Showing papers in "Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal in 1996"

A Comparison of Four Scales Predicting Entrepreneurship

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Over the past 30 years a variety of scales and instruments have been used in the study of entrepreneurship. Some scales were intended primarily as predictors (Sexton & Bowman, 1984, 1986), others were intended to provide understanding (Boyd & Gumpert, 1984; Singh, 1989; Welsh & White, 1981). Some scales were entrepreneurship specific (Dandridge & Ford, 1987; Hornaday & Vesper, 1982; Scherer, Brodzinski, & Wiebe, 1990), others were broad measures of general characteristics (Begley & Boyd, 1987; Fagenson & Marcus, 1991; Hornaday & Aboud, 1971; Sexton & Bowman, 1983). Virtually all of these studies used only one scale (Sexton & Bowman, 1985 is a notable exception to this). This raises the research question of whether prediction and understanding of entrepreneurship might be enhanced by using several different types of scales in a multi-scale study. Such a comparison would allow entrepreneurship researchers to see which of the scales best discriminates between an entrepreneurial group and other groups. To the extent that the scales are different from each other, such a comparison could guide researchers in selecting the scale(s) most appropriate to their specific research question. Four scales are used in this study. The Entrepreneurial Quotient[c] (EQ) and the Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation[c] (EAO) were designed and validated to discriminate between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator[c] (MBTI[TM]) and the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument[c] (HBDI[TM]) were designed and validated as general indicators of a person's preferred ways of thinking and behaving. The EQ was selected because it was short, had face validity, and was specifically developed to measure entrepreneurship. The EAO was selected because it was specifically developed through rigorous scale development procedures to measure entrepreneurship based on attitude rather than personality theory. The MBTI was selected because it is so widely used across a diverse range of research situations. It has been estimated that over 1.7 million people a year in the United States take the MBTI and that "the MBTI is the most popular 'self-insight, insight into others' instrument in use today" (Druckman & Bjork, 1991, p.96). While the MBTI has been used to predict entrepreneurship (Hoy & Carland, 1983; Wortman, 1986), the authors of the scale made no specific statement regarding its prediction of entrepreneurship. An instrument in the area of brain dominance was selected because of occasional mentions that entrepreneurship was a "right brain" activity (Kao, 1991, p. 160; Timmons, 1985, p. 34; Williams, 1981). The HBDI is a commonly used measure of this type that is based on a brain dominance metaphor. The HBDI has been specifically proposed for entrepreneurship research (Winslow & Solomon, 1989), and Herrmann (1988) made specific statements regarding the HBDI's prediction of entrepreneurs. In addition, several trait tests have been used in entrepreneurship research. Sexton and Bowman (1986) have done a series of studies using a modified version of the Jackson Personality Inventory and Personality Research Form-E (JPI/PRF-E). Hornaday and Aboud (1971) and DeCarlo and Lyons (1979) used the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS). McClelland (1961) and Wainer and Rubin (1969) used the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). Based on the reviews of trait research (Brockhaus, 1982; Brockhaus & Horwitz, 1986; Gartner, 1988), it was our expectation that the trait approach to entrepreneurship would not discriminate between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. Therefore, we did not include any standard "trait" scales such as the EPPS or JPI/PRF-E. Instead, we included two entrepreneurship specific scales and two general scales. The EQ is a test of how one's self-perception and personal characteristics compare with those of "successful entrepreneurs. …

Factors That Encourage Entrepreneurial Start-Ups and Existing Firm Expansion: A Longitudinal Study Comparing Recession and Expansion Periods

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Small business start-ups created the groundwork for the Massachusetts miracle and the New England turnaround in the 1980s. It was the willingness of small businesses to form and expand that kept the economy strong (Lamp, 1988). Birch (1987) found that the keys to job creation are entrepreneurial firms. Economies that provide the proper environment for startups, and existing firms to expand, grow and flourish whereas those that fail to provide such an environment languish. Porter (1991) contended that the economic imperative is the need to create vast numbers of jobs. With large businesses downsizing, rightsizing, and reengineering, many people are looking to small business as a means of economic expansion. Dun & Bradstreet (1994a) predicted that 3.1 million new jobs would be created in 1994 with 72.4 percent coming from firms with fewer than 100 employees. In contrast, companies with at least 25,000 employees will have a net drop in employment. New small firms with fewer than 20 employees have been recognized as the nation's job creators and creators of new markets for large firms (Phillips, 1993). During the last two quarters of 1990 and the first quarter of 1991 the United States was in a period of recession. At about the same time, the Massachusetts miracle crashed to a halt. Between January 1989 and February 1991, the Massachusetts employment rate fell by 7.6 percent. Overall, the state lost roughly 300,000 jobs making this the worst recession since the Great Depression (Stein, 1991). Unemployment in the Commonwealth reached 9.7 percent in March 1991, the highest level since 1982. Business failures more than tripled during 1990. The overall increase in failure rates outpaced the nation in every major sector (Porter, 1991). To make matters worse, between 1988 and 1989 and 1989 and 1990, new business incorporations declined by 14 and 11 percent, the third highest in the nation (U.S. Small Business Administration, 1990). According to Dun & Bradstreet (1994b), business failures fell 19.9 percent in the first-half of 1994 reflecting a widespread recovery for business. Failures declined in all nine census regions, with the New England states reporting the greatest decrease. According to an editorial in the Boston Globe (1994), things have changed in Massachusetts: The unemployment rate has dropped by nearly a third and employment is finally back on the rise. The commonwealth's business confidence index, as measured quarterly by Associated Industries of Massachusetts, is at a five-year high. PURPOSE The researchers' purpose in conducting this study was to identify the factors considered to be of major importance in the encouragement of new business formation and existing firm expansion, and to compare differences from recession and expansion periods. The identification of these factors and differences will help public policy makers enhance the potential for economic expansion through job growth. The study was designed to answer four questions: 1. What factors do small business owners consider to be most important in encouraging new business start-ups and existing firm expansion? 2. What is the level of satisfaction of small business owners with these important factors? 3. Is there a significant difference between the importance of these factors and business owners' satisfaction with them? 4. Is there a difference between small business owners' responses during the recession and their responses during the expansion period. SELECTED LITERATURE REVIEW To conserve space, only the four most relevant studies relating to the first three research questions are discussed. In addition, four other less relevant studies are presented in a summary list of factors in Table 1. Matz (1979) prepared a report for the Joint Economic Committee of Congress entitled "Central City Businesses--Plans and Problems," that examined what differentiates economically successful cities from depressed cities, what inner-city businesses require to become and remain healthy, and what determines the quality of a city's business environment. …

Intrapreneurship and Innovation in Manufacturing Firms: An Empirical Study of Performance Implications

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Entrepreneurship has long been associated with small businesses and new ventures (Carland, Hoy, Boulton & Carland, 1984). The idea of an individual identifying an untapped market niche or inventing a new product goes hand in hand with the traditional perspective. In fact, Stevenson, Roberts and Grousbeck (1989) define entrepreneurship as a process of creating value by employing a unique set of resources to exploit an opportunity. However, in recent years, entrepreneurship researchers have increasingly recognized that entrepreneurial activity can and does take place in large businesses (de Chambeau & Mackenzie, 1986; Adams, Wortman & Spann, 1988; Ellis & Taylor, 1988; Morris, Avila & Allen, 1993). Brandt (1986) presents the position that the entrepreneurial process has applicability to organizations of all sizes. In the large firm setting, the term generally used is intrapreneurship and an intrapreneur is defined by Pinchot (1985) as "Those who take the hands-on responsibility for creating innovation of any kind within an organization" (p. ix). In the small business setting, entrepreneurship is almost universally taken as a positive, beneficial phenomenon (Carland & Carland, 1993). It is intricately linked with innovation (Carland, et. al., 1984). Due to its rich background in the small business arena, the authors were interested in exploring the impact of entrepreneurship within the corporate setting. Given that intrapreneurship exists within large, established firms, how does it manifest itself? What is intrapreneurship and what effect does it have on a firm's performance? This paper represents an effort to investigate intrapreneurship and its linkage to financial performance. INTRAPRENEURSHIP The various definitions of intrapreneurship appearing in the literature are remarkably similar. De Chambeau & Mackenzie (1986) say that "Intrapreneurial activity ranges from the development of a new product to the creation of a more cost-efficient process (p. 45)." Jennings and Young (1990) define corporate entrepreneurship as the process of developing new products and/or markets. Hornsby, Montagno and Kuratko (1990) describe intrapreneurship as a means to increase corporate success through the creation of new corporate ventures. McGrath, Venkataraman, MacMillan and Boulind (1992) describe corporate entrepreneurship as a means for firms to change their pool of competencies to increase long term economic viability. Hornsby, Naffziger, Kuratko and Montagno (1993) refer to the development of new business endeavors within the corporate framework. Note that the intrapreneurial perspective is similar to the entrepreneurial in terms of its focus on innovation. In fact, the corporate entrepreneurial construct has three accepted dimensions in the literature (Morris, Avila & Allen, 1993). These include innovativeness, development of novel products, services, or processes; risk-taking; and proactiveness (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Ginsberg, 1985; Jennings & Young, 1990; Khandwalla, 1977; Miles & Arnold, 1991; Miller & Friesen, 1983). All of the definitions of intrapreneurship have been highly consistent (Cornwall & Hartman, 1988). Zahra (1986) examined the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship and found that most people see it as being innovative activities within a firm. EMPHASIS ON INNOVATION Most researchers clearly see creativity and/or innovation as the focus of intrapreneurial activities. Intrapreneurs are innovators and idea generators. The outcomes of these innovations range from new products to new markets to new processes. However, Knight (1967) identifies new product/service innovations as the highest level results of intrapreneurial actions (Cornwall & Hartman, 1988). Jennings and Young (1990) defined intrapreneurship "as the process of developing new products and new markets" (p. 55). Morris, Pitt, Davis and Allen (1992) used the number of new products, services, and processes introduced by or within a firm to measure the frequency of entrepreneurship. …

Does Firm Origin Matter? an Empirical Examination of Types of Small Business Owners and Entrepreneurs

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Since the earliest writings about entrepreneurship, there has been little agreement on a definition. In certain respects, there is considerable overlap between entrepreneurship and small business, if not, indeed business of all sizes. Entrepreneurship is not limited to firms of a certain size, or to certain industries, or only to some cultures. Entrepreneurial activity is carried out by people of both sexes, of all ages, and of all backgrounds. In some ways, entrepreneurship has baffled researchers in social sciences the way subatomic particles have baffled physicists. Its impact is observed, but the thing itself seems ephemeral and invisible. Like physicists seeing the marks left on the screen of an electron microscope by the mysterious subjects of their inquiry, entrepreneurship researchers have examined the economic activity that results from entrepreneurship: the new enterprises and jobs that are created, the new products invented, and the new services that are offered. But when it comes to specifying what it is that creates these phenomenon, there is little agreement. The question of what the definition of entrepreneurship is has been central in both theory building and empirical work. A good definition will put boundaries around entrepreneurship and separate it from all other types of business activity. Richard Cantillon, the 18th century businessman and economist, described entrepreneurs as traders who risked their own capital. For Cantillon, (Spiegel, 1983 and Barreto, 1989) the central component of the definition of entrepreneurship revolved around the concept of risk taking, which was rarely encountered by the independently wealthy land owning class or the salaried worker. Later research carried out by McClelland (1965), McClelland and Winter (1969), and Timmons (1986), concluded that, to a moderate extent, entrepreneurs are risk takers. Other research, such as Brockhaus (1992), concluded that entrepreneurs are not risk takers. Jean-Baptiste Say, a French textile manufacturer and economist, wrote that the human contribution to economic growth came in three types: scientists, workers, and entrepreneurs (Scott, 1933, p.4). The entrepreneur's role was to coordinate the other elements of production such as capital, labor, and land, produce products, estimate demand, and market the product. Perhaps the most influential conception of the entrepreneur belongs to Joseph Schumpeter (1947), who wrote that entrepreneurs have a desire to "found a private kingdom, drive to overcome obstacles, a joy in creating, and satisfaction in exercising one's ingenuity." Schumpeter saw the entrepreneur playing a key role in the economic world. Improved products and more efficient processes of production were developed by the entrepreneur, leading to a stronger, more efficient economy, albeit at the expense of the older, less efficient producers. Schumpeter termed this the process of "creative destruction." Thus, for Schumpeter, the key central concept of entrepreneurship is innovation in the broadest sense of the word, leading to increased economic efficiency and well-being. Wilken (1979) saw a continuum of innovation when he examined entrepreneurs. Some entrepreneurs, he argued, will initiate a new venture, while others, on the opposite end of the continuum, will only make minor changes to an existing one. Khan and Manopichetwattana (1989) developed a model for distinguishing between innovative and non-innovative firms. Smith and Miner (1983) showed the distinctions between "craftsmen" and "opportunistic" entrepreneurs based upon a sample of 38 business owners. Gartner, et al. (1989), as is discussed in more detail below, posited eight types of entrepreneurs based upon factor analysis of characteristics of a sample of 106 entrepreneurs which revealed different strategic orientations. Archer (1991) saw three groups of entrepreneurs: an elite, general merchants; and petty merchants. …

Differentiating Restaurant Startups: A Conceptual Framework

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Vesper's five key ingredients are important if the research uses a "shot gun" or multi-industry wide approach. But generally it is necessary to use a "rifle" or "industry specific" approach to add further credibility to this multi-industry based research. Sexton & Smilor (1986) call for industry specific research by stating, "The development of these studies should not only relate to an overall framework of individual entrepreneurship but should also be targeted to a specific population or sample instead of all venture firms, all small businesses, etc." (p. 325). This paper attempts to answer the call for industry specific research by developing a framework for researching startup and survival strategies in the restaurant industry. Because of the unique variables which make the restaurant industries operate differently from the traditional streams of entrepreneurial research, this industry needs to be studied in greater depth. THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY The restaurant industry is one of the most competitive industries in the world today. It can cost a half a million dollars for a restaurant just to open for business. Owners work 70 hours a week, including holidays and weekends, and still 10 percent of them fail. Although the competition is fierce and the success rate for restaurants is extremely low, restaurants keep springing up. The fastest-growing segment of the restaurant industry is casual dining, where sales are increasing at double-digit rates. This nomenclature includes such settings as Chili's, Applebee's, and Outback Steakhouse, where the food comes with a relaxed atmosphere. The concept here is "not-so-fast food for aging boomers who may still crave a burger but now want to sit down and eat it from a plate, perhaps with a glass of wine." Nina Zagat, co-publisher of Zagat Restaurant Survey guides calls such new spots BATH restaurants--better alternatives to home--in that they are part of a national phenomenon of eateries designed to appeal to families where both partners work. The convenience shoppers don't weigh whether to spend food dollars at a restaurant or at a supermarket. Rather, they are shopping for meals, and they will go to whatever retailer provides the best solutions to the problem of feeding the modern, average American household. This meal-replacement segment, as it is now known, is a $70 billion to $80 billion market. If half that volume comes out of the supermarkets, their sales will shrink 10% (Saporito, 1995). The restaurant industry is extremely important to the national economy. For example, according to the National Restaurant Association, in 1994 the foodservice industry sales reached some $275 billion, accounting for 4.1 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and is growing by about 4 percent annually (National Restaurant Association, 1994). Further, more than one of every four retail outlets is an eating establishment, over 9 million people are employed in the industry, and employment is expected to reach over 12 million by 2005 (ibid.) STARTUP AND SURVIVAL IN THE RESTAURANT Before discussing startup/survival variables in the restaurant industry, it would be useful to take a step back and examine the current research on startup/survival in general. Hofer (1987) identifies three areas critical to the survival of a new firm: 1. industry structure, 2. venture strategy, and 3. the behavioral characteristics of the founding entrepreneur. Hofer maintains that the new venture strategy should take advantage of the current structure of the industry as opposed to attempting to change it. Also, entrepreneurs should steer clear of ventures in industries that offer few chances of success. For example, opening a small, independently owned hamburger store on a crowded boulevard where the hamburger "giants" also have stores may be a suicide attempt unless the independent has some extraordinary characteristics which gives it a distinctive advantage or it can somehow differentiate its product. …

Critical Business Knowledge and Competencies: Diagnosing through the Business Life-Cycle

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Women-owned businesses play an increasingly important role in the economic development of our society. To encourage and develop these businesses both public and private sector organizations have created and provide business assistance such as: training, literature, funding, consulting, etc. However, there is little understanding of which types of assistance are beneficial and when a particular type of assistance should be provided. Categorizing the problems and growth patterns of small businesses in a systematic way should improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of these support services. In addition, small business owners would be able to assess current challenges and anticipate key requirements as their business grows. In response, this study empirically investigates the classification of women-owned small businesses in the business life-cycle, the priorities and problems they face, and their usage and satisfaction with assistance providers. Haire (1959) was among the first to propose that the development of a business follows some uniform pattern. The concept of modeling business life-cycle stages is prevalent in management literature, Churchill and Lewis (1983) and Smith, Mitchell and Summer (1985) provide good reviews and discussion of the concept. This study utilizes a four stage life-cycle model (Kazanjain, 1988) that is consistent with most models found in the literature and explicitly describes stages as linked to dominant problems, see figure 1. Cowan (1988) reviews and critics the concept and classification of organizational problems. Cowan notes that there has been little integration of empirical results around conceptually derived problem categories. Much of the research in problem classification has been conducted with executives in larger organizations; and therefore, may not be generalizable to women small business owners. To avoid some of the limitations of predefined problem categories this study will empirically derive a suitable problem classification. Industry structure may have a strong influence on the nature and timing of problems a firm faces. Industries differ most strongly in their fundamental strategic implications along a number of key dimensions, Porter (1980) provides a framework for classifying industries as: Emerging, Fragmented, Mature or Declining. Emerging: The industry is newly formed or reformed by technological innovations, shifts in relative cost relationships, emergence of new consumer needs, or other economical and sociological changes that elevate a new product or service to the level of a potentially viable business opportunity. Fragmented: No firm in the industry has a significant market share that can strongly influence the industry outcome. There are a large number of small and medium-sized companies, many of them privately held. Low barriers to entry, little economies of scale and diverse market needs characterize the industry. Mature: The period of rapid industry growth has slowed to modest growth causing more competition for market share, greater emphasis on cost and service, overcapacity, and sophisticated buyers. New products and applications are harder to come by and manufacturing, marketing, distribution, and selling methods are often undergoing change. Declining: Unit sales in the industry have declined for a period of time and are not explained by business cycles or short-term discontinuities. Margins are shrinking and there are few competitors. Little research has been conducted in the classification of business-owners and their stages of development. Therefore, an empirically developed classification system based on experience will be utilized. The major business assistance providers in the state (Minnesota) in which the study was conducted were identified and included for evaluation. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed model for linking management priorities and problems to the growth patterns of a business and to the required knowledge and/or competencies. …

The Use of Formal Business Planning by Nonprofit Entrepreneurs in the Development of the New Nonprofit Venture

Abstract: INTRODUCTION There is little written on the significance of nonprofit (non-governmental) organizations and their impact on the economy. Newman and Wallender (1978) suggest that the range of business possibilities and management processes in the nonprofit sector are similar to for profits. Entrepreneurship is defined as "the creation and management of new businesses and the characteristics and special problems of entrepreneurs (Gartner, 1990)." Despite Gartner's identification of "special problems," a study conducted by Miller and Simmons (1992) suggested that the differences between founding and non-founding nonprofit executives are very comparable to the differences found among profit oriented entrepreneurs and managers. The idea of the entrepreneur as a risk-taking individual seeking a track to personal wealth does is not considered to be an integrative part of public sector or nonprofit endeavors. Although the idea of the "public entrepreneur" may seem a contradiction in terms, entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial activities in the profit oriented and nonprofit sectors can and must possess similar characteristics to assure success (Ramamurti, 1986). Vesper (1990) identifies five factors dictating the entrepreneurial needs in undertaking new ventures. These include technical knowledge of the area of business; a concept or idea of an unmet need; resource availability, including start-up capital; personal contacts that will support the new venture; and demand for the product/service translating into "orders." Vesper suggests that these factors will influence the type of venture undertaken by the entrepreneur (Vesper, 1990). Schollhammer and Kuriloff (1979) suggest that new venture start-up represents a rational step-by-step procedure by which the entrepreneur systematically plans and enters the market. Long and Ohtani (1986) provide a sequence of events that generally occur in the creation of a new venture. This general process can be adapted more easily to a broad range of venture possibilities. Studies by a variety of researchers (Phillips & Kirchoff, 1989; Reynolds, 1986; Bruno, Leidecker, & Harder, 1986) indicate that the success or failure among entrepreneurial business ventures is dependent, in part, on the type of business chosen. Lawler (1963) and Stuart & Abetti (1988) indicate a high correlation between success and the previous experience and/or education of the entrepreneur. The question answered through this research is: To what extent do nonprofit entrepreneurs make use of formal business planning methods in the development of nonprofit entrepreneurial ventures? This study will consider the extent of formal business planning in light of the nonprofit entrepreneurs background, education and experience. PROBLEM STATEMENT Although a number of significant studies have been undertaken to establish the characteristics of entrepreneurs and the processes utilized in the development of profit making ventures, no significant studies have been identified to describe the development of nonprofit enterprises. This study will provide new information and conclusions regarding the formal planning activities of the nonprofit entrepreneur in the development of new nonprofit ventures. VARIABLES The dependent variable considered in this study is the level and extent of formal business planning undertaken including whether formal business planning was undertaken and who conducted the planning process. Independent variables include previous business experience, management background, level of education achieved and educational background (i.e., area of interest). HYPOTHESIS This research was expected to reveal differences in the education and experience of entrepreneurs in the nonprofit sector and the effect of those differences on business planning. The hypothesis for the study is stated below: The nonprofit entrepreneur's educational background and experience in business operations will influence the extent of business planning undertaken prior to new venture start-up. …

Practical Tools for Entrepreneurial Strategies: Applying the Issue Set Model

Abstract: INTRODUCTION A central element underlying effective entrepreneurship is a clear understanding of the environment impacting the business concern. Central to the development of understanding is the process of interpretation itself--the cognitive factors influencing what issues are seen and how they are prioritized. Research over the past decade has recognized the important impacts of cognitive factors on managerial decision-making, noting how "collective interpretations of key events move from unformed and tentative to well-constructed, well-processed viewpoints. The implication of this progress is that the fullest understanding of an event may come from ... interpretive stages" (Isabella, 1990, 33). One key for reconciling the potentially incompatible demands of business risk and stakeholder demand is a recognition of precisely what issues a firm's stakeholder/customers define as important--and, just as significantly, how these definitions compare with the firm's internal assessment of significant issues. Examining the imbedded issue definition processes of firms in the marketplace can provide critical information for starting to understand these linkages between firm issue definitions and stakeholder issue expectations. Toward that end, this paper details through a grounded theory study how issues are defined within one organization and, from this example, offers a diagnostic approach for addressing stakeholder/consumer issues in a more responsible fashion. RESEARCH PROBLEM, METHODOLOGY, AND FINDINGS As a grounded theory study, this work does not propose an hypothesis for verification or refutation. Rather, it originates with general questions which provide the setting for the collection of data and the analysis and development of emergent concepts from this data (Glaser, 1992). The two questions guiding this work are: 1. How do managers define issues in a changing environment? and 2. How can managers use this knowledge to develop entrepreneurial strategies? The methodology employed in answering these questions was grounded theory analysis. Over 40 hours of interviews with 22 middle and upper level managers within an industrial firm provided the data for the classification of general concepts driving the managerial issue definition process in the subject firm. The organizational setting for this study was a private, investor-owned utility in the Eastern United States. Validity testing was accomplished through the use of two methods of data triangulation (Denzin, 1970; Yin, 1993; Silverman, 1993): multiple sources of coincident information, and presentation of proposed models to participants for verification. Participants confirmed all aspects of the core concepts of the models and expanded upon these concepts by suggesting practical applications for testing their utility in actual firm settings. One experienced manager commented, after viewing the perspective of the company revealed in the research, that it had given him some interesting ideas for attempting to improve managerial responsiveness within the organization. The organizing framework for data emerging from this initial analytic approach was Wood's concept of the issue set (Wood, 1986, 1994). This research has amended Wood's basic model, however, by adding the element of directionality to its structure. Within an issue set, specific concerns are linked together into more generic issues, which ultimately coalesce into a central (or focal) issue. This process of linkage may flow either from specific issues to more general constructs, or from the general to the detailed specifics. A movement of issue definitions towards greater generalization suggests an integrative flow, where separate concerns coalesce and combine into a central focus. Issue definitions from this vantage evolve from an integration of many specific concerns into larger, more generalized conceptualizations. Opposite to this issue set pattern is the extended flow, where the focal concern is extended throughout and its influence distributed from a generalized concern into the secondary and tertiary issue levels. …