Phase 1 (Qualitative) Results

  • Stephen C. Clark
  • Theodora Valvi
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth book series (DIG)


The ideas and common concepts derived from the transcripts were used to verify and support the generated categories and properties that evolved from the data. This resulted in the development of three categories (themes) and nine properties (sub-themes). The category cultural mobility evolution (CME) can best be described as the interdependencies between people and their environment. The category CME identified three properties. These are summarized in Table 8.1, and the following section will describe them in detail.


  1. Barbour, R. S., & Schostak, J. (2004). Interviewing and focus groups. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in social science. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. New York: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  3. Borg, S. (2001). The research journal: A tool for promoting and understanding researcher development. Language Teaching Research, 5(2), 156–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carayannis, E. G. (2008). Knowledge-driven creative destruction, or leveraging knowledge for competitive advantage: Strategic knowledge arbitrage and serendipity as real options drivers triggered by co-opetition, co-evolution and co-specialization. Industry & Higher Education, 22(6), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eisenhart, M. (2001). Educational ethnography past, present, and future: Ideas to think with. Educational Researcher, 30(8), 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Francis, D. (1995). The reflective journal: A window to preserve teachers’ practical knowledge. Technology & Teacher Education, 11(3), 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Friesner, T., & Hart, M. (2005a, April 21–22). Learning log analysis: Analysis data that record reflection, experience and learning. Paper delivered to 4th European conference on research methodology for business and management studies. Universite’ Paris-DauphineGoogle Scholar
  8. Friesner, T., & Hart, M. (2005b). Learning logs: Assessment or research method. The Electronic Journal of Research Methodology, 3(2), 117–122.Google Scholar
  9. Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1989). The manual of learning opportunities. Maidenhead: Ardingly House.Google Scholar
  10. Jones, F., & Fletcher, B. (1996). Taking work home: A study of daily fluctuations in work stressors, effects on moods and impacts on marital partners. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Milliken, J. (2001). Qualitative research and marketing management. Management Decision, 39(1), 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ortlipp, M. (2008). Keeping and using reflective journals in the qualitative research process. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 695–705.Google Scholar
  13. Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. A. (1978). A manager’s guide to self-development. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen C. Clark
    • 1
  • Theodora Valvi
    • 2
  1. 1.California State University, SacramentoSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Independent ResearcherAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations