Content uploaded by Sylke Lützenkirchen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sylke Lützenkirchen on Apr 18, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
83
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
Discovering the Real
Needs of the Client –
possibilities of grounded
theory in design
processes
Sylke Lützenkirchen
University of Wuppertal
mail@sylkeluetzenkirchen.de
LÜTZENKIRCHEN, Sylke. Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of
grounded theory in design processes. Revista D: Desgin, Educação, Sociedade e
Sustentabilidade, 19th DMI: Academic Design Management Conference Design Management
in an Era of Disruption., 2015.
Editora UniRitterLaureateInternationalUniversities
2015 © Todos os direitos reservados.
84
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
Discovering the Real Needs of
the Client – possibilities of
grounded theory in design
processes
Sylke Lützenkirchen
University of Wuppertal
mail@sylkeluetzenkirchen.de
ABSTRACT
As service providers for SMEs, designers usually have to adapt to various needs when working in cooperation with
different clients. However, these needs and requirements are often not transparent and cannot be determined in
a structured way. In this investigation, data is collected through narrative interviews, which often reveal
information the interviewees themselves are unaware of. Furthermore, grounded theory will be discussed as a
possible basis for a profound, empirical research method that is also applicable to the field of design. The
present contribution analyzes the fields of ‘motivation for change’, ‘communication structure’ and ‘project
management’. On the basis of these three fields, various forms of cooperation among designers and clients will
be described and compared. Research questions considered are: What kind of designer best fits the requirements
of a company? Do entrepreneurs need a visionary leader or a structured realist for their tasks? Do designers need
the leadership qualities of a team player or rather of a steersman? Do companies need designers to act as
psychologists or educators? A concluding overview/summary will describe different characteristics of designer
skills in relation to job requirements – all excerpted from the empirical field study.
Keywords: Collaboration of designers and entrepreneurs; narrative interviews; grounded theory
85
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
1 INTRODUCTION
When designers and entrepreneurs – especially CEOs or Managing Directors of
SMEs – work together, there are often disruptions in their collaboration
process. They may well have different targets and needs, and sometimes it
seems they just don't fit together. Furthermore, entrepreneurs of small
companies are often skeptical about finding a suitable associate for their
tasks, while on the other hand designers are not informed about the specific
needs of the client on which they will have to focus in the design
management process. The present field study focuses on the collaborative
interface between designers and entrepreneurs (or companies). The main
questions here are:
How do designers and entrepreneurs work together?
What are their essential requirements?
When is the cooperation successful?
2 COLLABORATION IN DESIGN PROCESSES – AN INVESTIGATION OF
DISRUPTION
Research on the collaboration process in entrepreneurship is a recent
phenomenon. Indeed, scholarly research on entrepreneurship was only a
generation ago virtually non-existent (Audretsch, 2012). Recently, however,
entrepreneurship has emerged as one of the most dynamic, vital and
relevant fields in management (Wiklund, Davidson, Audretsch and Karlsson
(2011)). Audretsch emphasizes its multiplicity and breadth when he sees the
current focus of entrepreneurship as ‘more on the characteristics of the
individuals and organisations that exhibit entrepreneurial behavior […]
Entrepreneurship is anything but unified and singular’. On the contrary, it is
‘heterogeneous and differentiated […] in a rapidly emerging field that is rich
and dynamic, and appeals to theory, practice and policy’ (Audretsch, 2012).
But what of the collaboration process itself, when two entrepreneurs – the
designer on one hand and the CEO of an SME on the other – are working
together? Some commentators suggest the field is fraught with
86
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
misunderstanding. Here are two insights from Brigitte Wolf (Professor of
Design Theory, Industrial Design, University of Wuppertal): ‘The existing
communication problems have something mystic and are bewailed by many
designers but also by SMEs’ (Wolf, 2008, p. 48). This may be because
designers, as service providers for SMEs, generally have to adapt both their
aims and their working methods to the diverse needs of their various clients.
But these needs and requirements are often not transparent and cannot be
determined in a structured way. ‘Understanding the thoughts and activities
of SME leaders is the key to all further collaboration’ (Wolf, 2008, p. 48).
The field study presented here was launched in order to learn more about
the relations and interactions between designers and entrepreneurs, and to
investigate the role of design as a key element in the innovation process –
especially in SMEs. In addition to the 10 (measurement) design framework
categories developed by Thomas Lockwood, there may be some further, as
yet unidentified issues worth pinpointing (Lockwood, 2007). The study aims,
therefore, to provide a full description of the interface between designer
and entrepreneur. According to Audretsch (2012): ‘The methodo- logy
involving the behavioral approach to entrepreneurship typically does not
involve large-scale comprehensive data sets […] rather, the experiment- tal
methodology offers a viable way to identify (observe) and analyze
entrepreneurial behavior.’ Reflecting Audretsch, an open instrument
consisting of a qualitative empirical field study was chosen. Designers and
SME entrepreneurs were interviewed with a view to gaining information
about their collaboration processes and the value of successful design
projects. Key questions here are: what specific designer skills do SMEs
consider important; and what skills are rated highly by designers? The aim
was to determine and examine different points of view, new approaches,
and empirical findings that describe highly valued design abilities – i.e.
abilities that give rise to successful cooperation between designers and SMEs
(or their CEOs) and generate high added value.
87
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
3 NARRATIVE INTERVIEWS AND GROUNDED THEORY – HOW TO IMPROVE A
THEORETICAL CONSTRUCT FROM INDUCTIVE DATA
3.1 Aim of research
Individuals are only limited informants about their subjective points of view.
When interviewing people, aspects and details hidden from the interviewee
cannot be discovered by a simple request for information. An open
instrument like a qualitative social research field study is a more
appropriate instrument for revealing such hidden aspects – not least because
of the lack of necessary knowledge to serve as a guideline.
This study therefore uses narrative interviews for investigation. These allow
a full description of the interface between designer and entrepreneur, and
shed light on the way in which SMEs and designers (subjectively) experience
and evaluate new and hidden things about their cooperation. The questions
considered are:
How do entrepreneurs and designers work together?
What are their specific goals and expectations from the
collaboration?
What are the main potentials and problems of cooperation?
What are the potential conflict and/or risk situations, and how do
they relate to the gain of the teamwork/collaboration?
What are the decisive criteria for successful and satisfying work?
For the analytical phase, this research study used an open instrument, which
was able to develop a theory and description of needs and expectations step
by step from the data. Grounded theory fulfills this requirement in to a high
degree. It enables ‘discovery from data’ – i.e. reveals information hidden in
the data. It takes account of comparisons and provides an open process
throughout the investigation.
The methods of narrative interview and grounded theory were both initially
developed by the Chicago School (Alfred Schütz, Barney Glaser and Anselm
88
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
Strauss) in the early 20th century, and focused on symbolic interactionism
and phenomenology (Bohnsack, (2003), p. 91; Apitzsch & Inowlocki (2000)
pp. 53, 58). In general, grounded theory – with the general mechanism of
theoretical coding, comparative analysis, and theoretical sampling (Strauss,
Corbin, (1996) p. 163) – is not the way to analyze narrative interviews, but
even Flick named theoretical coding as a possible method for this purpose,
as it can access a subjective point of view (Flick 2011, p. 550). The present
investigation has brought narrative interviews and grounded theory together
as a time-effective toolkit derived from qualitative empirical social research
for discovering hidden things.
This relates to the working hypothesis: We assume that a careful analysis
and description of the needs and expectations, as well as the characteristic
performances and reactions of both designers and entrepreneurs may open
up new ways to bridge the gap between their partly incompatible demands.
4 SAMPLE STUDY: FACES OF COOPERATION – DESIGNERS AND
ENTREPRENEURS
Designers (with management tasks) and SME entrepreneurs (including
managing directors and heads of marketing) were interviewed with a view to
gaining information about their collaboration processes and the value of
successful design projects. The designer and entrepreneur spoke in
individual narrative interviews about a specific design project chosen by the
interviewer before the interview started. Selection criteria for the sample
were that it should be as representative as possible and cover all relevant
aspects. In order to achieve this, an initial pilot sample was taken and the
results analyzed and used to develop a wider range of variations. The
theoretical sample, unknown in its overall dimensions at the beginning, was
developed step by step in separate interviews.
89
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
Data was collected through narrative interviews (following Schütze), which
fulfil the requirements of an open instrument to a high degree. A narrative
interview should have three parts:
open narrative with stimulus (narrating stimulus) from interviewer
but without additional questions; narrator closes the narration by
him/herself; pauses (and conclusion) should not be filled/prompted
by interviewer;
narrative with immanent probing questions (in-depth interview
technique supported by notes and note-taking);
narrative prompted by generic guideline questions (for completion).
So far 6 entrepreneur interviews and 6 designer interviews have been
evaluated. Interviews were electronically recorded and subsequently
transcribed so that the material gathered could undergo a detailed analysis.
Figure 1
The iterative Grounded
Theory Method
research process
Font: adapted from
Haller, 2000, p. 14
90
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
5 NARRATIVE INTERVIEWS – WHAT CAN THEY ACCOMPLISH?
5.1 The aim of narrative interviews as investigative method
This investigation makes use of the possibility of narrative interviews which
often reveal information the interviewees themselves are unaware of. Thiis
due to the immediacy of the narrative situation that draws the interviewee
into its own logic where one detail prompts the disclosure of another. By
being put on the spot, interviewees are prompted to describe the whole of a
particular process. It has recently been demonstrated that even managers
who are specialists in communication will disclose hidden things in narrative
interviews (Holtgrewe & Taffertshofer (2009) p. 60).
5.2 Function of narrative interviews as investigative method
The disclosure of hidden things is achieved through so-called enmeshments
or entanglements and by maneuvering the interviewee into a tight spot (Flick
(2011), Helfferich (2011), Küsters (2009)). The technique has three strands,
each of which generates a different type of compulsion to talk (Kallmeyer &
Schütze (1977) p. 162, 168):
compulsive detail – the interviewee focuses on the historical
sequence of events being described and their connections; this
creates pressure to go into enough detail to make the story
intelligible and credible.
compulsive form – the interviewee strives to round off the cognitive
structures of the narrative and create closure from other stories.
compulsive compression – the interviewee is confronted with a mass
of detail that must be edited and compressed by constant evaluation
and omission on the basis of greater or less relevance.
During the interview it is necessary to take the interview partner by surprise,
so that they tell their story spontaneously. They are told about the process
but not about its specific aim, and they are allowed to choose the
development of the narration themselves. Interviewees should be active
project partners from the pilot project. They will then click into their earlier
story and revitalize its structures and details. It is important that
they
91
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
narrate
the processes they are describing as timelines or content connections
to make the story easier and more coherent. The
process begins
with a
carefully prepared trigger question that stimulates a
process of
narration.
The question should be the same in all interviews and should contain (or at
least be connected with) the invitation ‘tell…’.
In the study described here the trigger question was, for the designer: ‘Tell
me how you came to work together with your client, how you got to know
him/her and how the cooperation went.’ For the entrepreneur the question
was simply the other way round: ‘How you came to work together with your
designer, etc.’
This allows the interviewee to freely select the structure, figures and values
of the narrative without having to follow a set of questions or instructions.
The story can stray into contexts unexplored by either interviewer or
interviewee, or which the interviewee would not otherwise be prepared to
embark on (Schütze (1976), p. 222). Thus it regularly reveals new
information. The interview form requires patience and tolerance from the
interviewer, as well as openness to new areas of knowledge (Köttig & Völzke
(2004)).
6 GROUNDED THEORY – WHAT CAN BE DISCOVERED BY ANALYZING
INTERVIEW DATA?
6.1 Why use grounded theory?
Purely quantitative procedures cannot adequately grasp complex social
realities. Moreover, they can only formulate what established theory and the
hypotheses derived from it allow. But the development of new theories is
just
as important as the demonstration of established ones: indeed, on them
frequently depends ‘the accessibility of the ‘new’’ (Mey & Mruck (2011) pp.
11, 33). Grounded theory techniques are eminently suited to this task.
Grounded theory is not so much concerned with the demonstration of any
established theory but with ‘the discovery of theory from the data’ (Glaser &
Strauss 1967 p. 1; see also Mey et al. (2011) p. 14). Its object is not ‘that
data should fit the theory’, but that ‘the theory should fit the data’ (Glaser
92
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
et al. (1967) p. 261; see also Mey et al. (2011) p. 16). Grounded theory is a
method of reflecting on social reality and awakening to life the theory that
lies dormant in the data. What it offers is a set of useful procedures, not of
rigid instructions.
Grounded theory does what it says: it develops step by step a theory that is
grounded in the data. As a scientifically established method it can address
any type of data – interviews, field observations, documents, or statistics –
and it has in fact become one of the commonest qualitative research
strategies not only in sociology, pedagogics and psychology but also more
recently in health studies and in management action research (Strauss, A.,
Corbin, J. (1996); see also Mey et al. (2011) p. 11; Titscher, Meyer, Wodak &
Vetter (2000) p. 74).
Grounded theory is, therefore, particularly appropriate to situations in which
specific guidelines for action, and recommendations for change, are called
for. Practical disciplines like training, healthcare (at all levels), marketing
etc., and indeed any discipline that transcends the purely descriptive, can
benefit from a methodology that takes the perspective of the participant as
its starting point and arrives at a theory that ‘fits, is relevant and works...’
(Glaser, in Mey et al. (2011) p. 56). For when it comes to introducing change
and stimulating decisions, a theory is stronger than a description. And many
professionals are in this position: they must change the realities with which
they are confronted, and must do so with the confidence that they have a
solid theory behind them.
6.2 What does grounded theory mean?
Grounded theory is a method of developing relevant and effective concepts
from data (Glaser, in Mey et al. (2011) p. 66) by means of systematic
observation and analysis (Strauss, et al. (1996) p. 8). Derived inductively
from the observed phenomena, it is firmly anchored in reality. ‘At the
beginning [of the process] stands the area under investigation. What is
relevant here will only become apparent in the course of the research
process’ (Strauss et al. (1996) p. 7): The systematic development of concepts
leads to the systematic development of theory. Strauss and Corbin comment:
93
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
The development of a grounded theory seeks to capture as much
as possible of the complexity and dynamics of the real world. We
know, however, that this attempt can never be entirely
successful. […] Grounded theory is not concerned with counting
frequencies, even when we are looking to prove our theory. The
perception and specification of similarities and differences within
and between categories is, on the other hand, of the utmost
importance. This is the core of grounded theory. (Strauss et al.
(1996) p. 89)
The perception and naming of phenomena leads to the perception and
naming first of categories, then of core categories, and from there to the
theory that explains them. This is a step by step process: ‘Data are
indicators for a concept that is at first provisional, but gradually emerges
with more certainty from the data’ (Strauss (1991) p. 54). The constant to
and for between inductive hypothesis and deductive checking ensures the
grounding of these various steps, right up to the construction of a theory, in
phenomenal reality.
The computer program MAXQDA (Verbi Software, 2014) provides useful
technical backup for the gradual development of codes and categories. A wide
spectrum of encoding functions facilitates the analysis and assimilation of
extensive (even heterogeneous) material like interviews, films, images etc.
As one does not know in advance what theoretical codes and categories will
emerge from the process of observation and analysis, this remains open-
ended (Glaser in Mey et al. (2011) p. 66-67), but at the same time not
entirely controllable. A key characteristic of this method is that assumptions
and premises, whether prior to or developed during the research process,
must be broken – indeed it is this breaking that (as in all intellectual activity)
constitutes the threshold from one step of the inquiry to the next. At the
end of this iterative process, composed of inductive development and
deductive demonstration, stands a theory rooted in – because derived
immediately from – the data: in other words a grounded theory.
94
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
6.3 How does this work?
In the project reported here, entitled ‘Faces of Cooperation – Designer and
Entrepreneurs’, the data was gathered in successive instances of sampling.
The sample, that is to say, was not known in its entirety from the beginning:
it arose out of and during the investigative process. In this way it was
ensured that the most relevant aspects had been uncovered. The sequence
of the interviews would not produce any different results. Hence it was
important to start the analysis and evaluation, the composition of memos
and formulation of hypotheses, directly after the first interview. This
formed the basis for the selection of the next interview. The data
transcribed from the theoretical sampling process was then encoded via the
MAXQDA program. Individual data-incidents were bundled and designated
with an appropriate concept (the ‘code’). These codes were then singled out
on the basis of their recurrence or non-recurrence in the body of data-
incidents, or of their ability to generically incorporate other codes (in vivo
code), and similarly bundled to generate categories. In the case of in vivo
codes, the generic code would provide the name for the category; in other
cases an appropriate category name would be supplied from the range of
technical terms available in the discipline.
In the course of this theoretical sampling, the codes and categories
became increasingly compressed until in the end three core phenomena
appeared. Abstracted from the empirical field study, these generic
phenomena provided a level of theoretical explanation for the dense
mass of data. They describe different characteristics of designer skills in
relation to job requirements – and hence different types of cooperation
and collaboration among designers and entrepreneurs – in fields like
motivation for change, communication structures, and project
management. They answer questions like: What kind of designer best fits
the requirements of a company? Do entrepreneurs need a visionary leader
or a structured realist for their tasks? Do designers need the leadership
qualities of a team player or of a steersman? Do companies need
designers to act as psychologists or educators?
95
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
7 RESULTS AND FINDINGS: THREE MAIN AREAS OF DISRUPTION ADDRESSED
BY THE THEORY
The three main (generic) categories determined by the research project
were motivation for change, project management, and communication
structures.
7.1 Motivation for change
Questions in this field include: What type and dimension of change do
entrepreneurs want in relation to designers? Do they have the same targets?
Which targets are most common, and when do they match? Findings range
from the antipodes
‘conservative/protective’
to ‘visionary’.
7.2 Project management
Questions in this field include: Do designers need the leadership qualities of
a team player or rather of a steersman? What are the requirements of
different companies? Do designers have to fit into an existing team or must
they fight alone for their design project both in and outside the company?
Two dimensions are explored as antipodes: ‘design integration’ and ‘design
leadership’.
7.3 Communication structures
Questions in this field include: How do entrepreneurs and designers
communicate with each other? Do companies need designers to act as
psychologists or educators? What specific skills could be important for
different kinds of entrepreneur? Findings range from the antipodes
‘psychology’ to ‘design education’.
96
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
Dimen sion s of co llaboration
8 MOTIVATION FOR CHANGE
Motivation for change varies from the conservative or protective to the
visionary.
Motivation for change
Figure 2
Dimensions of
collaboration – derived
from narrative
interviews via
grounded theory.
Figure 3
Motivation for change –
between the antipodes
‘visionary’ or
‘protective’.
97
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
8.1 Entrepreneurial perspective
Fundamental or visionary change requires a powerful decision maker and a
strong will to see it through. A design esthetic may either be a personal
value of the decision maker or provide a competitive advantage for the
enterprise. Design should in any case be calculated to stimulate market
interest. CEOs of large companies with complex structures are often
defensive or protective. Their wide responsibilities tend to restrict their
decision-making, and they as a rule prefer smooth and painless change
processes. Their company will often have an established classical and
timeless design tradition. Design in this context is generally understood as
optimization of existing forms rather than as radically innovative.
8.2 Designer perspective
Visionary designers have an innate drive to create radical change. Motivated
by exploration and adventure, they are realistic about the time needed to
put their vision into practice, and they possess the endurance necessary for
this task. Their designs break conventional boundaries, but their rhetorical
skill and (later) reputation enable them to convince others through both
presentation and verbal argument. Conservative designers are easy to
integrate into a team, and their approach to design is also conservative.
Thus they will work willingly within existing corporate design structures and
resources. Their first step will be to observe and
analyze those
structures,
which they will then often seek to reorganize and renovate. They are good at
problem solving and may often seem playful and secretive or conspiratorial.
In general, if both designer and entrepreneur belong to the same antipode,
their cooperation could be more successful. The described way of careful
analysis and description of the needs and expectations, as well as the
characteristic performances and reactions of both designers and
entrepreneurs, may open up new ways to bridge the gap between
their
partly
incompatible demands.
98
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
9 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The field of project management varies between the dimensions of design
integration, design management within established structures, and design
leadership in which the designer assumes wider responsibility.
Project management
9.1 Entrepreneurial perspective
If a company has a clear brand image, management will often be interested
in updating existing design. Clear goals will be agreed and targets defined;
project leadership and responsibility will be allocated within the company;
the designer will be treated as a team member and subjected to fairly strict
control. Every effort will be made to exclude unforeseen risks.
Entrepreneurs will generally need a designer as project leader/manager if
Figure 4
Project management –
between the antipodes
‘design integration’
and ‘design
leadership’.
99
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
they have no design competence themselves or in their company. They will
themselves be the direct contact partner for the designer. The design goal
will only be roughly outlined, as they will not be able to formulate it more
clearly. As they can invest little time in the project, and are looking for a
smooth-running operation, they will want to be guided. They trust in the
value of cooperation and in the success of the designer-led project.
9.2 Designer perspective
Design integration demands a thorough grasp of existing design parameters
and of internal corporate processes. The designer will
coordinate
the design
project, but overall responsibility will generally be taken by another
company employee. The designer will be expected to conform to established
design parameters and to concentrate on the specifics of the project in
hand. He/she must be able to explain and advise, and to coordinate the
project with a wide range of partners in the company. This calls for tact and
good judgment of colleagues.
Design leadership entails project management and associated responsibility.
It entails providing the impulse for design innovation and the plan for the
design process, and communicating these to project partners and company
management as required. Again the designer must be able to explain and
advise, and to agree the project with the CEO/entrepreneur, with whom
he/she constitutes a team. In this setup the designer is constantly in touch
with the CEO, and will have her/his own network of cooperation partners.
10 COMMUNICATION STRUCTURES
The art of communicating varies between the dimensions of psychology (or
empathic communication) and design education (didactic communication).
100
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
Communicat ion structures
10.1 Entrepreneurial perspective
Companies with little experience with design or commissioning of design
usually need high empathy to establish real requirements. The design task is
not clearly defined so the designer has a lot of scope. Relations remain
friendly with few conflict situations. CEO/entrepreneur shares/accepts
designer’s professional perspective. A didactic approach will be accepted by
CEO/entrepreneurs who have high level design awareness and experience
when they see the designer as a key player for corporate success. Design
guarantees competitive edge. Few examples of didactic communication
occurred in the current sample.
10.2 Designer perspective
Empathic communication competencies are useful for designers who work
largely independently but must dovetail into existing design and
corporate structures (teams, cooperation partners etc.). The designer
must ascertain the values, sensitivities, and real as well as expressed
Figure 5:
Communication
structures – between
the antipodes
‘psychology’, ‘design
education’.
101
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
requirements of the company and its teams etc. Frequent use of
visualization and prototyping for communication.
A didactic approach will be used to assert the designer’s professional
perspective and achieve change. High critical competence, conflict
potential, personal vanity and rhetorical competence. Design quality never
viewed as consensual. Designer’s work processes will generally be
autonomous and distinct from (other) corporate processes and structures.
11 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
The research study outlines the requirements of the designer and
entrepreneur (or CEO) as cooperation partners in the three areas of
‘communication’, ‘design management’, and ‘motivation for change’. In
each of these areas it reveals two starkly opposed attitudes like antipodes. If
both designers and entrepreneurs belong to the same antipode, their
cooperation could be more successful. The cooperation will turn out to be
much more complicated if designers and entrepreneurs belong to opposite/
crossing antipodes. Lack of awareness of these diametrical oppositions may
lead to misunderstanding and unfulfilled expectations. The present study is
therefore important in order to improve the relation between designers and
entrepreneurs. Whether it can generate a concrete catalogue of needs and
expectations for the two cooperating partners is another question. If we are
able to get more awareness and describe skills more detailed the
cooperation could be easier. Thus, a careful analysis and description of the
needs and expectations, as well as the characteristic performances and
reactions of both designers and entrepreneurs, may open up new ways to
bridge the gap between their partly incompatible demands.
Further questions concern the relevance of these findings for designer
education, and their extension through further theoretical sampling to other
disputable aspects of cooperation. Design research could also benefit from the
application and analysis of narrative interviews in combination with grounded
theory to other observation, survey and development processes in design.
102
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
REFERÊNCIAS
Audretsch, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship research. Management Decision, 50, 755-764.
Bohnsack, R. (2003). Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung. Einführung in qualitative Methoden. Opladen: Leske und
Buderich.
Flick, U. (2011). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Einführung. Reinbek: Rowohlt.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Haller, D. (2000). Einführung zum Grounded Theory Approach. in D. Haller (ed.) Grounded Theory in der
Pflegeforschung. Professionelles Handeln unter der Lupe. Bern: Huber (pp. 11-27).
Helfferich, C. (2011). Die Qualität qualitativer Daten. Wiesbaden: VS. Holtgrewe, U., & Taffertshofer, A. (2009).
Handbuch Methoden der Organisationsforschung. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften / GWV Fachverlage
GmbH.
Kallmeyer, W., & Schütze, F. (1977). Zur Konstitution von Kommunikations- schemata der
Sachverhaltsdarstellung,
in D. Wegner (ed.): Gesprächsanalysen. Hamburg: Buske, pp. 159-274.
Köttig, M., & Völzke, R. (2004). Arbeitsblatt zur Biographisch-narrativen Gesprächsführung, (Workshop)
Landesinstitut für Qualifizierung NRW.
Küsters, I. (2009). Narrative Interviews, Grundlagen und Anwendungen. Wiesbaden: Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften / GWV Fachverlage GmbH.
Lockwood, T. L. (2007). Design Value: A Framework for Measurement, Design Management Review, 18, 90-97.
MAXQDA, The Art of Data Analysis, VERBI Software. Consult. Sozialforschung. GmbH, Berlin. Retrieved 17 May,
2014 from http://www.maxqda.de Mey, G., & Mruck, K. (eds.) (2011). Grounded Theory Reader. Wiesbaden,
Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Schütze, F. (1976). Zur Hervorlockung und Analyse von Erzählungen thematisch relevanter Geschichten im
Rahmen soziologischer Feldforschung (Enticement and analysis of narrations of thematically relevant stories as
part of sociological field research: described by means of a project involving research on municipal power
structures); in A. Weymann (ed.) Kommunikative Sozialforschung. Arbeitsgruppe Bielefelder Soziologen.
München: Fink, pp. 159-260.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1996). Grounded Theory: Grundlagen Qualitativer Sozialforschung. Weinheim, Beltz.
Strauss, A. L. (1991). Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung. München: Fink.
103
Revista D.:
Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – possibilities of grounded theory in design processes
ISSN 2177-4870
Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R. & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. In search of
meaning. London: Sage.
Wiklund, J., Davidson, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Karlsson, C. (2011). The future of entrepreneurship research.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 1-9.
Wolf, Brigitte (2008). Attitude is essential! Brand, Reputation and Design Management in small and medium-
sized enterprises. Hogeschool INHOLLAND p. 1-67.
