Fishermen or Swarm Dynamics? Should we Understand Jihadist Online-Radicalization as a Top-Down or Bottom-Up Process?

The internet has profoundly changed the way we communicate, including how jihadist groups seek to reach Western audiences with their propaganda strategies. Cases of believed online-radicalization call for a re-evaluation of radicalization processes, previously thought to depend on face-to-face interactions. Based on the Hoffman-Sageman debate on whether top-down or bottom-up processes drive terrorism, this essay explores both social movement and organizational approaches to understand online-radicalization. Do jihadist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and IS act as ‘fishermen’, actively engaging in the radicalization processes of individual recruits, or is radicalization driven by social group dynamics with little organizational involvement? Essentially, the larger question is: What role do organizational structures play for radicalization in times of ‘virtual jihad’? Bottom-up radicalization processes are facilitated online, because the conditions for Sageman’s ‘bunch of guys’ are replicated by the characteristics of virtual communication: an echo chamber effect causes frame-alignment through repetition and enables ‘digital natives’ to communicate claims that resonate with other ‘digital natives’. Top-down structures are influential, because organizations continue to employ sophisticated propaganda development, preachers and special recruiters or ‘fishermen’. The article finds evidence for both schools of thought and concludes that the internet facilitates both types of radicalization mechanisms. Only a holistic strategy will be successful in battling online-radicalization and must include both targeting direct channels through which the organizations execute control over recruits, and breaking the echo chamber created by social movement dynamics in the virtual world. While countermeasures need to include the provision of alternative social narratives and the utilization of ‘digital natives’ to make counter-messages more effective, organizational structures need to be tackled simultaneously, not only by identifying and arresting preachers and recruiters, but also through stronger internet governance tools and collaboration with social media companies

Corporate venturing – a new way of creating a company’s future

Purpose – More and more companies are embarking on an experimental journey into an unpredictable future – a future that is characterised by uncertainty and new challenges. Corporate venturing enables established companies, so-called incumbents, to deal with new markets and business models in a highly flexible and innovative way, besides their existing business and well known, successful business models. A new innovator’s dilemma has emerged: not only established companies are required to be increasingly creative and to question existing thought patterns, but it is similar for start ups and new businesses. Research method – After conceptualising the paper and conducting literature bibliometry by VOSviewer, the research gap was identified. It is based on the three presented approaches: Causation, Effectuation and Bricolage as transformative approaches for strategic decision-making. Using a qualitative research by conducting 30 in-depth interviews, a transcription and a MaxQDA analysis, 5 identified corporate venturing tools were shown. Originality/value – The paper introduces a new approach of management which rapidly gains importance and which is crucial for companies in upcoming times to compete with flexible and disruptive start-up based business models.Thomas BAAKEN: [email protected] ALFERT: [email protected] KLIEWE: [email protected] BAAKEN, Professor - Managing Director of the Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, MünsterCarina ALFERT, MA - Academic Researcher, Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, Münster, Münster & VU Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The NetherlandsThorsten KLIEWE, Professor - Research Director of the Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, MünsterAlfert C., Bossink B., Baaken T., Kliewe T., 2019, Linking corporate venturing and effectuation in established organizations. A theory-focused literature review, [in:] Proceedings of HTSF, High Tech Small Firms Conference, Enschede, Netherlands, 27-28 May 2019.Antoncic B., Hisrich R.D., 2003, Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept, “Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development”, vol. 10(1), pp. 7-24, DOI: 10.1108/14626000310461187.Baker T., Miner A.S., Eesley D.T., 2003, Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process, “Research Policy”, vol. 32(2), pp. 255-276.Baker T., Nelson R.E., 2005, Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage, “Administrative Science Quarterly”, vol. 50(3), pp. 329-366, DOI: 10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329.Battistini B., Hacklin F., Baschera P., 2013, The State of Corporate Venturing: Insights from a Global Study, “Research-Technology Management”, vol. 56(1), pp. 31-39, DOI: 10.5437/08956308X5601077.Birkinshaw J., Hill S.A., 2005, Corporate Venturing Units, “Organizational Dynamics”, vol. 34(3), pp. 247-257, DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.06.009.Bosma N.S., Stam E., Wennekers S., 2011, Intrapreneurship versus independent entrepreneurship: A cross-national analysis of individual entrepreneurial behaviour, Utrecht School of Economics, Working Papers, vol. 11(4).Bouette R.D., 2004, Creative Coupling Programme, Report prepared for the Government of Victoria, Melbourne.Bryman A., Bell E., 2015, Business research methods, Fourth edition, University Press, Oxford.Chesbrough H., 2010, Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers, “Long Range Planning”, vol. 43(2-3), pp. 354-363, DOI: 0.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.010.Christensen C.M., Raynor M.E., McDonald R., 2015, What is disruptive innovation, “Harvard Business Review”, vol. 93(12), pp. 44-53.Christensen C.M., 1997, The Innovator’s Dilemma, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Christensen C.M., Overdorf M., 2000, Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change, “Harvard Business Review”, vol. 78(2), pp. 6-77.Covin J.G., Garrett R.P., Gupta J.P., Kuratko D.F., Shepherd D.A., 2018, The Interdependence of Planning and Learning among Internal Corporate Ventures, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, vol. 42(4), pp. 537-570, DOI: 10.1177/1042258718783430.Davey T., Meerman A., Galan-Muros V., Orazbayeva B., Baaken T., 2018, The State of University-Business Cooperation in Europe, Report for the European Commission, Publications Office of the European Union, Brussels.Dew N., Sarasvathy S.D., 2001, Of immortal firms and mortal markets: Dissolving the Innovator’s Dilemma, Presented at: The Second Annual Technology Entrepreneurship Research Policy Conference, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, December.Dew N., Sarasvathy S.D., Rea S., Wiltbank R., 2008, Immortal firms in mortal markets?: An entrepreneurial perspective on the “innovator’s dilemma”, “European Journal of Innovation Management”, vol. 11(3), pp. 313-329, DOI: 10.1108/14601060810888982.Duymedjian R., Rüling C.-C., 2010, Towards a Foundation of Bricolage in Organization and Management Theory, “Organization Studies”, vol. 31(2), pp. 133-151, DOI: 10.1177/0170840609347051.van Eck N.J., Waltman L., 2017, Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer, “Scientometrics”, vol. 111(2), pp. 1053-1070, DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7.Evald M.R., Senderovitz M., 2013, Exploring Internal Corporate Venturing in SMEs: Effectuation at Work in a New Context, “Journal of Enterprising Culture”, vol. 21(03), pp. 275-299, DOI: 10.1142/S021849581350012X.Fisher G., 2012, Effectuation, Causation, and Bricolage: A Behavioral Comparison of Emerging Theories in Entrepreneurship Research, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, vol. 36(5), pp. 1019-1051, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00537.x.Franco M., de Fátima Santos M., Ramalho I., Nunes C., 2014, An exploratory study of entrepreneurial marketing in SMEs: The role of the founder-entrepreneur, “Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development”, vol. 21(2), pp. 265-283, DOI: 10.1108/JSBED-10-2012-0112.Futterer F., Schmidt J., Heidenreich S., 2018, Effectuation or Causation as the Key to Corporate Venture Success? Investigating Effects of Entrepreneurial Behaviors on Business Model Innovation and Venture Performance, „Long Range Planning”, vol. 51(1), pp. 64-81, DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.008.Garrett Jr. R.P., Neubaum D.O., 2013, Top management support and Initial strategic assets: A dependency model for internal corporate venture performance, “Journal of Product Innovation Management”, vol. 30(5), pp. 896-915, DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12036.Harms R., Schiele H., 2012, Antecedents and consequences of effectuation and causation in the international new venture creation process, “Journal of International Entrepreneurship”, vol. 10(2), pp. 95-116, DOI: 10.1007/s10843-012-0089-2.Hmieleski K.M., Corbett A.C., 2006, Proclivity for improvisation as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions, “Journal of Small Business Management”, vol. 44(1), pp. 45-63, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2006.00153.x.Faschingbauer M., Baierl R., Grichnik D., 2013, Effectuation: Gestalten statt Vorhersagen, [in:] Das unternehmerische Unternehmen: revitalisieren und gestalten der Zukunft mit Effectuation, Grichnik D., Gassmann O. (eds.), Springer-Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 3-21.Kliewe T., Alfert C., Baaken T., 2019, Corporate Venture Management und Entrepreneurial Marketing, [in:] Entrepreneurial Marketing, PraxisWISSEN Marketing, Rumler A., Stumpf M. (eds.), UNI-Edition, Berlin, pp. 16-30, DOI: 10.15459/95451.28.Kliewe T., Marquardt P., Baaken T., 2009, Leveraging Organizational Resources by Creative Coupling: An Evaluation of Methods for Intellectual Asset Identification, “Journal of Knowledge Globalization”, vol. 2(2), pp. 1-23.Kötting M., Kuckertz A., 2018, Innovationsförderung durch Corporate Venturing, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322835366_Innovationsforderung_durch_Corpo rate_Venturing_Ein_ganzheitliches_Framework_fur_die_praktische_Umsetzung, [date of entry: 02.11.2018]Kuratko D.F., Covin J.G., Garrett R.P., 2009, Corporate venturing: Insights from actual performance, “Business Horizons”, vol. 52(5), pp. 459-467, DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor. 2009.05.001.Kuratko D.F., 2010, Corporate entrepreneurship: An introduction and research review, [in:] Handbook of entrepreneurship research, Springer, New York, pp. 129-163.Lévi-Strauss C., 1966, The savage mind, University Press, Chicago.Lumpkin G.T., 2007, Intrapreneurship and innovation, [in:] The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, Baum J.R., Frese M., Baron R. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, pp. 237-264.MacMillan I.C., Block Z., Narasimha P.S., 1986, Corporate venturing: Alternatives, obstacles encountered, and experience effects, “Journal of Business Venturing”, vol. 1(2), pp. 177-191.Mainela T., Puhakka V., 2009, Organising New Business in a Turbulent Context: Opportunity Discovery and Effectuation for IJV Development in Transition Markets, “Journal of International Entrepreneurship”, vol. 7, pp. 111-134, DOI: 10.1007/s10843-008-0034-6.Mayring P., 2010, Qualitative inhaltsanalyse, [in:] Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 601-613.Mes F., 2011, Internal Corporate Venturing zur Steigerung der Innovationsfähigkeit etablierter Unternehmen, Gabler, Wiesbaden.Miles M.P., Covin J.G., 2002, Exploring the practice of corporate venturing: Some common forms and their organizational implications, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, vol. 26(3), pp. 21-40, DOI: 10.1177/104225870202600302.Moe N.B., Dingsøyr T., Dybå T., 2010, A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project, “Information and Software Technology”, vol. 52(5), pp. 480-491, DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.004.Narayanan V.K., Yang Y., Zahra S.A., 2009, Corporate venturing and value creation: A review and proposed framework, “Research Policy”, vol. 38(1), pp. 58-76, DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.015.Nolte A., Pe-Than E.P.P., Filippova A., Bird C., Scallen S., Herbsleb J.D., 2018, You Hacked and Now What?: Exploring Outcomes of a Corporate Hackathon, [in:] Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, t. 129.O’Reilly C.A., Tushman M.L., 2008, Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma, “Research in Organizational Behavior”, vol. 28, pp. 185-206, DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002.Parker S.K., Collins C.G., 2010, Taking Stock: Integrating and Differentiating Multiple Proactive Behaviors, “Journal of Management”, vol. 36(3), pp. 633-662, DOI: 10.1177/0149206308321554.Perry J.T., Chandler G.N., Markova G., 2012, Entrepreneurial effectuation: a review and suggestions for future research, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, vol. 36(4), pp. 837-861, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00435.x.Petzold N., Landinez L., Baaken T., 2019, Disruptive innovation from a process view: A systematic literature review, „Creativity and Innovation Management Journal”, vol. 28(1), pp. 1-18, DOI: 10.1111/caim.12313.Poguntke, M. 2016, Abstrakte Interaktionsmodelle für die Integration in bestehende Benutzerschnittstellen (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ulm).Scaringella L., Radziwon A., 2018, Innovation, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and business ecosystems: Old wine in new bottles?, “Technological Forecasting and Social Change”, vol. 136, pp. 59-87, DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.023.Sarasvathy S.D., 2001, What makes entrepreneurs entrepreneurial?, The Darden Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Virginia, Virginia.Sarasvathy S.D., Berglund H., 2010, On the Relevance of Decision-making in Entrepreneurial Decision-making, [in:] Historical foundations of entrepreneurial research, Landström H., Lohrke L. (eds.), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 163-184.Schmidt A.L., Alfert C., Petzold N., Junker C., 2018, Business Model Innovation in Corporate Ventures – The Nucleus of Disruption, [in:] Proceedings of 19th International CINet Conference Continuous Innovation: Spinning out and spinning in, Dublin, September.Sharma P., Chrisman J.J., 1999, Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship, “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, vol. 23(3), pp. 11-28.Stokes D., 2000, Entrepreneurial marketing: a conceptualisation from qualitative research, “Qualitative market research – an international Journal”, vol. 3(1), pp. 47-54, DOI: 10.1108/13522750010310497.1(99)32

Occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis : results of a feasibility study for a pooled analysis of original data

Previous meta-analyses have suggested an increased risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) associated with occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF). However, results should be interpreted with caution since studies were methodologically heterogeneous. Here, we assessed the feasibility of a pooling study to harmonize and re-analyze available original data. A systematic literature search was conducted. Published epidemiological studies were identified in PubMed and EMF-Portal from literature databases′ inception dates until January 2019. The characteristics of all studies were described, including exposure metrics, exposure categories, and confounders. A survey among the principal investigators (PI) was carried out to assess their willingness to provide their original data. The statistical power of a pooling study was evaluated. We identified 15 articles published between 1997 and 2019. Studies differed in terms of outcome, study population, exposure assessment, and exposure metrics. Most studies assessed ELF-MF as average magnetic flux density per working day; however, exposure categories varied widely. The pattern of adjustment for confounders was heterogeneous between studies, with age, sex, and socioeconomic status being most frequent. Eight PI expressed their willingness to provide original data. A relative risk of ≥1.14 for ALS and occupational exposure to ELF-MF can be detected with a power of more than 80% in a pooled study. The pooling of original data is recommended and could contribute to a better understanding of ELF-MF in the etiology of ALS based on a large database and reduced heterogeneity due to a standardized analysis protocol with harmonized exposure metrics and exposure categories

Online Extremism and Terrorism Researchers’ Security, Safety, and Resilience:: Findings from the Field

This report presents findings from the REASSURE (Researcher, Security, Safety, and Resilience) project’s in-depth interviews with 39 online extremism and terrorism researchers. Based at universities, research institutes, and think tanks in Europe and North America, the interviewees studied mainly, albeit not exclusively, far-right and violent jihadist online activity. The report catalogues for the first time the range of harms they have experienced, the lack of formalised systems of care or training, and their reliance therefore on informal support networks to mitigate those harms

The evolution of university-industry linkages-A framework

This qualitative study extends literature on research commercialization by examining the dynamic nature of university-industry linkages (UIL). Thirty in-depth interviews conducted in Australia and Germany/the Netherlands provide evidence of the different phases through which UILs evolve and respective measures of success. Communication, understanding, trust, and people are universal drivers, yet managers must consider the variations in the nature of these factors to ensure successful UILs. This study equips managers involved in technology transfer, innovation, and commercialization with critical insights into developing effective relationships. The proposed conceptual framework also uncovers notable theoretical and managerial implications and offers some key research directions. © 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Carolin Plewa, Nisha Korff, Claire Johnson, Gregory Macpherson, Thomas Baaken, Giselle Camille Rampersa

Wirtschafts-Wissenschaftskooperationen an Fachhochschulen in Europa

Dieser Beitrag zeigt Ergebnisse einer Studie zu Wissenschafts-Wirtschaftskooperationen (WWK) in Europa, die 2011 für die Europäische Kommission durchgeführt wurde. Alle Hochschulen in 33 EU+-Ländern wurden einbezogen, ein Rücklauf von 6.280 vollständigen Interviews erzielt. WWK werden durch Faktoren beeinflusst, die die Wahrnehmung von Nutzen sowie von Barrieren und Treibern beinhalten. Auch situative Faktoren beeinflussen deren Ausmaß und Umfang. WWK können durch adäquate Strategien, Strukturen und Ansätze, operationale Aktivitäten sowie unterstützende Rahmenbedingungen verstärkt werden. Ein Modell wird vorgestellt, dass das Beziehungsgeflecht der verschie­denen Elemente innerhalb der WWK darstellt. Der Beitrag präsentiert einige detaillierte Ergebnisse zu Fachhochschulen in Europa. 30.03.2012 | Thomas Baaken (Münster) & Todd Davey (Münster/Amsterdam

Bricolage and Growth Hacking: Two Smart Concepts of Creating a Business Lacking Resources

The chapter presents two smart concepts of creating a new business without or with only low budget. Thus, it applies particularly e.g., for either students, refugees and/or people from developing countries. “Bricolage” stands for a behaviour in which the actor solves problems using only available resources. Contrary to the resource-creating mentality, only the resources of the repertoire at hand are used. “Growth Hacking” as a new method, using digital approaches in particular, can achieve high sales in a short time. The relevance of data-driven marketing within the framework of a growth strategy. Working primarily with data is a promising strategy for companies that can effectively, efficiently and cost effectively using online tools or online-offline combinations to achieve their growth objectives. Thus, the two concepts are complementing each other by dedication to two different stages of a start-up process. Bricolage for creating the start-up and Growth Hacking for getting it successfully to the market and make it grow sustainably. The Chapter is describing the two concepts and their interdependence by offering a conceptual framework

Sustainable Cultivated Landscapes in Germany: Goals and Requirements from an Ecological, Economic and Legal Perspective

The global increase in greenhouse gases is also changing the climate conditions more severely in Germany. This particularly affects local cultivated landscapes, which cover large parts of Germany and are already experiencing a wide range of ecological problems. Although agricultural land use characterises cultivated landscapes, their sustainability does not only depend on a change in farming methods. The creation of sustainable cultivated landscapes requires an approach that goes beyond individual actions, which is rather a task for society as a whole that extends well beyond the responsibility and possibilities of individual landowners and managers. Based on the common ecological problems and the specific challenges of climate change described in more detail in the article, we therefore analyse what sustainability means and which social goals and requirements can be identified for cultivated landscapes. The article aims to create a basis for developing practical concepts for measures, government regulations and state subsidies