements can fuel solutions to three challenges in creating new market segments: entrepreneurial production, the creation of collective producer identities, and the establishment of regular exchange between producers and consumers.” (from the abstract, page 529) As someone who has spent more than thirty years working with agricultural producers on strategic marketing, organizational strategy, and supply chain development, these challenges are REAL.

Furthermore, the trap that the authors fell into – conflating several social movements in the agri-food sector – reflects the salient strategic issue in the sector for the next 20 years. That is, there is a huge number of overlapping social movements around food production and food consumption that can create opportunities for entrepreneurial action. A top-of-mind list would include sustainable production, fair traded products, organic production, low fat/salt/sugar/transfat/whatever diets, animal welfare, locavory and distance-delimited-diets, vegetarianism, and slow food. And each of these has variants that reflect regionality and ethnicity, different perspectives from consumers and farmers, inconsistent definitions, and emotionally charged rhetoric.

So doing a proper job of linking the cultural codes of specific social movements to the social construction of markets is of vital interest to an economically healthy, innovative sector. Beyond that, the paper’s second challenge (creating collective producer identities) is one of critical importance in agri-food. Producers are atomistic agents and no market creation can occur if there is no way for concerted collective entrepreneurship to create (mimic) effective scale to produce, assemble, process, and distribute products to consumers. I am convinced that identity is critical to collective action (more on this in subsequent posts). I have been fiddling with organizational identity work for about a decade, having learned about it from Peter Foreman and David Whetten during a sabbatic  more than 15 years ago. Now I am faced with another uncodified construct: collective entrepreneurship. I hold this to be a particular form of collective action and I am suspicious that the relationships between organizational identity and economic performance are different in incipient entrepreneurial firms and established firms and are different between diffused markets (e.g. all grass-fed producers) and focal organizations (e.g. a local cooperative of grass-fed milk producers).

To quote the Weber et al paper, “producers in the emergent niche need to develop a positive collective identity that is recognized both internally and externally.” (page 546) And, “ In addition, collective identities give rise to cooperative efforts to institutionalize the market category. To create and maintain this community, producers need to establish external boundaries as well as internal cohesion. Cultural codes … supply the resources for both tasks.” (page 547) Now, I think the paper was a bit too blithe in presenting empirical validation for these points, but I am convinced that further research efforts on the collective identity – collective entrepreneurship relationship will be important.

There are two more quotes in the paper that resonate with me. They are tied to prior work by Harrison White and others in the building of exchange relationships in the market.  The first locates a fundamental issue between (business-as-usual) commodity agriculture and the plethora of social movements in the sector. “The exchange value of commodity products is determined by a single or small set of attributes, while price premiums can arise from the relational embedding of exchange or from moral and identity-based associations.” (page 555) I confess that I have professed this in executive education courses and the undergraduate classroom for more than 15 years. I just didn’t have the mass of sociology behind my argument.

The second quote I like is “ [b]ut for a growing group of committed consumers, food consumption is already an expression of identity and morality.” (page 556) We need to understand this phenomenon through the lens of social psychology, as much as sociology, to better construct new markets … and to better teach entrepreneurship to students of agriculture and food.