Master Thesis Climbing the Olympus: Legitimation and Identity Struggles of a Sport Category Going Olympic Author: Dominic Lobgesang (01416725) Submitted at: Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck Faculty of Business and Management Department for Organization and Learning Supervisor: Ass. Prof. Dr. Birthe Soppe Winter Term 20/21 Innsbruck, October 2020
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Master Thesis
Climbing the Olympus: Legitimation and Identity Struggles of a Sport Category Going Olympic
Author:
Dominic Lobgesang (01416725)
Submitted at:
Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck
Faculty of Business and Management
Department for Organization and Learning
Supervisor:
Ass. Prof. Dr. Birthe Soppe
Winter Term 20/21
Innsbruck, October 2020
2
Abstract
Top down category creation and the implications on members have been largely neglected in
organizational scholarship. Using the newly created category of Olympic sport climbing, this
master thesis sheds light on the gap, of how a top down created category is enacted on the
ground. Legitimacy and identity operate as the theoretical framework for conception and data
analysis. Expert interviews with 18 key members of both the competitive and amateur sport
climbing community in Innsbruck/Austria, constitute the core of the qualitative and explorative
case study. The findings suggest both practical implications for the sport as well as theoretical
implications for category literature. The data gathered shows legitimation and acceptance of the
new Olympic category, due to transferred legitimacy and identity characteristics from
competitive climbing. It seems to represent an add-on and acceptable variation to pre-existing
features. The same performing actors are in place, carrying their inherent legitimacy and
identity with them, enacting the Olympic sport climbing category. On the theoretical side, this
thesis argues that competitive members’ dependence on a given incumbent – the IFSC sport
climbing federation – enables successful creation and implementation of a top down created
category. The dependent members are facing isomorphic effects on the road to the top. This
work provides fruitful insights on the status quo of a nascent category, from an internal
perspective. It also paves the way for pertinent follow-up research in organization studies and
sports specific scholarship.
3
Plagiarism Disclaimer
I hereby declare that this master thesis is my own and autonomous work. All sources and aids
used have been indicated as such. All texts either quoted directly or paraphrased have been
indicated by in-text citations.
Full bibliographic details are given in the list of works cited, which also contains internet
sources including URL and access date. This work has not been submitted to any other
Status/Group Age Background Means Duration (roughly)
Date Note
competition 23 student in person 14 min 04/30/2020 f.n.
amateur 37 physiotherapist in person 15 min 05/01/2020 f.n.
amateur 27 student in person 14 min 05/03/2020 r.&t.
competition 22 route setter electronic 23 min 09/11/2020 r.&t.
amateur 31 student electronic 18 min 09/11/2020 r.&t.
ex-comp 33 employee electronic 13 min 09/11/2020 r.&t.
amateur 32 youth coach electronic 25 min 09/11/2020 r.&t.
competition 19 student electronic 12 min 09/12/2020 r.&t.
ex-comp 25 student electronic 50 min 09/12/2020 r.&t.
competition 20 student electronic 11 min 09/18/2020 r.&t.
ex-comp 25 federation electronic 16 min 09/18/2020 r.&t.
ex-comp 32 employee electronic 32 min (comb.)
09/19/2020 r.&t.
ex-comp 28 employee electronic 32 min (comb.)
09/19/2020 r.&t.
competition 21 student electronic 22 min 09/19/2020 r.&t.
ex-comp 33 national team coach
electronic 13 min 09/21/2020 r.&t.
competition 20 student electronic 21 min 09/21/2020 r.&t.
amateur 27 student electronic 12 min 09/21/2020 r.&t.
competition 29 IFSC athletes’ commission
in person 13 min 09/24/2020 r.&t.
Key: f.n. = field notes; r.&t. = recorded and transcribed; comp = competition
35
I opted for the semi-structured interviewing method, as climbing as a sport and climbing folks
have a rather informal mentality, which lead to many interviews developing in sort of an
informal conversation, rather than a full on formal question and answer game. That might also
be based on the fact of me knowing all of my interviewees in person. That resulted in not
everybody getting asked the exact same questions in the same way, depending on what they
already said in the interview and where they were going with their answers. Based on the
position they revealed about the issues in question and the institutionalized role they are
representing within the community, I dug deeper into matters of interest to fully take advantage
of their specific knowledge. As an interview guideline in general, my questions were informed
by ticking the following four matters of interest:
a) Their general thoughts and personal opinion on the inclusion of sport climbing now
being in the Olympics and how they are set up.
b) Probing questions to address how they feel that this inclusion affects them in their
training, routines, sports aspirations and motivation.
c) Getting insights as to whether they feel this is challenging (or compatible to) the values
they belief are key to the sport.
d) Their personal motivation and key values in climbing.
4.3 Data Analysis
For the analysis of the collected data I worked with the qualitative data analysis (QDA) program
“Quirkos“. After transcribing my interviews in the text processing program “Microsoft Word“,
I uploaded the individual transcripts into Quirkos and started off the first round of the coding
process by inductively creating codes through the first reading of each transcript line by line.
The codes are plotted as dots on a canvas and grow in size when incrementally adding data to
each respective code and the program allows to group codes as main categories with various
sub-categories as clusters. As the transcripts were re-read several times, new codes emerged
and some data was re-coded throughout this process, to aid minimizing potential researcher’s
bias in interpretation and ensure the highest possible level of inter-subjectivity within the
analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2015).
The first round of coding was used to get an overview about the topics which the interviewees
talked about and to create a tangible feeling of the direction the content is taking. At first, I
differentiated the content in altogether 34 subcategories, which could afterwards be grouped in
five overarching categories. The five big categories that could be identified were:
Values/Lifestyle, Format, Change, Aspirations, Personal Reasons. The second round of coding
36
was focused towards the implicated change through the Olympic inclusion, regarding which
area is affected, the scale of the change and the subjective valuation, if any is apparent. Thus,
as to whether the change is radical, incremental or non-existent and if the change concerned
routines, the training, aspirations, the overall career or values. The valuation was split into three
parts, as to whether the change is perceived as positive, negative or neutral.
The text being multi-coded allows for an exploratory “proximity” analysis within the pool of
codes at hand, meaning that through the overlapping codes more or less frequent connections
emerged. That is between, for example, eventual change that happened, the depth of its impact
and the context it is embedded in. This strategy paired with the detailed data enabled a
conclusive analysis and deep insights into the social dynamics and enactment on the ground of
a newly created category.
5. Findings
In order to present my findings in a useful manner, the structure of the four main interview
issues, as introduced in 4.2 Data Collection, is going to be followed.
5.1 Varied Opinions on the Olympic Inclusion
This section captures the overall sentiment about how the core community in Innsbruck is
feeling about facing the inclusion in the Olympic program. Hence, the top down creation of a
novel category right on their doorstep and therefore, unsolicitedly broadening their category.
While the Olympic inclusion and the ongoing professionalization of the sport itself are effect
and cause at the same time, one implication from the inclusion, that can clearly be singled out,
is the invention of the Olympic combined:
“[…] followed by long deliberations of which discipline to take and in the end, they decided for
the combined.”
Through the circumstances of only receiving one set of medals for now, which is already going
to change in the Olympic games in Paris 2024, it was decided to conduct the Olympic combined
as it being the fairest solution for the sport, without excluding any disciplines:
“[…] as a matter of fact, the IOC only gave us one set of medals and it would have been
devastating for the two other disciplines if we only included one. So that has been a compromise
with the combined and hopefully we present ourselves well.”
It has to be taken into account that the Olympic inclusion was not something to happen
overnight. The final announcement over the vote for it to be included was preceded by many
steps towards this decision on behalf of the IFSC and the IOC. After all, this vote for Tokyo
37
2020 was made back in 2016, which results in four years up to now, to make sense of and adapt
to the changes through the inclusion. Accordingly, many things unfolded in the meantime and
there was time to think about the inclusion, which was highlighted by some saying that their
stance on the inclusion changed over time:
“In the beginning, I wasn’t that much in favor of it, maybe because I was still an athlete and knew
it would only work out if I totally changed and embarked on this new format. Meanwhile, it doesn’t
affect me too much, leading to thinking the inclusion is alright.”
Altogether, there was a great spectrum of answers, ranging from negative (48 codings) and
neutral (92) to highly positive aspects (74). Amateurs appear to experience rather weak,
incremental positive effects, e.g. easier conversations with non-climbers through climbing
being more popular, more appreciation for their sport, better media coverage for consumption,
outdoor crags in better condition and so on:
“When I was in my teens and told my classmates I do bouldering, they responded: oh yeah,
bowling, nice [laughs]. Nowadays most people immediately know what you are talking about or
they even tried it themselves.”
This change can also appear in different behavior, as being more drawn to watch competitions
live or via livestream because of better quality or there was none before:
“I started to really enjoy watching climbing competitions. Ten years ago, it was just horrible, but
now it is really cool with all these visualization tools, the different camera angles, professional
commenters […].”
Furthermore, their effects seem to be closely related to professionalization and noticeably more
money within sport climbing. That leads to more and better climbing gyms that they can visit,
easier accessibility of the sport, more worthwhile competitions to watch, better gear for their
use, a bigger community to interact with etc.
For the competition climbers, the positive changes were mostly deemed radical and are closest
related to routines, regarding their day to day business. More financial resources for the
federation and in the end, the individual athlete, enabled access to better support features like
physiotherapy, regenerative measures, nutritionists, closer supervision, training camps, way
more spots in the sports army for climbers and better sponsoring. Further positive mentions are
generally related to rising popularity, aspirations to qualify for the Olympics and career
prospects overall.
Neutral change was mostly considered to be of incremental nature and connected to their
routines and the values of the sport. It was mostly about the ongoing change of route setting in
competitions and gyms, changed training routines and a denser competition schedule.
38
Moreover, it regarded an indifferent attitude towards combined and, going back to the values,
towards the alleged divergence of the world of outdoor climbing and competition climbing:
“In my days, there wasn’t really any comp climber not going outdoors. Now there are still people
who do both, but many athletes just do competition climbing, that changed. But partly that is
simply due to the combined format. Having to train three disciplines just doesn’t leave you with
a lot of time to go rock climbing.”
The negative share of comments was strongly tied to radical change. Here, most interviewees
talked about change in values, routines, rivalry within the community, imposed career
isomorphism and training changes:
“What I really underestimated was how divided the community got through this Olympic topic.
[…] Lately, I don’t even dare to say in the climbing gym that I fancy this development in climbing,
because I am sure that about 90% of my colleagues are totally against it, consider me crazy and
say these Olympics are just bullshit.”
Rising popularity also brings along change and problems not everybody is happy with:
“[…] as it becomes more popular, the focus is also more on money. Everybody wants to earn
money with climbing and for me, this doesn’t fit together with climbing as I know it.”
Many of the perceived negative aspects are rooted in the combined format, because it implicates
lots of imposed change in the training, the career supporting system and many more:
“As a specialist in one discipline, you will not go places anymore, […], the combined athletes
have to be preferred by the federation whenever possible. […] I personally am skeptical about
changing a sport so substantially, just for the sake of the Olympic inclusion.”
On top, speed climbing does not enjoy too much of a high standing in the Austrian climbing
landscape, with many people disregarding it as athletics and making statements like the
following:
“Technically, the movement is a climbing movement, but I wouldn’t really call it climbing. It’s
more like a 100m sprint, just vertically.”
The rather incremental changes deemed negative are often rooted in the route setting style of
modern day competitions:
“Often, they say that the direction bouldering is going, is completely wrong. Way too much
parkour, that it’s not climbing anymore. Altogether, you get to hear the sentence “this is not
climbing anymore“ very often.”
Overall, 15 out of 18 asked generally support the decision for the Olympics and see the benefits
for the sport altogether. However, three interviewees are personally against the inclusion,
although they don’t condemn the general professionalization of sport climbing. These three
consist equally of one amateur, ex-comp and one comp climber. Interestingly, 17 out of 18
interview partners, with one professional being the exception, stated at least some positive
39
effects. All 18 experienced changes that were perceived as neutral to them and 16 perceive at
least something as negative. Many are currently left with mixed feelings about the inclusion,
but often the negative comments were only about the implementation of the combined format
for the inaugurating event at Tokyo 2020, as the format is already going to be changed for Paris
2024. Some called it the necessary evil that they have to put up with right now, for the sake of
long term benefits and progress for the sport:
“I don’t think it is totally mature yet with the combined format and the disciplines and the process
of qualification. It is the first time climbing is included so nobody really has a masterplan yet I
feel like. But other than that it is pretty cool.“
5.2 Implications for Routines, Training, Aspirations and Career
The goal is to categorize the effective changes, effects and implications through the Olympic
inclusion, along the predefined areas of training, routines and sports aspirations. I am going to
start with routines, the area mentioned most often with altogether 118 codings. The change in
routines is addressed very often as being radical (57 overlapping codes), especially often related
to the Olympic combined as a substantial, all of a sudden change:
“[…] with the combined format also the youth comps are held in this design, so we have to
participate in and train all three disciplines.”
However, it was as well often perceived as incremental (45 overlaps), foremost when it comes
to training, route setting and values in climbing:
“Obviously, you have to go to the gym to train new school boulders, you simply don’t find them
outdoors. In the past, it was possible to train most movements outdoors for a competition.”
It is mostly perceived as neutral (47 overlaps) or positive (40 overlaps), way more than negative
(19 overlaps). Apparently, it is tied strongly to the area of values (43 overlaps), which is going
to be discussed in detail in question 3. Furthermore, routine change seems to be connected with
training (25), financial resources (21) and career (18):
“[…] a lot changed for the better. It has got a completely different significance all of a sudden.
Here you clearly see how important the inclusion was for the financial matter.”
The second most often mentioned sort of change, with 82 codings, is concerned with values,
but as the next full section is solely dedicated to values, it is going to be discussed there. Third
up, with 45 codings, is change of the training regime. With 30 overlapping codes, most
perceived it to be a radical makeover after the inclusion. As seen in the lines beforehand with
25 overlaps, the change in training seems closely tied to change of routines. It is mostly taken
as neutral (18 overlaps), before positive (12) and negative (11). Moreover, it has rather weak
ties to aspirations (12) and career change (10):
40
“What really changed is that the competition season took place in blocks. First bouldering, then
lead. Now, we sometimes have combined comps in between with all three disciplines at once and
that makes a difference for the design of the training program.”
Among the responses, 36 have been coded as a change in aspirations. With the inclusion itself
being a substantial incision, 23 overlaps are present with radical change. 19 times the change
was deemed positive, 8 times neutral and 6 times negative. In the respectively coded text, 13
overlaps referred to career change:
“I think for every professional athlete it is the ultimate goal to participate in the Olympics, so for
me that applies as well.”
While, along with the new circumstances, qualifying for Olympic games in the future seems to
have recently shifted positively onto the goal setting horizon for some professional climbers,
others lament the restrictive effects onto their career. These statements have been coded as
career isomorphism and show how the Olympic inclusion leaves professional athletes facing
the decision between hoping for the best as a specialist in one discipline or giving in and opting
for combined:
“[…] the more climbing is in the spotlight, the more politics come into play. That sometimes leads
to people being involved who don’t have much of a clue about climbing. People who may prefer
climbing just being a cool show, rather than determining who the best athlete is.”
I am not saying the combined format is inherently bad and it seems many have come to like it.
Yet, lots of athletes apparently have had to realize anything less will come at certain
disadvantages for their career, rendering it a semi-imposed construct. As only current and
former athletes are affected hereby, the following statements are from them:
“[…] at the end of the day, […] you have to think twice about not switching to combined even if
you don’t like it too much. That is because sponsors are very keen on the Olympics and as well
all the other furtherance, from the sports army to individual support, everything is constructed
around the Olympics now.”
In other words, there was complaint as to how it changes the athletes’ support landscape:
“[…] big promotions for only a few people, while others get nothing. I think that this is a
development going in the wrong direction and that is a pity.”
In one of the interviewees cases, it even has contributed to quitting a professional career:
“That was the moment I realized that from now on, on a sustainable and long-term basis, you can
only do this sport professionally if you embark on the combined format. […] I knew by that time
that I will always be handicapped and never bring home a financial benefit as an athlete for that
reason.”
41
Lastly, an example was brought up how this matter is conducted in Germany. I included it as
this German athlete is permanently living in Innsbruck and the example is worth being shared
in my opinion:
“Being in a youth category in Germany, you have no choice other than doing all three disciplines,
otherwise they don’t recognize your results. […] Otherwise you are just not allowed to participate
in international competitions.”
Concluding, it has to be taken into account that only current and some former athletes are
subjected to most of the directly affecting changes, particularly regarding the training, routines
and career. Despite all the interviewees seeing changes in the sport itself and showing empathy
for their professional colleagues, on a personal or abstract level, for quite a share, particularly
the former athletes and amateurs, not really anything changed within their personal sphere.
Hence, the code “no change” registered 42 entries. The statements reached from staying a
specialist, out of conviction or not seeing a realistic chance to qualify for the Olympics, over
the Olympics do not change if you like climbing or not to basically every asked amateur saying
the inclusion itself does not have any effect whatsoever on their life as a climber and how they
conduct the sport. At least not in an operative sense, as they apparently are aware of and widely
enjoy the benefits of developed infrastructure etc.
5.3 Oppositional Values on the Ground
As laid out within the previous chapters of this work, some climbers might perceive the values
that the Olympics stand for and the modern-day version of sport climbing which is going to be
presented there, to be of opposing nature compared to what climbing represented back in the
day. Here, insights are drawn from how the interviewees, which are exclusively long-term
climbers, experienced these developments of values. Altogether, 82 codings were tied to value
change, mostly valued as being neutral (40 overlaps), followed by negative (22) and very little
explicitly positive change (5). Foremost, the change was deemed incremental (42) and some
incidents as radical (16):
“Suddenly everything revolved around the Olympics. That increased the pressure, which can be
motivating at times, but often I feel like the real climbing gets lost there. I often had the feeling I
have to do this and do that. […] regardless if I wanted to or not. For me personally, I got the
impression all of this rather decreased my motivation.”
Many of them seem to be connected to routine change (43), while other intersecting topics are
the broadening of the climbing category in general (12), the route setting style (10), training
change (9) and lastly, how a person gets introduced to climbing (6):
42
“In my opinion, the combined format doesn’t do justice to the athletes, how I got to know the
sport and the way I got to know climbing.”
In order to get a better feeling, whether the answers rather highlight the subgroups of the
climbing community living happily alongside each other or being in overt opposition, the two
coding categories co-existence and rivalry were born:
“When I started doing climbing professionally, there was an obvious gym climbers’ community
and an outdoor climbers’ community. Not everybody accepted climbing on plastic holds from the
start, some absolutely despised it. […] Nowadays this rivalry doesn’t exist anymore, so I think
these opposing parties rather got closer than drifting further apart. Climbing on artificial walls
is so similar to the rock that there is no need for calling them two different names.”
Whereas 23 codings overlap with rivalry, 20 do so with co-existence. However, it must be
attached that one interviewee, through his experience with the topic, disproportionally raised
the number of statements about rivalry with 14 instances alone:
“There are these religious rock priests who don’t want to see anybody else dragging their holy
sport through the mud and are against every kind of commercialization and professionalization.”
Adding to this, as this thesis is interested in the status quo and not the past, quite some cases
emphasize, how the climbing community got divided at a certain point in the past, e.g. the first
openings of gyms, the effective date of the Olympic inclusion four years ago. Though, arriving
at the here and now, the struggles and conflicts are said to be widely settled:
“In 2016/17 that topic was discussed a lot. We really got split up in two parties with a lot of
tensions between us. Many athletes disliked this development, but there were also others being
totally happy about it. In the meantime, these initial conflicts settled, everybody made his decision
and accepted the status quo. I think these opposing parties still exist, but do not live in some sort
of obvious rivalry.”
Some struggles might not seem obvious anymore, but the next quote shows they haven’t fully
disappeared:
“As I trained more speed lately I even had to deal with some dismissive comments from
colleagues. So, I literally had to justify myself for doing that. Especially in Austria I feel like speed
is not appreciated and largely disregarded.”
Despite the overall appreciation of the circumstances and benefits, the average opposing stance
of non-professionals was often subliminal and connected to rising popularity and the result of
more people:
“When I go climbing in an outdoor climbing area and see that every route is being occupied,
there are a lot of people, chaos and noise, maybe even rubbish on the ground, I miss the good old
times.”
43
Regardless of some value challenges being in place, 13 out of 18 interviewees emphasized how
well the diversity of disciplines and people in climbing are compatible:
I think climbing is a sport where a combination of both works out pretty well. I mean, looking at
other sports, they also thought oh no, the Olympic spirit doesn’t fit at all to its roots. […] Same
as in climbing, it is just a different approach and mindset if you do it for the adventure […].
Maybe you even opt for living out in the sticks to go bouldering. Or you are a competitive athlete
training for competitions. These things are fundamentally different but nevertheless, they go
together. And I don’t think we lost this feature through the Olympic inclusion, that is really cool.
Many said that, for them, it absolutely doesn’t matter how somebody else practices the sport:
“I am good friends with outdoor and comp climbers and I equally like them. I think climbing as
a sport connects all of us, regardless of how we practice it. It’s just one big bunch of people that
you can have fun with.”
As the development of sport climbing has been shifting towards climbing indoors, the overall
mindset, lifestyle and aspirations seem to be changing a little. Yet, that change is not necessarily
framed to be negative but rather open-mindedly acknowledged out of the manifold possibilities
sport climbing has to offer:
“Today many athletes are just not fond of climbing outdoors on the rock, I haven’t ever heard
that in the past from a climber. We were just die-hard climbers, now there are die-hard comp or
gym athletes.”
Supposedly, the traditional picture of a climber, as it may be in most people’s heads, is a person
out there in the mountains, climbing on rock. This image is not wrong, but with climbing
becoming more popular, more people practicing it and so many climbing gyms opening around
the world, many climbers simply do not have access to actual rock climbing. Living in
Innsbruck, the interviews made clear you always have the choice, but many, for example,
metropolitan areas do not offer the possibility to find cliffs nearby. Taking this into account, it
becomes more comprehensible why many could not even follow these traditional climbing
values, even if they wanted to. As a matter of proportion, that likely tips the scale towards
modern lifestyle, indoor climbing, even though significantly more people are climbing outdoors
compared to 20 years ago. Adding to that, some interviewees are corroborating the findings of
Hardy (2003), stressing the importance of the introduction to the sport as determining to a large
extent how one is going to practice the sport later on:
“[…] climbing indoors is just how they got to know the sport and what they do. Many of
the elite Japanese athletes don’t ever really go outdoors. […] all of them could crush it
outdoors as well, they just never do it.”
44
Interestingly, a solid amount of talk about values implicated no change in values through the
Olympic inclusion at all (17 overlaps). There were statements concerning the personal values
in climbing:
“I am more of the old-fashioned type and I think that climbing should be taking place on the
rock.”
Additionally, some gave their expertise in an overall estimation of the post-inclusion situation:
“I think everybody who liked competition climbing beforehand, in the world cups and world
championships, they are most likely going to like the Olympics as well. […] Everybody else, who
didn’t like comps before, probably also won’t like the Olympics too much now.”
Along the lines of the research from Batuev and Robinson (2019), the derived impression and
the claims made in the interviews showcase that the value set not necessarily changed to
different values but rather broadened the overall value-set that climbers may individually find
themselves in. It seems that the variety of the climbing sport is related to the variety of
individual ways, how to conduct the sport and the values that are thereby represented. The
Olympics appear to just have added another layer within these manifold values:
“Climbing just became accessible for the general public. Back then climbing was inherently a
sport with much more adventure, danger and uncertainty, not feasible for everybody. […] I think
climbing has a lot of meanings for each climber at an individual level and that is the reason so
many are drawn to it. Lots of people can identify themselves with climbing because it can give
you various meanings. So, the Olympics are not for everyone but for some, they are.”
5.4 Individual Values and Motivation
Besides gathering insights regarding the reasons for the interviewees’ drive within this sport,
this section aimed towards eventually being able to highlight differences in their values between
(ex-) professional athletes and amateur climbers. The clear winner as to why the interviewees
climb, is apparently the sheer endless variety within the sport. Variety in disciplines,
movements, routes, boulders, things it takes to succeed and many more were mentioned. This
was followed by the challenge, that sport climbing represents to them over and over. The
physical, but also mental challenge, overcoming fear or in terms of being creative in order to
find a solution for a certain sequence:
“What’s so appealing for me in climbing is this challenge. It just takes one route for being a
challenge. You are either able to do the route or not. It’s that simple.“
The next most popular answer was related to competitive and performance oriented aspects,
fighting till the end, giving it 100%, which particularly were mentioned referring to the
physical, athletic side of climbing. Sharing the place as least popular reasons are social aspects
45
and nature. In each case six interviewees made references to social reasons and nature, yet
mostly additionally and not as their main motivation. The rest of the answers consisted of
individual reasoning behind their climbing. Interestingly, while nature and social aspects were
almost exclusively named together, current professional athletes mentioned social aspects 4
times and nature 3 times. Whereas amateur climbers referred to nature only three times and
social aspects not at all. Moreover, amateurs have 4 compared to the athletes with 3 counts in
arguing with competitive and performance oriented reasons. While these may be just
coincidences and not conclusive, it still is quite the opposite of what one might expect.
6. Discussion
6.1 Category Broadening and Legitimacy Transfer
It is hard to actually separate the Olympic sport climbing category as a single bubble, because
it overlaps and is intertwined with the Olympics and (competitive) sport climbing, which both
have existed beforehand. Along those same lines distinguishing between professionalization in
general and the Olympic inclusion in particular is rather difficult, as laid out. Taking a first look
at the findings, it seems useful to frame and treat the new, top-down created Olympic sport
climbing category not merely as a standalone affair, but rather as an addition to what has been
there already, as evident in the following.
Some arguments from the interviewing process suggest that there is neither a challenge in
values, nor a point in comparing amateur and professional climbing altogether, because these
are two completely different matters by nature. However, I would argue that this does not
represent the reality of inter- and intra-categorical dynamics at hand. First of all, some of the
interviewees pointed out, that the way of introduction to climbing is of great significance, as
Hardy (2003) already suggested in his work. Easier, and also safer access facilitates more
people starting out climbing, ultimately growing the number of category members and
subsequently professional athletes. Though, how they start out and in which environment that
happens is key to their further development and lifestyle as an individual climber. Nowadays,
most people start out in a climbing or bouldering gym, meaning that this is how they got to
know the sport and very often they just stick with that. Naturally, that comes to a certain extent
with a generational shift of values away from daredevil and adventure more towards safety,
convenience and mainstream. Beyond that, nobody starts out as a professional, but as an
amateur and the transition between those seems profoundly impacted by the Olympic inclusion.
This applies not only for the initial area of opportunities and support, but as well for the entire
46
career which is eventually following. Lastly, the coherences between professional and amateur
climbing are comprehensively summarized in a quote from one interviewee, showing once
more that Olympic sport climbing is rather to be seen as a part of climbing overall than on its
own:
“Without competition sports in climbing we will lack necessary budget, leading to fewer facilities
to train, attracting less of the general public. With popularity comes infrastructure, with
infrastructure better athletes and with better athletes better results. But for these results to really
count and have weight, you need a competition with some significance. That doesn’t happen when
you remain confined within your few purist rock climbers, and I totally don’t want that to sound
derogatory. But to be frank, that is never going to lead to a level of popularity for a sport that
justifies a new climbing gym or more financial support from the state. Yet again, this support is
what enables all the other benefits.”
Despite these relations and operating in the same category, competition climbing is still
decoupled to a certain extent from the rest of climbing, at least out of a market-perspective.
This is why the category is not asked to conform to multiple meaning systems from various
audiences as Negro et al. (2010) investigated. The federations respectively in charge are
conforming to isomorphic pressures from superior federations. Like this, policies are
distributed top down, yet they only directly affect competitive athletes and are impartial towards
the rest of the category and its audiences. Because of this, conflicting expectations are largely
prevented.
The findings render a certain development visible, which has been referred to as “generational
change“. The category has been broadening incrementally since the first people started rock
climbing a long time ago. Differences in how to conduct the sport developed locally and through
isomorphic pressures since then have become aligned as basic assumptions in a common,
unwritten understanding of climbing practices, regarding each individual discipline. The strong
ethics in climbing may partially be so persistent, because they base on mutual trust and
credibility in the community. For example, when a climber says he ascended a certain route
that becomes an unquestioned fact, without the need for proof. This constitutes the foundational
agreement within the sport climbing community. Without these ethics in place, this system is
basically worthless and might crash.
Now in competition climbing that is a different story. Here, each performance is under close
scrutiny from judges, exactly realizing the pre-defined policies of official competition climbing.
Now that this entire new generation, mostly commencing in their early childhood, is largely
growing up in a climbing gym and experiencing a different approach and different values than
outdoor climbing, the entire category seems to shift gradually. However, this is perceived as a
47
rather neutral development among the interviewees and I argue, makes the Olympic inclusion
easier because most of the community does not feel alienated by this modern, mainstream
environment and competitive setting. This may have been different if climbing faced this
inclusion 20 years ago, but now this is a decisive factor in enabling the legitimation of the
Olympic sport climbing category. Upcoming research might want to focus upon clear age
differences and take a closer look at how people got introduced to the sport. In my data, there
was no identifiable difference between younger and older participants in regard to values or
opinion on the Olympics. While Hardy (2003) determined values and ethos as counter
rationalizing systems and their broader meaning, the data agrees with his findings, but suggests
this may only stay true for a certain fraction. The findings suggest that mainstream, modern day
climbing is not dependent on its traditional ethos. One of the interviewees also said that people
who climb outdoors and live this particular lifestyle will never forget about the history of
climbing, yet others might. Once this “generational change” eventually takes place, this
scenario might turn out to be true.
Duran and Khaire (2017) argue that the creation of a new category is not a spontaneous
endeavor, but rather deliberately initiated by agents in charge, which evokes heterogeneous
cognitive responses among other actors. The rough circumstances of this top down category
creation remain fairly clear. For a pretty long period in time beforehand, the IFSC campaigned
for an Olympic inclusion. In 2016, the IOC finally accepted sport climbing for the upcoming
Olympic games, but with the constraint of providing only one set of medals. Thus, the IFSC
had to come up with a feasible and adequate solution, which gave birth to Olympic combined.
How much influence the IOC ultimately had on this new format is not open for scrutiny.
However, without detailed insight into the negotiation process and political power relations,
where I agree with Batuev and Robinson (2019) would be viable for further research, it was
this instance that triggered all but uniform reaction within afflicted audiences.
Arguably, the hype around climbing among younger people played in the hands of the IOC,
which wants to strengthen their market position among contemporary youth viewers (Thorpe
& Wheaton, 2011). Moreover, the IFSC has been pursuing a clear line of professionalization
within its governance of sport climbing and as the national and international federations are
heavily dependent on external funding it is fairly obvious why going Olympic is of advantage
(Batuev & Robinson, 2019). Categorization is a strategically important process, because it
provides salient cognitive elements for orientation within the (sports) market, affecting social
evaluation and material investments from internal and external parties (Durand & Khaire,
48
2017). Hence, both incumbents’ motives for the inclusion are evident, whereas it eventually
comes at an inflicted price tag for those affected down the line.
The athletes, equaling category members, might not be the initiating force of this inclusion, yet
they resemble both producers, as they are performing, and consumers, as they are following
along. Nevertheless, they are to a certain extent victims of the boundaries, tied to the inclusion
and subsequent implications. While having an external audience is an imperative for a
category’s existence and survival, I argue that this internal perspective is as important to ensure
the category does not stay or become an empty shell (Negro et al., 2010). Some interviewees
labelled the combined format a contemporary “necessary evil”, for the greater good of sport
climbing’s long-term progression and growth. None of the people I talked to were even
surprised that sport climbing is going Olympic, at the time it was announced. This underlines
the findings of Glynn and Navis (2013, p. 1133), who emphasized “categories are dynamic and
not simply static [but] in continual flux as new entrants introduce acceptable variation,
significant jolts occur from the external environment, and performance dimensions change”.
While joining the Olympic regime brings considerable effects upon the members of the
climbing community, all things considered it seems to be largely accepted. Whereas many
interviewees agree upon being annoyed by the combined format, most seem essentially content
about where sport climbing is going and the implications that come with its progress and the
Olympic inclusion. It is not far off the pre-existing competitive side of sport climbing and this
introduced variation seems to be supported by the majority of climbers. Therefore, I argue
through this study, that the respective pre-existing, internal legitimacy becomes projected upon
the novel Olympic sport climbing category.
While we can say that the category is broadened through the inclusion and the IOC ascended
into a decision-making role, it lacks new entrants that are of significantly different attitude and
would pose a threat to the identity and values, which competitive sport climbing has yet
developed. They may have become more distinct in the course of the inclusion, but it still
represents an acceptable variation. Contrary to snowboarding and skateboarding, there are for
example no serious petitions to be found, trying to forestall the inclusion. This grounds on
various reasons, but first of all in the common acceptance that sport climbing is also a sport,
not merely a lifestyle that is in need of protection (Thorpe & Wheaton, 2011).
6.2 Little Challenge in Values and Identity
Basically, it appears to make sense saying that every climber expresses his values in climbing
through his climbing lifestyle and the way he conducts the sport. Arguing with the present
49
findings, I found that not to be entirely true. It does not appear that professional athletes value
competitive traits necessarily more than amateur climbers, simply the stage of performance
might differ. While this may be a local particularity, a cognitive bias or due to the selected, very
experienced, interviewees is up for discussion. But it for sure pursues an interesting line of
thought for prospective studies.
Furthermore, the findings suggest that not even the individual values are a static, but rather a
fluid construct, which changes from time to time. As an example, many former athletes argue
to have discovered a completely different side to climbing after quitting their professional
career, eventually shifting their value system according to the current circumstances. While the
visible routine of a climber seemingly does not have to be an exact portrayal of his values,
routines frequently undergo changes, which is evident in the collected data. This occurring
change appears to be decoupled to a certain extent from value change, but is rather oriented
towards practical circumstances. Even though some competition climbers, in the end, claim to
prefer rock climbing over indoors, the frequency of doing so is regimented by their training
schedule, timetable and ideal preparation for competitions. Many said it is important to them,
to keep a certain balance between those two, to mix things up, get some headspace and stay
motivated for exhausting indoor training periods. This suggests a non-opposing value setting
informed through variety and a rather flexible and practical approach to enacting a professional
climbing career.
Others as well described their climbing history as non-linear with excursions into different
disciplines or varying focuses, depending on what they value in climbing at the moment.
Interestingly, the interviewees consistently perceive outdoor climbing to be coherent with old,
traditional values and climbing in the gym with the modern mainstream. Whereas every climber
I interviewed claims to really like or prefer outdoor climbing, even the competitive athletes,
their approach is very routine- and time-dependent. So, as pronouncedly important a certain
balance between indoors and outdoors is for them, arguably their immanent value system is
most likely not frequently turning upside down, but rather it is a certain individual value-set
that each of the climbers seeks to satisfy to the best of his practical possibilities. Again, this is
coherent with the personal key value in climbing mentioned the most throughout the interviews:
variety, in what they do.
Though, what became evident during the analysis of the findings, is that the partially perceived
value change does not really seem to be linked to the Olympic inclusion. The change in values
is described as more of an ongoing, incremental process, part of the overall professionalization,
however without a significant negative or positive connotation to it. This leads to the assertion
50
that the Olympic inclusion itself is not a substantial challenge regarding the values in climbing,
based on the reason that competitive sport climbing, as part of the overall climbing category,
seemingly has yet developed the features demanded for the Olympics. Apparently, that is also
the reason why in sport climbing not the same dynamics occurred as Thorpe and Wheaton
(2011) described it for the Olympic inclusion of snowboarding and skateboarding. Because the
competitive community of sport climbing neither feels misrepresented by their federation nor
does the frontline of sport climbing perceive the inclusion to be a misfit or connected to adamant
challenges in their value system or identity. Another element that has been pointed out in the
interviews is that the world of rock- versus gym climbing is not necessarily drifting further
apart, but is becoming more distinct through the inclusion.
Baker and Faulkner (1991, pp. 283–284) argue, the meaning of a category ensues the enactment
of roles in markets. Market roles are defined as resources and “used to pursue interests and
enact positions“. Subsequently, meanings and boundaries may shift over the course of time,
according to the structure of material rewards and opportunity (Negro et al., 2010). As in the
history of sport climbing and the Olympic category creation now, the reward systems for
athletes might be more external, pressuring them into adhering to changing regulatory
frameworks for enabling success and material reward in the first place. Whereas for rather
traditional rock climbers these meaning systems are more internalized and intrinsic, as success
in their sense is not essentially rewarded, at least not materially (Hardy, 2003).
Hence, for amateur climbers, where no one’s career is at stake, it is evidently much easier to
deal with the new Olympic sport climbing category. As they are not dependent on anyone to
pursue their passion, it seems like they are also not concerned about oppositional identities or
rivaling values. The interviewees’ statements emphasize the manifoldness of lifestyles that one
can live out, all within the same sport. Competitive sport climbing seems to be just one end of
an entire scale, and while this end may be subjected to isomorphic pressures due to dependence,
which made a leap through the Olympic inclusion, the remaining variety persists to be largely
untouched.
Concluding, there is no unanimously agreed upon identity of what makes a typical climber, at
least not anymore, since the sport got diversified so much. This got already evident in 2007
when the former governing body of sport climbing, the mountaineering association UIAA,
ceased its efforts to govern sport climbing because they saw no point in housing such artificial
endeavors, while climbing remains to be an activity practiced outdoors by many (Batuev &
Robinson, 2019). Every subgroup in the climbing community seems to have its own typical
identity, values and ethos, but apparently there is little need for rivalry among those groups. In
51
the climbing world there rather seems to be open discussion about pressing issues, as for
example the Olympics or devaluing ethics, as many interviewees expressed in their statements
about co-existence. The enabling factor for several co-existing identities seems to be a
particularity here, as the lion’s share of climbers remains to be amateurs without any
dependence on regulatory frameworks, market shares or customers, contrary to a conventional
market.
However, the data suggests that the most basic, underlying collective identity is found for many
in the activity itself, no matter how it is practiced. Mutual respect for achievements is something
often experienced in climbing, even cross-disciplinary. If you were looking for identifying
subgroups within the members of the community, you will eventually succeed. Yet, the only
clear cut that can be made is the one of dependency as an athlete, who competes in official
events. Everything else is a very blurry line. Therefore, I argue the category does not have to
represent an unequivocal identity, because there is neither one commonly agreed on goal for
the category, nor is the category constrained by its members. As evident in the data, many non-
professionals do not feel personally affected too much. It was also said that either you like the
competitive side of climbing or not. The Olympics do not change that and are easily avoidable
if you don’t wish to follow along. Maybe it even turns out as an advantage that Olympic sport
climbing is not a fully matured category yet. The more mature and the clearer its boundaries,
the more irrevocably its features are arguably. While speed climbing still often represents the
“bad guy”, the athletes are already aware of its limited time of being around as an almost
mandatory discipline. So, sport climbing has not fully settled in the Olympics, the games
haven’t even been conducted yet. This gives time the opportunity to let things mellow, which
has already proven useful throughout the past four years, according to some interviewees.
Maybe some things will look different after sport climbing’s debut in the Olympics. Perceptions
can change and opinions can shift. We can only have another look after it actually happened.
The theoretical lens of aspirations turned out to be a rather unrewarding issue of investigation,
which is why I will not go into detail about it here in the discussion section. Yet, it might also
be fruitful for prospective investigation, once sport climbing has settled in the Olympics and
people have been able to experience it happening. In the present case, the Olympics
interestingly did neither alter the aspirations nor the motivation to a considerable extent. Not
even among the interviewed professionals, which was often elucidated through statements of
reasonable modesty about severe qualification criteria.
52
6.3 Top Down Category Creation in a Dependence Setting
How do categories evolve over time? How does a category undergo this professionalization and
development towards a point where it appears to be ready for the Olympics games? Categories
likely do not just evolve by chance in random directions, but there are certain factors and agents
determining these developments through specific actions, likely part of a larger strategy.
Subsequently, we are talking about agency in the realm of categories, closely related to
categorization in this sense. So, the question of interest is, who are these actors which have the
power to create circumstances and therefore define a category and corresponding boundaries?
The answer here in short is the IFSC and lately also the IOC, as the two incumbents in
international sport climbing pulling the heavy strings behind the scenes. But while we know
who it is, it is more of a question of how they enact their agency and why can they successfully
do that? There are multiple issues merging into this answer, as elaborated henceforth.
Overall, many direct and indirect effects of the Olympic inclusion were discussed, many of
them being rather incremental and circumstantial. For example, sport climbing being more in
the limelight, hence becoming more popular and subsequently, answering this demand, more
climbing gyms opening, is a development that may be amplified by the Olympic inclusion.
However, this process touches several bases before it results in this tangible outcome and is
therefore arguably a rather indirect impact. We are seeing that some developments cannot be
fully ascribed to the inclusion itself. We see however, what definitely happened top down, with
apparently the most direct and radical repercussions on the community, particularly the
competitive share. These are the Olympic combined competition format and the implications
for a professional career, as inextricable parts of the novel Olympic sport climbing category.
Overall, those two were also the ones with the highest proportion of negative associations
carried along. But how come these developments still get through?
The special circumstances here are that the national federation is essentially in the position of
representing a monopoly. Besides going on your own and self-marketing your ascents, which
in its pure form is very rare for a proper professional career and typically only occurring in rock
climbing, there is no other way than to follow along according to the current circumstances. In
the interviews it was frequently highlighted, that the Olympic inclusion comes at restrictive,
career-isomorphic pressures. Something every interviewed, professional athlete has been
experiencing since 2016. Due to the monopoly, the athletes are dependent on their respective
federation, for the sake of training, individual and structural support, being allowed to partake
at competitions and much more. In the interviews, some of the really negative comments came
from athletes who are suffering from this situation or were, but hence already put their
53
professional career to rest. “Employee turnover” in its original meaning cannot happen, as there
is nothing to turn to. This leaves many athletes around the world with the options of either
quitting their career, or adapting to what is asked. Therefore, I reasonably argue that successful,
top down category creation, which comes with considerable impacts on its members, is only
possible in a setting of dependence relationship. Ultimately, I am not saying that, through the
federation’s monopoly position it can or will do whatever it wants. First of all, the IFSC has a
supporting athletes’ commission, which consists of climbers directly impacted by decisions
made. Secondly, as we have experienced when the IFSC cut the deal for the fee-based
livestream, strong and collective headwind can lead the IFSC to come around on decisions.
When investigating sport climbing from a category’s perspective, it is simply important to be
aware of some particularities within this field, as shown.
While speed climbing is seen as the odd one out, and often referred to as no “real” climbing,
Olympic sport climbing is not perceived as an entirely new sport. The actors are still the same
as in competitions which have been held for years, now pooled together in the combined format.
The legitimacy and identity that is vested in the athletes is seemingly transferred to this new
stage and therefore the members and audiences largely accept this novel challenge. Especially
when bearing in mind the greater good for their passion from a long-term perspective. These
circumstances prevent that the new Olympic category is seen as an “empty shell” and
legitimacy had to be built from scratch.
6.4 Co-Existence Diminishes Legitimacy Trade-Offs
What still remains unclear, is if trade-offs occur regarding this legitimacy through category
broadening, and if they do, how they look like “on the ground”. First of all, it has to be
considered that the category of Olympic sport climbing may actually not be as novel as it
appears at first sight. Lee et al. (2017) highlights these trade-off effects in the light of nascent
categories, which seems to not fully apply here. This consideration is based on the rationale
that this novel category works as an add-on docking onto competitive climbing. This add-on is
not merely co-existing but rather gets pulled over, as salient in the interrelating impacts it has
on the pre-existing category. Even though it comes with novel features, it lacks this substantial
struggle in cognitive legitimation, because the process of sensemaking is negligible here,
particularly for the internal members. On the other hand, the importance of normative
legitimacy is highlighted by Lounsbury and Glynn (2001) and Navis and Glynn (2010).
Questions of normative legitimacy concern features about “right or wrong”. As the category
has broadened to such a scale, it would be unreasonable to call for a unanimous standpoint, but
54
as the findings suggest, normative legitimacy in the light of the Olympic inclusion, is ascribed
to a sufficient extent for the novel category to be rather embraced than rejected.
The main argument of Lee et al. (2017) is saying broadening the category leads to weakening
of established legitimacy, identity and values. However, in the present case this argument is not
clearly supported by the collected data, at least not bar none. A significant limitation is that
only professional athletes are in a market-like dependence relationship, yet most climbers are
not. This leads to different initial positions within the category. While competitive athletes have
to take action, or quit their career, every other climber is still able to individually pursue his
lifestyle in climbing, regardless of external developments. Purists may proportionally become
less, but neither are they threatened nor is the category restricted to them. Thus, I argue non-
opposing co-existence is made possible, without watering down pioneering values and
legitimacy of the category.
Professional competition climbers constitute a certain sort of workforce, as they are dependent
on the national federation, metaphorically as their employer, and their profession comes with
duties and responsibilities. With this frame being set up, these employment relations can draft
an identity for athletes, with significant impact on the whole organization and particularly
change in this identity potentially entails disruptive effects on the organizational survival,
performance and employee turnover (Baron et al., 2001; Hannan et al., 2006). Through the
inclusion, this identity might well have shifted, as with the IOC there is not only a new, decisive
institution in play, but also some features of professional climbing turned upside down with the
combined format. However, from what we have learnt from the collected data, I argue that these
aforementioned implications are not applicable in this particular scenario of top down category
creation. Not everybody may be fully content with the current situation, but there is no
substantial threat to neither the organization’s survival nor performance. At least not, as long
as the overall support and acceptance is still positively dominating the weighing scale, which
in this case, it does.
According to the systematic review of Negro et al. (2010), category research widely agrees that
collective consensus lays the foundation of category formation. Rosa et al. (1999) and Kennedy
(2005) further state that, as different segments of the audience take part in collective
sensemaking and language, media coverage and publicity showcase their collective agreement.
I pointed out that external audiences are negligible here for the creation of a new category, out
of combining two with a solid, pre-existing fan base for reasons of normative legitimacy vested
in the incumbents (see Negro et al., 2010). Yet, as soon as the internal audience, the members
from the community is on board with the changed circumstances of the new category, even if
55
it was aroused top down, it becomes a rolling stone. The data emphasized substantial conflicts
and rivalry in the beginning between advocators and adversaries of the Olympic inclusion.
However, open discourse and time seem to be two key elements to settle to resolve such
tensions, as the interviewees explained. While different underlying opinions may persist, these
different member segments have largely ceased to be in opposition, clearing the way for surging
acceptance and legitimacy of the new category.
7. Conclusion
As shown, it has proven difficult to tell professionalization and the Olympic inclusion apart, as
their dynamics and implications overlap. The interviewees themselves discuss both things at
one and the same time. In category research terms, the Olympic sport climbing category, that
has been created top down in 2016, turned out to work as an add-on to competitive sport
climbing and not as a standalone category. A certain change in climbing-specific values was
perceived, yet does not seem to be linked to the inclusion. It is rather described as a neutral,
incremental process, part of the overall professionalization. Therefore, the category creation is
not presented as a substantial challenge regarding the values, based on the reason that the
respective internal members have yet developed the necessary features. While we can say that
the category is broadened through the inclusion and the IOC ascended into a decision-making
role, it lacks new entrants that are of significantly different attitude and would pose a threat to
the identity and values, which competitive sport climbing has yet developed. The findings also
suggest that mainstream, modern day climbing is not dependent on its traditional ethos. This is
further corroborated by findings saying the individual values are not a static construct, but rather
an entire value-set informed by, most notably, variety. This set is to be satisfied to the best of
each practical possibilities and preferences. In the end, there is no unanimously agreed upon
identity of what makes a typical climber. Yet, the data suggests, that the most basic, underlying
collective identity is found for many in the activity itself, no matter how it is practiced.
The most radical and direct implications from the top down category creation, rest upon one
particular share of members, namely competitive athletes. They are affected by an almost
mandatory new discipline and isomorphic career pressures, because of a market-like
dependence relationship. Meanwhile every other member is still able to individually pursue his
lifestyle in climbing, regardless of external developments. The category is not restricted to
individuals. It still appears, that the novel category is perceived as an acceptable variation and
not far off the pre-existing competitive features, as it is supported by the majority of members.
Hence, I argue that pre-existing, internal legitimacy becomes transferred upon the novel
56
category. Taken into account that it may actually not be as innovative as it appears at first, Lee
et al.’s (2017) trade-off effects seems to not fully apply here. Even though it comes with novel
features, it lacks this substantial struggle in cognitive and normative legitimation, as they are
said to be ascribed to a sufficient extent for the novel category to be rather embraced than
rejected. Thus, I argue non-opposing co-existence is possible, without watering down
pioneering values of the category. The data emphasized substantial conflicts and rivalry in the
beginning between advocators and adversaries of the created category. However, open
discourse and time seem to be two key elements to settle to resolve such tensions, clearing the
way for surging acceptance and legitimacy of the new category.
While still operating in the same category, competition climbing appears to be decoupled to a
certain extent out of a market-perspective. This is why the category is not asked to conform to
multiple meaning systems and conflicting expectations are largely prevented. The new category
does not bring an entirely new sport. The actors are still the same. This is why legitimacy and
identity that is vested in the athletes is seemingly transferred to this new stage, rendering
acceptance possible. These circumstances prevent that the new Olympic category is seen as an
“empty shell” and legitimacy had to be built from scratch. Helping this case is the “generational
change” currently taking place. An entire generation of members, now largely growing up in
the climbing gym out of various reasons, aids the shift towards mainstream and indoor values.
Hence, the novel Olympic category does not appear in too big of a contrast to pre-existing
features and does not leave the members alienated.
Nonetheless, a special circumstance here is that the category incumbent is essentially
representing a monopoly. A share of members, the competitive athletes, are dependent on their
respective federation. Whereas for non-dependent members, it is evidently much easier to deal
with top down dispositions. Therefore, I argue that top down category creation, which comes
with considerable impacts on its members, is only possible in a foremost one-sided dependence
relationship. Ultimately, this does not mean that incumbents can do whatever they want, but as
long as it is within certain parameters of dependence, acceptable variation and enough overall
support, governing seems to work just fine. In conclusion, a key take-away from this study’s
findings is that two particular circumstances in combination seem to lever out many dynamics,
that are generally applicable for category research: Partial dependence of category members
and a given incumbent with features of a monopoly.
57
8. Limitations
First of all, the proximity to the topic and members naturally lead to having a particular opinion
about the status quo myself. An opinion that has evolved, but one that I have been contributing
to the countless discussions I participated in among the international, but foremost the local
climbing scene. So before even assuming to role of the researcher, I might have had a miniscule
influence on shaping other people’s opinions and arguments. Furthermore, rooted in the
interpretive paradigm, assuming total objectivity is not possible, I cannot guarantee neither
being minimally biased in my overall set up and analysis, nor that the interviews I conducted
were free of bias. Besides, due to my particular position, the interviewees are inevitably friends
and acquaintances, potentially having influenced the selection of interviewees or results to some
extent. To minimize this influence in the interviews, I occupied the most impartial stance
possible while questioning, without putting words into their mouth and regularly encouraging
them in answering frankly and truthfully. For reducing potential bias in the analysis, I
conducted several rounds of coding to ensure portraying the findings as objectively as possible.
The items used for investigating the enactment on the ground, namely training, aspirations and
values, were partly theoretically derived and partly inductively developed. As this work is of
exploratory nature, other items might prove more insightful in the future, rendering this a
potential limitation on behalf of the theoretical framework of this thesis.
Not necessarily a limitation, but at least something to be aware of, is that it is not possible to
distinguish clearly between effects from professionalization overall and the Olympic inclusion
in particular. These two are inseparably related and make distinct causalities rather difficult.
This is why I set out to analyze the data as a whole and present the overall image. Lastly, there
might be a limitation towards the diversity of interviewees and subsequently the collected data.
While the interviewees presented a good balance of current, former and non-competition
climbers as shown, it might have been interesting to talk to somebody who fully rejects every
sort of professionalization of this sport and its Olympic inclusion. However, I could not find
anybody with this view here in Innsbruck, which may be a local bias.
58
Acknowledgements
Wow, what a journey 2020 has been so far! Not only has a global pandemic been keeping the
whole world in suspense, but it also has been littered with ups and downs of my, without a
doubt, biggest academic piece of work ever conducted. I am deliberately stating this here as a
fact for two conclusive reasons. The first one is easy, as I sincerely hope this remains the biggest
paper I ever have to put together. My second argument is even more evident. I need a time out
from academic writing, where facts are simply not a thing. Funny enough that my overall topic,
the Olympics, couldn’t even take place this year. The one event that the entire climbing
community was thrilled to finally see happening. I mean, what are the odds of a pandemic, the
year sport climbing celebrates its first appearance in the Olympics.
In every respect, 2020 is a year to be remembered. On that note, I want to truly thank everybody
who has made 2020 such a special year, despite all circumstances. And of course, my thanks
go out to everybody who made this thesis possible in the first place. The road from start to
finish felt so long, I began to picture this thesis as “the 1000-headed dragon”. Once you
managed to chop one head off, get a fraction of the work done, another one appeared. It just
kept coming. Eventually I succeeded, but I owe big thanks to everyone out there, who supported
me throughout the year. First of all, I want to thank my family and friends for cheering me up,
even when the odds looked grim for finishing this thesis within reasonable time. At this point,
I particularly want to mention my flat-mate and master thesis writing partner in crime, who
brought me through the year unharmed. We did a great job, bro! I might even miss those “office
hours” with you one day. I also want to thank my supervisor Prof. Birthe Soppe for her splendid
job, giving me the guidance, support and belief I sometimes needed to carry on. Thank you! In
the end, what would this thesis be without my great climbing friends and interviewees. I want
to thank each and every one of you for the time you took, to sit down and patiently answer my
questions. Now it’s time for a good climbing session and some champagne. Cheers!
59
References
Agnew, M. (2019). Why is speed climbing included in the Tokyo 2020 Olympics’ controversial format? SCMP (South China Morning Post). https://www.scmp.com/sport/outdoor/extreme-sports/article/3022751/why-speed-climbing-included-tokyo-2020-olympics (Accessed 2020-06-26)
ARD (2016). Neu bei Olympia: “Citius, altius, fortius“. ARD Sportschau. https://rio.sportschau.de/rio2016/geschichte/Neu-bei-Olympia-Citius-altius-fortius,didon102.html (Accessed 2020-06-24)
Arora, S. (2018). Kletterpionier: Der goldene Griff des Reini Scherer. Der Standard. https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000087378566/der-goldene-griff-des-reini-scherer (Accessed 2020-06-24)
Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. (1991). Role as Resource in the Hollywood Film Industry. American Journal of Sociology, 97(2), 279–309. https://doi.org/10.1086/229780
Baron, J. N., Hannan, M. T., & Burton, M. D. (2001). Labor Pains: Change in Organizational Models and Employee Turnover in Young, High-Tech Firms. American Journal of Sociology, 106(4), 960–1012. https://doi.org/10.1086/320296
Batuev, M., & Robinson, L. (2019). Organizational evolution and the Olympic Games: The case of sport climbing. Sport in Society, 22(10), 1674–1690. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2018.1440998
Carroll, G. R., & Swaminathan, A. (2000). Why the Microbrewery Movement? Organizational Dynamics of Resource Partitioning in the U.S. Brewing Industry. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 715–762. https://doi.org/10.1086/318962
Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., & Allison, P. D. (2014). Insiders, Outsiders, and the Struggle for Consecration in Cultural Fields: A Core-Periphery Perspective. American Sociological Review, 79(2), 258–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414520960
CBJ (2017). Behind the Scenes of The Broken Deal. Climbing Business Journal. https://www.climbingbusinessjournal.com/behind-the-scenes-of-the-broken-deal/ (Accessed 2020-06-21)
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (Fourth edition). SAGE.
Deephouse, D. L. (1996). Does Isomorphism Legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 1024–1039. https://doi.org/10.5465/256722
60
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Durand, R., & Khaire, M. (2017). Where Do Market Categories Come From and How? Distinguishing Category Creation From Category Emergence. Journal of Management, 43(1), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316669812
Durand, R., & Paolella, L. (2013). Category Stretching: Reorienting Research on Categories in Strategy, Entrepreneurship, and Organization Theory: Reorienting Research on Categories. Journal of Management Studies, 50(6), 1100–1123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01039.x
FAZ (2020). Olympia wegen Corona verschoben—Tokyo 2020 findet 2021 statt. https://www.faz.net/aktuell/sport/sportpolitik/olympische-spiele-in-tokio-wegen-corona-auf-2021-verschoben-16694140.html (Accessed 2020-04-21)
Glynn, M. A., & Navis, C. (2013). Categories, Identities, and Cultural Classification: Moving Beyond a Model of Categorical Constraint: Categories, Identities, and Cultural Classification. Journal of Management Studies, 50(6), 1124–1137. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12023
Granqvist, N., Grodal, S., & Woolley, J. L. (2013). Hedging Your Bets: Explaining Executives’ Market Labeling Strategies in Nanotechnology. Organization Science, 24(2), 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0748
Grodal, S. (2018). Field Expansion and Contraction: How Communities Shape Social and Symbolic Boundaries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(4), 783–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217744555
Hannan, M. T., Baron, J. N., & Koçak, Ö. (2006). Organizational identities and the hazard of change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(5), 755–784. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtl020
Hannan, Michael T. (2010). Partiality of Memberships in Categories and Audiences. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-021610-092336
Hannan, Michael T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. (2007). Logics of organization theory: Audiences, codes, and ecologies. Princeton University Press.
Hardy, D. (2003). The McDonaldization of Rock Climbing: Conflict and counter conflict between climbing culture and dominant value systems in society. In R. Poff, S. Guthrie, J. Kafsky-DeGarmo, T. Stenger, & W. Taylor (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Outdoor Recreation and Education (pp. 75–90). Association of Outdoor Recreation and Education. http://www.aore.org/ICOREProceedings2002.pdf
Hatch, T., & Leonardon, F. (2020). Rules 2020. IFSC (International Federation of Sport Climbing).
Henkel, R. (2019). Klettern und Bouldern: Wie ein Bergsport zum Trendsport wird. ISPO. https://www.ispo.com/trends/id_79326674/klettern-und-bouldern-aus-bergsport-wird-fitness-sport.html (Accessed 2020-06-10)
Hsu, G., & Grodal, S. (2014). Category Taken-for-grantedness as a Strategic Opportunity: The Case of Light Cigarettes, 1964-1993. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1), 12012. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2014.243
Hsu, G., & Grodal, S. (2020). The Double-edged Sword of Oppositional Category Positioning: A Study of the U.S. E-cigarette Category, 2007–2017. Administrative Science Quarterly, 000183922091485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220914855
IFSC (2019). Olympic Games Paris 2024. https://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/olympic-games/paris-2024 (Accessed 2020-08-24)
IOC (2016). IOC Approves Five New Sports For Olympic Games Tokyo 2020. IOC Press Release. https://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-approves-five-new-sports-for-olympic-games-tokyo-2020 (Accessed 2020-06-10)
Jensen, M. (2010). Legitimizing illegitimacy: How creating market identity legitimizes illegitimate products. In G. Hsu, G. Negro, & Ö. Koçak (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 31, pp. 39–80). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2010)0000031004
Kennedy, M. T. (2005). Behind the one-way mirror: Refraction in the construction of product market categories. Poetics, 33(3–4), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2005.09.012
Kennedy, M. T. (2008). Getting Counted: Markets, Media, and Reality. American Sociological Review, 73(2), 270–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240807300205
King, B. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2008). Rethinking the Relationship Between Reputation and Legitimacy: A Social Actor Conceptualization. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(3), 192–207. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2008.16
Lee, B. H., Hiatt, S. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2017). Market Mediators and the Trade-offs of Legitimacy-Seeking Behaviors in a Nascent Category. Organization Science, 28(3), 447–470. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1126
Lounsbury, M., & Rao, H. (2004). Sources of Durability and Change in Market Classifications: A Study of the Reconstitution of Product Categories in the American Mutual Fund Industry, 1944-1985. Social Forces, 82(3), 969–999. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2004.0046
Lounsbury, Michael, & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.188
62
Manoliu, L. (1978). The Olympics: Bigger Is Really Better. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1978/12/10/archives/the-olympics-bigger-is-really-better-some-disturbing-problems.html (Accessed 2020-06-26) (Accessed 2020-06-24)
Mathias, B. D., Huyghe, A., Frid, C. J., & Galloway, T. L. (2018). An identity perspective on coopetition in the craft beer industry. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12), 3086–3115. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2734
McKendrick, D. G., & Hannan, M. T. (2014). Oppositional Identities and Resource Partitioning: Distillery Ownership in Scotch Whisky, 1826–2009. Organization Science, 25(4), 1272–1286. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0865
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2010). How New Market Categories Emerge: Temporal Dynamics of Legitimacy, Identity, and Entrepreneurship in Satellite Radio, 1990–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(3), 439–471. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.3.439
Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimate Distinctiveness and The Entrepreneurial Identity: Influence on Investor Judgments of New Venture Plausibility. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 479–499. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.0361
Negro, G., Koçak, Ö., & Hsu, G. (2010). Research on categories in the sociology of organizations. In G. Hsu, G. Negro, & Ö. Koçak (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 31, pp. 3–35). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2010)0000031003
ORF (2020). Schubert muss Saison neu skizzieren. ORF Sport. https://sport.orf.at/stories/3061270/ (Accessed 2020-06-22)
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. (Eds.). (1991). The New institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press.
Pozner, J.-E., & Rao, H. (2006). Fighting a Common Foe: Enmity, Identity and Collective Strategy. In Advances in Strategic Management (Vol. 23, pp. 445–479). Emerald (MCB UP ). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-3322(06)23014-6
Rindova, V., Barry, D., & Ketchen, D. J. (2009). Entrepreneuring as Emancipation. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.40632647
Rosa, J. A., Porac, J. F., Runser-Spanjol, J., & Saxon, M. S. (1999). Sociocognitive Dynamics in a Product Market. Journal of Marketing, 63(4_suppl1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429990634s108
Schwienbacher, E. (2017). Neues Kletterzentrum Innsbruck: Tirols neuer Klettertempel [News]. Sport Tirol. https://sport.tirol/de/stories/Neues-Kletterzentrum-Innsbruck.html (Accessed 2020-06-21)
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations (1st ed.). Sage.
63
Sine, W. D., Haveman, H. A., & Tolbert, P. S. (2005). Risky Business? Entrepreneurship in the New Independent-Power Sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 200–232. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.2.200
Sine, W. D., & Lee, B. H. (2009). Tilting at Windmills? The Environmental Movement and the Emergence of the U.S. Wind Energy Sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 123–155. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.123
Starr, J. A., & MacMillan, I. C. (1990). Resource Cooptation Via Social Contracting: Resource Acquisition Strategies for New Ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 11(Special Issue: Corporate Entrepreneurship), 79–92.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
The Petition (2010). No Skateboarding in the Olympics! Care2 Petitions. https://www.thepetitionsite.com/de/takeaction/656/763/888/ (Accessed 2020-07-03)
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
Thorpe, H., & Dumont, G. (2019). The Professionalization of Action Sports: Mapping Trends and Future Directions. Sport in Society, 22(10), 1639–1654. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2018.1440715
Thorpe, H., & Wheaton, B. (2011). ‘Generation X Games’, Action Sports and the Olympic Movement: Understanding the Cultural Politics of Incorporation. Sociology, 45(5), 830–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511413427
Tremblay, M.-A. (1957). The Key Informant Technique: A Nonethnographic Application. American Anthropologist, 59(4), 688–701.
TWSB (1998). PR: Burton’s Official Response To Terje’s Olympic Boycott. TransWorld SNOWboarding. https://www.snowboarder.com/transworld-snowboarding-archive/snowboarding-news/pr-burtons-official-response-to-terjes-olympic-boycott/ (Accessed 2020-06-28)
Verhaal, J. C., Khessina, O. M., & Dobrev, S. D. (2015). Oppositional Product Names, Organizational Identities, and Product Appeal. Organization Science, 26(5), 1466–1484. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1000
Weber, K., Heinze, K. L., & DeSoucey, M. (2008). Forage for Thought: Mobilizing Codes in the Movement for Grass-fed Meat and Dairy Products. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 529–567. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.53.3.529
Welebil, S. (2018). Willkommen in der Kletterhauptstadt Innsbruck. FM4. https://fm4.orf.at/stories/2934017/ (Accessed 2020-06-21)
Wheaton, B. (2004). Understanding Lifestyle Sport: Consumption, Identity and Difference (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203646069
64
Wry, T., Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimating Nascent Collective Identities: Coordinating Cultural Entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22(2), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0613
Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The Categorical Imperative: Securities Analysts and the Illegitimacy Discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1398–1438. https://doi.org/10.1086/210178