Abstract
In a globalized world, place may play a much larger role in shaping occupational identities than scholars realize. Rather than serving as mere context in which identity work is conducted, cities, states, and regions are highly influential in shaping various parts of identity. This study of high-tech entrepreneurs in a city in the Rocky Mountain West of the United States shows that place was significant for framing identity narratives related to occupation. In addition, place helped to frame and organize other discursive resources for identity work such as gender, class, and race. This study highlights the ways in which attention to place can (a) surface important contemporary discursive resources for identity work, (b) allow scholars to see how aspects of complex identities are organized, and (c) show how the material, geographic world shapes the ways in which people socially construct their identities.
Some conceptualizations of globalization suggest that place has become less and less relevant for defining the occupational self (Giddens, 1991). According to this narrative, global economic systems, aided by information communication technologies, allow people to live and work from anywhere. Although historically there exist strong associations between particular regions and occupations (think manufacturing in the Midwest or textile production in the South of the United States), globalization weakens these associations because work and workers are more mobile. The radical movement of industries and jobs around the globe over the past quarter century seems to provide evidence for the diminished connection between place and occupation. However, competing conceptualizations of globalization suggest that place still matters greatly (Florida, 2008; Gieryn, 2000). While one place is unlikely to emerge as the “only place to be,” industries and occupations congregate in particular cities and regions around the globe. Computer programmers mass in places like Silicon Valley and Bangalore, biomedical researchers in places like Washington, D.C. and San Diego, film producers in places like Los Angeles, Wellington, and Toronto, and aerospace engineers in places like Seattle and Hamburg, Germany (Florida, 2007). Even though globalization and information communication technologies potentially relegate place a lesser role in shaping occupational identity, people embrace particular places as they make choices about where to live and work and ultimately in framing who they are. Place may matter more than ever, even in the globalized world, as a marker and shaper of identity.
One way to assess the relationship between occupational identity and place in the contemporary global work environment is to explore the extent to which local, place-based discourses shape occupational identities. This research examines high-tech entrepreneurs who choose to reside in a small city in the Mountain West of the United States, a group which should epitomize the “place does not matter” thesis yet finds that place plays a significant role in shaping occupational identities. In doing so, we join a small but growing number of organizational researchers who explore the relationship between place and identity (Elsbach, 2003; Elsbach & Pratt, 2007; Rooney et al., 2010). Although most of this research conceptualizes place at the level of the work or office site, we purposefully move to broaden our understanding of place and identity by conceptualizing place at the city or regional level to connect with research suggesting that these places matter significantly for work (Florida, 2007, 2008). Moving outside the container of the physical organization allows us to surface important contemporary discursive resources for identity work. In addition, attention to place can contribute to research on identity more broadly by showing how aspects of complex identities are managed and organized. Finally, attention to place provides insight into how the material, geographic world shapes the ways in which people socially construct their identities. This study is an account of one community in the Rocky Mountain West of the United States, but the kind of identity work we found related to place might occur anywhere.
Place as a Discursive Resource for Occupational Identity Work
Scholars have long argued that work is critical for the construction of the self (Gini, 2000; Whyte, 1956). Occupations or professions serve as key markers of social identity, help individuals narrate a sense of self, and provide a way for managing and organizing other aspects of identity such as gender, race, and class (Cheney & Ashcraft, 2007). Occupations though, like identities, are not monolithic and must be understood within particular local contexts. This section establishes a framework for exploring the role of place in influencing occupational identity. To do so, we first characterize identity and then draw on the concept of discursive resources to explain how identities are shaped through locale-specific discourses. Finally, we explore the relationship between place and occupational identity.
Discursive Resources and Identity Work
Drawing from Kuhn (2006), we conceive of identity from a social constructionist perspective as “the conception of the self reflexively and discursively understood by the self” (p. 1340). This definition highlights the reflexive and discursive nature of identity construction while also allowing for multiple and competing constructions of the self. Rather than having neat, highly stable identities, individuals must manage or negotiate many different possibilities for reflexively defining the self—a process generally described as “identity work” (Alvesson, Ashcraft, & Thomas, 2008). “Research on identity work . . . concentrates on actors’ efforts to create a coherent sense of self in response to the multiple (and perhaps conflicting) scripts, roles, and subject positions encountered in both work and non-work activity” (Kuhn, 2006, p. 1341). Although some aspects of our identities are more stable and enduring, identity work implies that the production and reproduction of identities is an ongoing, largely communicative process. Although identity work refers to the process of constructing identity, the term social identity is used to describe the extent to which people see themselves as members of certain groups like occupations, races, or genders (Alvesson et al., 2008). Social identities provide meaningful categories for use in identity work, while also offering markers to others about social identity.
Discourse is central to identity work as people draw on a wide array of discourses to construct their identities (Kuhn, 2006). The discourses available for articulating identity differ depending on the person, culture, and situation and may be thought of as resources for identity work. A “discursive resource” is a “socially constructed frame drawn from a culture or subculture that enables members to assign meaning” (Kuhn & Nelson, 2002, p. 12). Discursive resources include broad societal discourses such as gender and race, as well as more micro discourses like the values generated by a particular group. During identity work, individuals draw on the available socially constructed discursive resources and then weave these discourses into a narrative of identity. Although there are many available discourses from which to choose or reject, some discourses exert more influence on identity construction than others as they align with culturally, institutionally, or organizationally accepted norms and ideals.
A common discursive resource for entrepreneurs, as well as many others in Western capitalist societies, is the discourse of enterprise (du Gay & Salaman, 1992). The discourse of enterprise centers on the marketplace, is ultimately driven by a desire to respond to the differing demands of customers, and is embodied by the entrepreneur. Popular and exalted, the discourse of enterprise likely shapes the identity work of many entrepreneurs. However, understanding the identity work of entrepreneurs requires more complex consideration of the many discursive resources that shape identity, particularly those related to place.
Place and Identity Construction
For scholars studying identity, and for organizational communication scholars specifically, geographic place is often treated as the context in which communicative interactions occur, but seldom do scholars further explore the impacts of place. Scholars report that a study was conducted in one or another “medium-sized city,” but rarely do they engage how this particular setting influences the communicative interaction taking place. In contrast, we concur with Gieryn (2000) that “place is not merely a setting or backdrop, but an agentic player in the game—a force with detectable and independent effects on social life” (p. 466).
Place is a social construction that refers to not only broad geographic conceptualizations such as nations, regions, cities, and communities but also more specific locations such as work sites, offices, houses, rooms, cubicles, or favorite chairs. Place is conceptually different from space. For our purposes, “space is what place becomes when the unique gathering of things, meanings, and values are sucked out” (Gieryn, 2000, p. 465). In other words, place is space infused with people, objects, symbols, and meaning. In this article, we conceive of place as a “discursive resource” drawn from social, cultural, and historical understandings of particular geographic, physical locations. Places are socially constructed discourses that are “interpreted, narrated, perceived, felt, understood, and imagined” (Gieryn, 2000, p. 465). Places are not only social, though, as places combine geographic location and materiality/physicality with social meaning and value. We stress that defining places as social creations does not diminish the influence of their physical/material characteristics, both natural and built, as important factors that influence the ways places are socially constructed by particular groups and cultures. Although disentangling all of the tensions between the discursive and the material is beyond the scope of this essay (see Kuhn, 2011, for a discussion of these tensions), we contend that the discursive and the material are inextricably linked in regards to place. The material aspects of place are understood and experienced through discourse. At the same time, this discourse is shaped by the materiality of particular places. The material/physical aspects of place, like mountains or rivers, afford particular symbolic activities, interpretations, and meanings while simultaneously limiting others. That is, the discursively constructed understandings of places are shaped by (and often shape) the physical/material aspects of place.
Place plays a key role in identity formation. Environmental psychologists have long argued that place influences the development of the self-concept. A child learns about the self by distinguishing himself or herself not only from other people but also from the physical environment (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983). Concepts in environmental psychology like place attachment (Spencer, 2005), place belongingness (Proshansky et al., 1983), and place identity (Proshansky et al., 1983; Rooney et al., 2010) highlight the relationship between self and place. Place attachment, for example, is defined as an “affective bond or link between people and specific places” (Spencer, 2005, p. 308). The author suggests that experiences of place tend to be among the most cherished memories, and the loss of place, such as occurs after natural disasters, can have significant impacts on psychological health. In sum, place is “integral to self-definitions” (Spencer, 2005, p. 306). To a greater or lesser extent, place-related implications are found in all identity work (Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996).
For organizational scholars, a number of contemporary factors converge to suggest that paying attention to place is critical for understanding occupations and identity. As mentioned, some analyses of globalization suggest communication technologies produce a leveling or flattening effect that allow more people and countries to participate and compete in the worldwide economy (Friedman, 2005). Despite these claims, certain geographic regions continue to dominate particular industries and occupations (Florida, 2008). For instance, Silicon Valley and a handful of other regions still dominate computer technology occupations (see Saxenian, 1996). When entrepreneurs can develop high-tech companies anywhere in the world, why do they overwhelmingly do so in a few key places?
Place has implications for work, family, and happiness. Richard Florida (2008) argues provocatively that the most important decision a person can make is where he or she lives. Florida notes that those in what he terms the “creative class” are highly mobile and can seek to live and work in places that allow them to be whom they want to be. Despite the opportunity to live anywhere, people repeatedly choose particular areas. Those (privileged) individuals in the expanding creative class often choose places with associated meanings that validate their self-concepts. For many, living in New York or Tokyo or Paris represents more than just a place to live and find a job but also an identity. People often move to particular cities/regions that align with their identities, including occupational identities, and then these cities play a role in creating and maintaining those identities.
The previous discussion demonstrates the close relationship between place and identity. Place has been shown to be critical in influencing identity construction in organizational contexts (Rooney et al., 2010). While much of the rationale for paying attention to place comes from disciplines such as environmental psychology, sociology, and cultural geography, conceiving of place as a discursive resource highlights the ways in which locale-specific meanings are communicatively constructed to make sense of geographic and material places. Through locale-specific discourses, the physical, material, and symbolic aspects of place are communicatively constructed into meanings that guide individual, organizational, and cultural understandings of a particular location. Examining place provides a useful avenue to study how the social construction of occupational identity is related to the symbolic and material aspects of place and how different aspects of social identity are articulated and organized in relationship to one another. We asked two questions: First, what discursive resources related to place do participants draw on to articulate their occupational identities? Second, how does place work with and through other discursive resources for identity work to form the occupational identities of these entrepreneurs?
Method
This research draws from a study that explored the developing creative economy in Missoula, Montana. Missoula, a city of approximately 70,000 people, straddles the banks of the Clark Fork River at the intersection of five river valleys. Located in the mountainous western part of the state, Missoula is considered a mecca for outdoor recreation with a kayaking wave in the middle of downtown, hiking and mountain biking trails within minutes of downtown, and a ski area visible from the city. Missoula, nicknamed the “Garden City” for its summertime green, is the cultural, economic, and medical hub for Western Montana. The city is also a cultural center for the state, hosting the state’s flagship public liberal arts university as well as many arts and social justice-oriented nonprofit organizations. Education, health care, government, retail sales, and professional services are the dominant engines of the local economy (Montana Department of Labor and Industry, 2011). Like many cities in the Western United States, Missoula worked to diversify its economy as traditional occupations related to natural resource extraction and processing declined over the past decades. Notably, the last lumber mill in the area closed in 2010, leaving many relatively well-paid workers out of jobs. In an effort to diversify the local economy, government and business leaders have encouraged high-tech work in Missoula, including the building of a local technology business incubator facility.
This analysis focused on 27 interviews with high-tech entrepreneurs in Missoula, Montana. High-tech entrepreneurs were chosen because they epitomize creative economy work as well as represent a group of workers who, at least theoretically, can take their talents, knowledge, and skills and work from anywhere. For this research, “entrepreneur” was conceptualized as any individual who had founded or cofounded a high-tech commercial organization as well as those who joined such an organization in the first few years of its existence to help it grow and with an ownership stake in the company. The entrepreneurs we talked with, operated a wide variety of businesses in industries like software development, computer consulting, website hosting, aerospace, scientific instruments, environmental technologies, and medical technologies. For many of them, this was the first company they had founded. The companies would all be classified as small enterprises, most with only a handful of employees, some with only the founder, and others with several dozen employees. As a group, the entrepreneurs could be described as “middle-aged”—many garnering industry related experience elsewhere after graduating from college before starting their businesses in Missoula. Approximately two thirds of these entrepreneurs had Montana roots, many growing up in Montana or going to college in Montana.
In the interviews with these entrepreneurs, we sought to uncover the ways in which they discursively constructed their occupational identities through the narrative accounts they told of their entrepreneurial experiences. To do so, interviews questioned how the entrepreneurs started their businesses, how their educational backgrounds influenced their career choices, how their family backgrounds influenced their career choices, who they considered as role models, why they chose to work in the science/technology sector, and why they were doing business in Montana. Using a semistructured interview guide to provide for both structure and flexibility (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002), the interviews ranged from 30 to 120 min with most interviews lasting 30 to 40 min. Finding and securing these interviewees proved challenging as we had to locate these entrepreneurs and then negotiate access/entry into each organization. Using several different databases, we selected the interviewees by first identifying all the high-tech companies in the area. From that list, we then contacted the founder(s)/president(s) of those companies and asked them for interviews. Some of the later interviewees were located through a network sampling method (Granovetter, 1976) as our interviewees recommended other entrepreneurs they knew. All participants were White males. The all-male composition of our research sample reflects demographic realities regarding high-tech entrepreneurial work in Montana as well as our sampling method in that we did not seek out women (or men) specifically when we identified companies to contact.
Interviews were an appropriate method for gathering data for this study as we sought to understand the verbal sense making of participants. One means by which social identities are formed and revealed is through communicative interaction. The interview, particularly as individuals are asked to account for their actions, provides a window into the identities of participants (Tompkins & Cheney, 1983). Epistemologically, this approach is founded on the belief that humans are self-reflexive and can thus reveal their own motivations when providing accounts of their behaviors (Harré & Secord, 1973). Interview accounts, just like discourse in other contexts, represent a form of verbal sense making that provides insight into the identities of participants (Larson & Pepper, 2003). In providing accounts, participants reveal discursive resources used for identity work. While this study examines discourse, we frame this work as a qualitative, interview-based study rather than as a discourse analysis (see Kuhn, 2006).
Analysis of the data was done collaboratively using a modified version of the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This method consists of continually cycling between data and interpretation. Interpretations arise from the data and are then checked and rechecked through subsequent readings of the data. The two authors each read through the complete data set, met to discuss initial observations, and then separately conducted more focused readings of the data (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). In the preliminary readings, we not only noted typical entrepreneurial values (e.g., “treat your customers like royalty”) but also sensed that place mediated what it meant to be an entrepreneur for these participants. Although we were initially interested in discovering identity profiles of those who conducted high-tech entrepreneurial work in Montana, we realized during analysis that these identities were shaped by place. In the focused readings, we then looked for any reference to place and tried to make sense of how meanings were assigned to place by the participants in their interview talk. In addition, we looked at how these discursive resources related to place were used to articulate a sense of self. To do so, we focused on connections between talk about place and talk about occupation/entrepreneurship or other aspects of social identity. We sought to uncover the ways in which place supported and/or conflicted with other discursive resources for identity work. During the analysis process we generated themes that were discussed, written-up, checked against the data, and revised (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). Through such an iterative process, we were able to explore the data and identify the discourses reported in the next section.
Interpretation of Results
For the high-tech entrepreneurs we interviewed, place mattered in the construction of their occupational identities. In the following analysis, we first illustrate how participants drew on the discourse of enterprise and then show how our participants drew on various locale-specific discourses related to place to construct narratives of occupational identity and to create localized notions of entrepreneurship. After summarizing each of these locale-specific discursive resources, we show how that resource influenced the identity work of the participants.
Discourse of Enterprise
As might be expected, the entrepreneurs interviewed for this study espoused the kinds of values typically associated with entrepreneurialism and the discourse of enterprise (du Gay & Salaman, 1992). They talked about the customer, market forces, freedom, hard work, risk taking, and perseverance. Some participants readily embraced the label “entrepreneur” to describe themselves occupationally, whereas others identified more closely with a particular profession (e.g., engineering) or industry (e.g., software development). Regardless of preferred occupational label, though, the narratives of occupational identity conveyed by our participants drew from discursive resources associated with the celebrated entrepreneur in Western market capitalism. For instance, one entrepreneur stated, “That’s cliché, but treat your customers like royalty and your best customers like family—that kind of do right by the customer, and you’ll be rewarded.” Another stated,
There was nothing special to it. It was just trying to identify what it was the customer, the market needed and then kind of working relentlessly to deliver that to the customer. And sometimes it’s breaking the old mold if you will, the old school of business thinking to accomplish that kind of breakthrough.
In these examples, and in many others throughout the data, we saw occupational identity narrated as closely aligned with enterprise values.
Although enterprise discourse may be thought to epitomize entrepreneurship, a closer look reveals that enterprise discourse is not monolithic in shaping occupational identities because it intersects with other discourses to shape localized constructions of identity (Mangan, 2009; Salaman & Storey, 2008). Like Cohen and Musson (2000), we found that these entrepreneurs did not simply parrot the discourse of enterprise, but rather appropriated this discourse as they framed themselves occupationally within a particular context. In this case, locale-specific discourses related to place shaped the meaning of entrepreneurship and situated it within a larger narrative of identity. As we show in this next section, participants drew on three related locale-specific discourses of place as they constructed their identities in relationship to work: place as lifestyle, place as home, and place as challenge.
Place as Lifestyle
The first way that place influenced the construction of occupational identity was through the discourse of place as lifestyle. This discourse reflects a locally sanctioned narrative of Missoula, Montana, as providing lifestyle advantages, including a better balance between work and life (Pitt-Catsouphes, Kossek, & Sweet, 2006). Entrepreneurs who took up this discourse socially constructed Missoula in ways that fit and reinforced notions of what was important to them and the kinds of people they saw themselves to be. For some these constructions included outdoor sports like skiing, kayaking, fly fishing, or hunting. Others expressed lifestyle through place in terms of things like culture, the arts, and education. They constructed the place of Missoula as one that fit and also reinforced their identity narratives.
In some articulations of place, we see a combining of the physical geography of the land, particularly mountains and rivers, into certain types of identity-related lifestyle activities. These sorts of rugged outdoor activities are often considered lifestyle sports (Wheaton, 2004). Lifestyle sports like surfing, skiing, or snowboarding, are those that are characterized not only by participation in the particular activity but also through the accompanying culturally (and commercially) constructed lifestyle choices associated with participation. Wheaton (2004) found that those who engaged in lifestyle sports “sought out a lifestyle that was distinctive, often alternative, and that gave them a particular and exclusive social identity” (p. 4).
Carving out such a distinctive and exclusive lifestyle was important for many of our participants. One owner of a successful software company said,
I had a clear idea when I was starting business and I focused on this for my entire career of what I want my business to be like . . . I want the flexibility to be able to walk to my office and work my hours when I want to, to be able to enjoy the surroundings of Missoula, to be able to play golf, go kayaking, go skiing, go biking. Now mind you, I work a great deal but I do have flexibility when I want to, to take time off because life is too short just to work.
In this participant’s narrative, we see occupation, entrepreneurship and lifestyle consciously intertwined as he explains how his occupational choices allow for other lifestyle related activities. Similarly, others reported seeing Missoula and Montana as places where recreation activities, made possible by material topography and as embraced locally as socially desirable, were an important factor in determining a place to live and work.
Most often though, lifestyle sports were not the exclusive factor in determining choice of a place to live and create a business but rather were included as part of a multifaceted rationale about lifestyle. One participant gave this explanation:
It just felt right. It’s rural, it’s a smaller town, good community, I guess a culture may be the best way to put it. So people care about each other. I live about 10 miles outside of town so I like being out close to the wilderness, and I’m a skier and a hiker and a fisherman, so those kinds of things—I decided that this would be a good place to live.
In this example, we see the participant define himself as a “skier,” “hiker,” and “fisherman,” while at the same time describing other aspects of lifestyle, such as the rural nature of the community, as important factors influencing choice of place. Another participant more generally described the relationship between lifestyle and occupation when he stated,
Those people who say they’re working 80, 90 hours a week and are proud of it, I say, that sucks. Why live in Missoula, why don’t you go live in LA and not have a life? I mean, I didn’t, that’s the reason we moved here was to have a life.
For participants such as this owner of a small, high-tech manufacturing company, “having a life” meant many things, including “recreation,” “culture,” “university town,” and “raising a family.” Occupation, although important, is articulated in relationship to other identity-related lifestyle priorities. Overall, the discourse of place as lifestyle highlights the ways in which place necessitates particular decisions about occupation.
Place as lifestyle creates challenges for some of the entrepreneurs, though, as they try to reconcile being a good entrepreneur with living the type of lifestyle celebrated locally. Most of the entrepreneurs we talked to stressed how hard they had to work to make their businesses successful. One person summed up the work ethic of the entrepreneur: “I get up early and I stay up late. I live and breathe this place.” However, some of the entrepreneurs noted social pressure to “have a life” and conform to the more “balanced” lifestyle of Missoula, which challenges more traditional notions of the ideal entrepreneur. One software developer stated,
If you go to Seattle or San Francisco and you spend some time there you’ll feel right away a difference in the culture. I mean people, end up going to work at 7:30 coming home at 8 at night every single day, just things where here that’s kind of unheard of that somebody would do that. You’d be ostracized . . . because it’s a beautiful place and that’s why we’re here is to do that kind of stuff. So it’s always, and that’s why I came here, but there’s always a fight against that because you want to try to do both.
The discourse of place as lifestyle forces these entrepreneurs to make choices about how to engage entrepreneurship that in some ways challenge the ideal notion of the entrepreneur as embodied in the discourse of enterprise. In this localized vision of the ideal entrepreneur, the most celebrated version is not the one with the biggest company, the most employees or the most money, but rather someone who is able to “do both”—combine a successful business with lifestyle activities.
Identity work
The discourse of place as lifestyle served as a locale-specific resource for framing a unique occupational, entrepreneurial identity. The availability and importance of this discourse within the Missoula community, made possible by both the physical geography of the land and the symbolic construction of an outdoor lifestyle, allowed entrepreneurs to shape an occupational identity that, at least in this context, improved on the narrative of the ideal entrepreneur. Although powerful locale-specific discourses in other communities might support occupational identities linked to total immersion in the work endeavor, in this case, the discourse of place as lifestyle provided a resource that these entrepreneurs took up to construct discursively an alternative, localized version of the entrepreneur.
In addition, the discourse of place as lifestyle provides a resource to organize other facets of social identity during identity work. The construction of lifestyle around outdoor recreation and lifestyle sports represents a particular construction of gender, class, and race. Scholars have suggested that lifestyle sports are often White, middle-class, male activities (Wheaton, 2004). Defining oneself as a skier, kayaker, climber, hunter, or fisherman represents a construction of gender that taps into cultural constructions of masculinized identity as related to risk taking and adventure (Mumby, 1998). Furthermore, such conceptualizations tie into masculine, romanticized notions about the symbolic West as a place of rugged individualism and the “frontiersman” (Harter, 2004; Turner, 1928). By framing themselves as living in Missoula, Montana, to engage in these activities, the entrepreneurs appropriated a traditional and Western masculine tenor of self. In addition, the construction of lifestyle around leisure activities, culture, and free time represents a privileged, classed construction of occupation and identity. Constructing identities by invoking the opportunity for leisure illustrates the masculine and classed nature of our entrepreneurs’ identity work: These (expensive) activities are the domain of relatively few (privileged) people. These entrepreneurs harnessed their considerable technical knowledge and skills to create opportunities to carve lifestyles for themselves that often combined upper-middle-class wealth with frequent engagement in outdoor leisure activities.
Place as Home
The second way the entrepreneurs articulated place as influential was through the discourse of “place as home.” This discourse references a localized understanding that ascribes desirability, even nobility, to returning to the place where one was raised or where family resides to raise a family. When asked why they started their business in Montana, respondents who took up this discourse indicated that they grew up in Montana, had “roots” there, went to school there, or still had family that lived there. In many cases, individuals had given up lucrative jobs elsewhere to return to Montana and start a business in the high-tech sector. For some, entrepreneurship was a last resort as they wanted to live in Missoula, but could not find creative-class type work there. Using experience and knowledge cultivated in places like Seattle and Los Angeles, these entrepreneurs moved to Montana and started businesses as a way to make a living and support their families in the place they wanted to live. Their construction of Montana as “home” led them back to Montana, and they often took considerable occupational and financial risk in doing so.
Place as home influenced identity work among the participants as they verbally constructed their occupational identities during interviews. One entrepreneur said, “I mean Montana’s my home and ya know, I hated leaving, but I didn’t see any alternatives. And quite literally it took 26 years to get back, so my choice of establishing entrepreneurship was driven by geography, pure and simple.” Another voiced a similar theme of coming home:
Well, I’m from Montana originally. I grew up in Helena, I was actually a classmate of Dave’s. At our 20th reunion I was talking to him and I said ya know if you’re interested I’d like to move back to Montana. There’s not a lot of jobs for mechanical engineers, instrumentation oriented people in Montana, so Dave and I, from 2002 through 2004, wrote about 4 or 5 different grant proposals none of which were funded, until the last one which was funded. And that was adequate to pay my salary for a couple years and give me enough confidence that I could move back here. I was living in Seattle at the time where I lived for 18 years.
These examples illustrate the centrality of place in a narrative the entrepreneurs used to articulate their conceptions of themselves in terms of work. This is done so within a larger narrative of personal identity where occupational identity is shaped, at least partially, by decisions to live in Montana and then find a way to make a living. Place centrally influenced the entrepreneurs’ decisions to form occupational identities as entrepreneurs.
More broadly speaking, articulations of place linked work and occupation with other aspects of social identity, like family. One entrepreneur spoke directly to this point,
Oh, it’s just because I’ve traveled all over the world and I think I’m pretty partial to this particular city in this particular geographic region, um, and my family’s here and we have property down the Bitterroot and I wanted to raise my family here if I could.
For several participants, the decision to return to Montana was driven by perceived familial responsibilities:
And I got a phone call and my dad was extremely ill and I looked around at my siblings and none of them were really in a position to come help so on a Friday afternoon I asked my wife what she thought about moving to Montana, and she said we’re up for it and the next Friday we were here. So once I got here, um, we kinda looked around and I had assumed that given my career [CTO at a major corporation], my resume that I’d probably find a job. I was sorely, sorely disappointed. So we started a consulting company out of necessity, it wasn’t like I had some lifelong aspiration to become an entrepreneur, there just wasn’t a job that would meet my needs anywhere in the state of Montana.
This entrepreneur, like others, became an entrepreneur by necessity. In order to fulfill responsibilities to his family and continue to work in the technology sector in Montana, he had to invent his own entrepreneurial path.
Identity work
The identity work displayed through the discourse of place as home situates occupation as functioning in relationship to a larger personal narrative related to home and family. Taking up this discursive resource provided a justification for establishing businesses in Montana, away from traditional hotbeds of high-tech work. As with the previous discursive resource, it also provides an alternative and locally improved reading of entrepreneurial identity, one that values home and family as much as occupation (Pitt-Catsouphes et al., 2006). The discourse of place as home provides a way to frame an entrepreneurial identity that downplays stereotypes of entrepreneurs as greedy and profit driven and instead focuses on entrepreneurs who by necessity create businesses to provide for their families in a place they want to raise their kids.
In addition, the articulations of “place as home” have underlying assumptions regarding a particular form of masculinity that was constructed by these entrepreneurs. Gender was articulated with and through discussions of place along these lines. In the above remarks from the interview participants, we see values espoused about family and family care and on raising kids in certain environments. These men spoke about doing their work in Montana using a traditional masculine narrative of “doing what is best to provide for the family.” When participants talked about wanting to “raise their family” in Montana, they espoused traditional forms of masculinity which promote the nobility of providing for family in safe, small-town environments. When one entrepreneur discussed coming back to Montana because of an ailing father, he framed his decision to live and work in Montana as part of a duty to family members. Overall, we see this locale-specific discourse, place as home, as both supporting and challenging traditional notions of masculinity and work. On the one hand, many of the entrepreneurs talked about their work as providing financially for family and some mentioned wives who stayed at home with the kids so they could devote large amounts of time to work. On the other hand, these entrepreneurs also made decisions, such as locating their businesses in Montana or working fewer hours, that appear to put family before work and thus frame a different, localized version of masculinity and work.
Place as Challenge
The third way that place influenced the construction of occupational identity for the entrepreneurs in this study was through the discourse “place as challenge.” This discourse manifests as a locally constructed narrative that suggests that Montana is a challenging place to conduct high-tech, entrepreneurial work. Entrepreneurs who took up this discourse framed Missoula, Montana, as a difficult place to start a business, and positioned themselves as facing great obstacles in order to make their businesses successful. For these entrepreneurs, Missoula is a difficult place to conduct high-tech work because of its distance from traditional centers of work and its lack of available funding and because high-tech work represents a form of work alien to most Montana leaders and citizens. Facing (and conquering) place-related obstacles factored significantly into how these entrepreneurs framed who they were occupationally.
Starting a high-tech company away from the traditional hotbeds of technology development poses many challenges to small business owners. One entrepreneur described Montana as a “technological black hole.” Another discussed the specific challenges of Montana this way:
It’s very difficult to work here at the level that I wanted to pursue. I think it’s okay, if you’re just interested in having a job until you’re 65 or something, but it’s very difficult to push that envelope and be competitive with Silicon Valleys or the Seattles.
Lack of available talent, networking opportunities and nearby venture capital were all reasons expressed by entrepreneurs as to the difficulties of competing with Silicon Valley or the “Seattles” of the world.
Continuing with this theme, responses from the entrepreneurs often concerned the lack of venture capital or alternative state and local funding for high-tech businesses in Montana. One entrepreneur described the situation thus:
The funding challenges extend from the role of Montana in the country. Montana is kind of a, in terms of business, it’s considered a kind of an island of poverty when you consider the major metropolitan markets that they tend to work in. Specifically, LA, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Boston.
Another entrepreneur put it bluntly: “Getting funded in Montana, forget it.” This theme about the difficulties of getting funded in Montana was pervasive across the interviews indicating a common discursive resource. They argued that it was more difficult to get funded in Montana, and some had anecdotal evidence that backed up their claims. Several entrepreneurs, for instance, talked about having venture capitalists interested in funding their work if they would move the business to Silicon Valley.
As they cannot easily obtain funding and in order to survive, many entrepreneurs in rural areas run “boot-strapped” organizations using their own personal money to fund the start-up and then using profits from the business to fund further expansion. This approach has created what a one-time Silicon Valley executive termed a Cool Hand Luke or cowboy mentality among Montana entrepreneurs exhibited in the tendency to resist collaboration and to do their work all on their own. Our research backed this assertion as we found little evidence of collaboration, even among entrepreneurs located together at the local technology business incubator.
Identity work
Montana as a difficult place to start a high-tech business factors into how many of these entrepreneurs framed their occupational identities. Funding challenges, geographic remoteness and lack of properly educated help (e.g., engineers) all factored into the ways they defined themselves as individuals and agents forced to fend for themselves in order to ensure the success of their businesses. They took pride in the “guts” they had to take the risk in starting businesses in Montana. They framed Montana as a hostile environment that makes doing business more difficult but which they overcame with hard work and persistence. This construction is important for their identities as they explain their occupations and justify doing high-tech, entrepreneurial work in a place outside of traditional hotbeds like Silicon Valley.
Entrepreneurs drew from the locale-specific discourse of place as challenge to assist them in constructing their occupational identities. Drawing from this discursive resource allowed them to construct a narrative of identity that focused on their own knowledge and abilities as the basis for their success. By stressing the challenges related to place, the entrepreneurs framed their achievements as more significant in light of the difficult circumstances. At the same time, place as challenge also provided a way to justify and rationalize their businesses, that while locally successful, would hardly be noticed in a place like Silicon Valley. Place as challenge thus serves as a resource for framing entrepreneurial success as locally based rather than in comparison with other places.
This third discourse, place as challenge, also illustrates the ways various discourses functioned together for our participants. The construction of entrepreneurial identity in a hostile environment by our participants again suggests a particular masculine identity narrative. These narratives foreground shades of Montana as a frontier and the entrepreneurs themselves as “frontiersmen” (Harter, 2004; Turner, 1928). As participants framed Montana as a difficult place to do high-tech, entrepreneurial work, they also framed themselves as agents able to overcome this hostile environment. Their success, which they attributed to “hard work” and “perseverance,” demonstrated their ability to overcome the obstacles associated with working in a place like Montana. As Harter (2004) states, “The masculine subjectivity embodied by the frontiersman is one characterized primarily by isolation and independence” (p. 93). Isolated from traditional hotbeds of technology, these entrepreneurs argued they had to count on their own abilities in order to succeed. By taking up locale-specific discourses that situate Montana as a ‘frontier’ for entrepreneurial work, these entrepreneurs ascribed a masculine (i.e., cowboy) tenor to their occupational identities. A particular (masculine, classed, and raced) occupational identity was created and reinforced as participants articulated their own independence through discussion of place and occupation.
Discussion
Place represents a key discursive resource for identity construction. For the entrepreneurs in this study, place, both geographically and symbolically, influenced how these individuals framed their occupational identities. Far from being simply the context in which these entrepreneurs conducted their business, place was used as a discursive resource that enabled participants to frame a narrative of the occupational self and, in doing so, to also arrange other facets of identity. The following discussion section explores these findings for organizational and communication research by (a) drawing attention to place as an important discursive resource for identity work in contemporary organizations, (b) showing how place helps participants conduct identity work by providing a discursive frame for narrating various aspects of self, and (c) demonstrating how place enables scholars to attend to the intersections of the material and the symbolic.
The first contribution of this research situates place as a key discourse for understanding the construction of identity in the globalized world. In doing so, this study furthers research that attempts to expand which cultural discourses serve as legitimate and appropriate focus for organizational scholarship (Carlone & Taylor, 1998.). Although discourses such as gender, race, enterprise, and profession have received considerable attention in the organizational literature, place has been under studied and the implications of place for identity underestimated (Rooney et al., 2010). Furthermore, we operationalized place in this study at the level of a particular city embedded in a particular state and region. Notably, conceiving of place in this regard pushes beyond the container model of the organization to broaden scholarly possibilities of the places that matter for work in addition to the immediate work site (Pepper, 2008; Rooney et al., 2010). If the decision about where to live is one of the most important decisions a person makes (Florida, 2008), then more attention to the role of place in shaping occupational, professional and organizational identities is necessary.
This research also noted discursive resources related to place that participants drew on to articulate their occupational identities. We found three locale-specific discursive resources, place as lifestyle, home, and challenge, which participants used to shape a localized version of the ideal entrepreneur. Although these exact discourses may not have broad applicability in other contexts, they suggest an essential relationship between place, locale-specific discourses, broader discourses and the construction of occupational identity. Our finding of how locale-specific discursive resources shape occupational identities represents a crucial contribution for understanding the ways in which occupational identities are shaped and framed in particular places. Rather than seeing occupations as monolithic, this research suggests that occupations are shaped by the local understandings made available by social and material affordances provided by particular places. To understand the construction of occupational identity in particular contexts is to understand how discourses related to occupation intersect with locale-specific discourses tied to place. “While generic discourses of enterprise, profession, gender or age may be important, they are received and interpreted in the particular and complex contexts that individuals move through in their everyday lives” (Halford & Leonard, 2006, p. 658). Rather than a monolithic discourse of enterprise (Cohen & Musson, 2000; Salaman & Storey, 2008), we found locale-specific notions of entrepreneurship influenced by the material and symbolic affordances provided by a particular place. Place and occupation interact to produce unique conceptualizations of occupational identity.
In this research study, we detailed how participants used place as a discursive resource to shape their identities in one particular context, but we see this playing out in other ways in other contexts. Some people, like our participants, may identify strongly with a particular place and use available discourses about that place to shape their identities. Others might disidentify with a place and define themselves in opposition to the symbolic or cultural representations of that particular place (Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001). Others might move to a particular place to take a job without particular knowledge of or connections to that place. In these contexts, people might grow to identify and/or disidentify with the discursive resources related to place available for identity work in that context. In addition, places are contested. As the story of the American expansion westward was much more diverse than just the story of the mythical frontiersman (Limerick, 1987), the meanings of particular places vary depending on other aspects of social identity, such as race or gender.
A second contribution of this research for organizational studies relates to the ways various discursive resources are organized and managed during identity work. Although many acknowledge the wide array of discourses available for identity work, we join a small group of scholars attempting to make sense of the ways in which multiple discourses collectively influence identity formation (Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004; Kondo, 1990; Kuhn, 2006, 2009; Meisenbach, 2008). Furthermore, related to place specifically, Rooney et al. (2010) suggest that our theoretical frameworks have “yet to capture fully this interplay between place identities and social identities” (p. 67). Our research adds to these conceptual discussions by showing how place served as a primary discursive frame for organizing other discursive resources and by developing a rationale for why certain identity frames may be used as primary discursive frames in particular contexts.
This research adds to our understanding of the ways in which arrays of discourses are organized by suggesting that preferred discursive frames are used to articulate other aspects of our identities (Fournier, 1998). Preferred discursive frames are prevailing “cultural logics” (Kuhn, 2009) that provide resources for blending various aspects of identity in coherent ways. The concept is premised on the belief that despite all the fragmentation of identities, people seek coherence as they narrate their identities (Meisenbach, 2008), and this narration serves as a way of organizing multiple discourses. Theoretically, any discursive resource might serve as a preferred frame given particular agents and contexts, but in practice, certain frames offer advantages for managing fragmentation and articulating a coherent narrative of the self. Primary or preferred discursive frames have the power to bridge together various facets of self in a coherent way. In our research, place was used directly to frame occupation, and indirectly to make assertions related to other facets of identity. The three variations as to how place was used as a discursive resource for identity work, lifestyle, home and challenge, showed the different ways in which place serves as a way to narrate occupation, gender, social class, and race. As such, this study provides empirical evidence as to how multiple discourses are arranged in narrative form to articulate identity.
Given the range of discourses available to participants, why did our interviewees choose place as a key discursive frame to shape their occupational identities? This research suggests that as people attempt to manage the multiple discourses available to them for identity work, they make choices about which discourses to use given the affordances those discourses provide to integrate other aspects of self and construct a preferred identity narrative. Choosing a particular discursive frame inevitably provides affordances to privilege certain aspects of identity directly and minimize other parts indirectly (Gibson, 1979; Pepper, 2008). In this case, using Missoula, Montana, as a discursive identity frame provides material and symbolic/cultural affordances. For some, the material affordances of this place include such things as topography (mountains and rivers) and climate (snowfall)—opportunities for outdoor recreating. Along these lines, symbolic affordances include cultural representations of Montana as representative of the “West” in American culture with corresponding images of the frontier and rural values (Harter, 2004; Turner, 1928). These material and symbolic affordances allow these entrepreneurs to use place in a way to frame particular gendered, raced, and classed occupational identities. For instance, by describing his decision to locate his business in Montana and to participate in the recreational activities such a locale provides, an entrepreneur portrays and constructs a middle-class, White, masculine identity. Such a portrayal has socially desirable connotations that would be politically incorrect to frame in more direct ways. In a sense, place may be a more socially acceptable discursive means in today’s world to embrace and perpetuate masculinity and whiteness. Like Ashcraft’s (2007) airline captains, our entrepreneurs constructed preferred identities of White, masculine agents. The material, historical, and symbolic affordances provided by certain discourses may help scholars explain why identities are narrated through particular frames as opposed to others. This study adds to scholarly understanding as to how arrays of discourses are organized and made meaningful for identity work.
As a third and final contribution, this research answers calls to explore the relationships between the material and the symbolic aspects of organizational life (Alvesson et al., 2008; Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004). In this case, the material aspects of Missoula, Montana as place provide certain affordances and constraints for identity construction (Gibson, 1979). The physical geography of Montana, which includes such things as mountains and rivers, enables certain constructions of identity. For instance, one can readily articulate oneself as being a “skier” or “kayaker” in Missoula, but not a “surfer” or a “diver.” People draw on the cultural discourses made possible through the material affordances provided by particular places as they engage in identity work.
Narratives of identity shaped through place may also have implications for the material segregation of bodies in specific locales. In other words, the identity narratives afforded by Missoula and Montana may appeal to specific entrepreneurs (read: White, middle- to upper-class males) while at the same time be unappealing or even unavailable to others. This identification may serve to segregate people to certain places according to gender, race, and class. For entrepreneurs who can narrate themselves into the larger narrative of Missoula, Montana, there may be no better place. As a result, we find White, male entrepreneurs choosing to (re)locate in Missoula. Those of other classes, races, and genders may not find these narratives of place as appealing, however, as it may be difficult to locate oneself in a narrative that has been historically and materially unavailable. In an increasingly diverse America, this possibility has profound implications for relatively homogeneous locales such as Missoula and efforts of community leaders to bring in more high-tech entrepreneurs as the identity narrative afforded by Missoula appeals to an increasingly narrow segment of society. This exclusivity makes the identity more attractive to some but is problematic in the sense that it may also contribute to the material segregation of bodies according to race and gender (Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004).
Conclusion
Even in the global economy where work and workers are increasingly mobile, this research suggests that place plays a significant role in shaping occupational identity. We expand on current research related to place and identity by linking identity work to place beyond the worksite (Pepper, 2008; Rooney et al., 2010). More specifically, we show how a particular city, embedded in a state and region, provided discursive resources that participants took up to articulate their occupational identities related to entrepreneurship. Although broad societal discourses such as the discourse of enterprise are largely influential in shaping the occupational identities of entrepreneurs, locale-specific discourses, made possible by the symbolic and material affordances of a particular place, allow for alternative constructions of the ideal entrepreneur. Understanding occupational identity requires exploring the ways in which occupation is enacted in particular places. In addition, this research implicates place in organizing other facets of social identity like gender, race, and class. Locale-specific discursive resources related to place provided affordances for shaping White, middle-class, male occupational identities. Overall, this research suggests that organizational scholars should pay more attention to place, at a variety of levels, as a key discursive resource for occupational identity work. As place and choice of place become important markers of identity in a mobile, globalized world, paying close attention to place can help scholars of organizations better understand the ways in which people construct their occupational identities.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Karen Ashcraft, Joel Iverson, Jerry Pepper, Alan Sillars, the editor, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this manuscript.
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors disclosed receipt of the financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the University Small Grant Program at the University of Montana.