Suffering, recovery and participant experience in a video game development accelerator

Abstract

PurposeThe authors aimed to explore how involvement in a creative development accelerator impacted participants. In particular, the authors considered the role of suffering in the acceleration process.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted an ethnography of a rapid prototyping program in video game development. Data collection included participant observation (162 h before, 186 during and 463 h after the main prototyping), interviews (23 formal and 35 informal) and artifact analysis (presentations, documents, games).FindingsAcceleration led to individual suffering via burnout, lack of sleep, overwork and illness. In turn, participants required varying periods of recovery after participation and diverged in their longer-term reaction to the experience. The authors make two contributions. First, the authors deepen empirical understanding of the embodied impact of participation in an organizational accelerator. Second, the authors develop a theoretical process model of suffering in an accelerator program based on time and initiation.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper focused on a single iteration of a program based out of an incubator in the United Kingdom (UK) Suffering was discovered as part of a larger study of the program.Practical implicationsBusiness and technology accelerators are becoming a popular way to organize work. This research suggests that accelerator structures might lead to unintended and negative participant experiences.Originality/valueThis research challenges the assumption that accelerators always benefit, or at least not hurt, participants. The authors add to the limited attention paid to suffering in organizations. The authors conclude the impact of an accelerator is more complex than usually portrayed.

Fulfilling the process promise in new venture creation research: The ethnography/accelerator approach

“…Therefore, an important point of caution is to make trade-offs between breadth and depth in data collection (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). Because it focused on intimate aspects of the entrepreneurial experience (e.g., suffering), Gidley et al (2022) only collected data on seven ventures. In comparison, Karp (2022), who worked on less sensitive issues (e.g., innovation), broadened her scope to 54 ventures.…”

“…Additionally, the industry positioning of accelerators often allows for studying industry‐specific ventures sharing similar issues, as Miller et al (2023) did by centering ventures from the agriculture and food industry. Likewise, Gidley et al (2022) selected an accelerator from the digital game industry and uncovered the struggles of entrepreneurs when forced to accelerate the development of game projects that needed a longer development period. Finally, while many of the entrepreneurs Karp studied did not attend physical classes or use physical space, Krishnan et al (2021) collected data at an accelerator which purposefully cultivated in‐person interactions among cohort members.…”

“…Depending on their research questions, ethnographers may also want to build a social role with the entrepreneurs of different cohorts (Brattström, 2023; Morlacchi, 2021). Yet researchers rarely unpack the “how to” of their participation (Gidley et al, 2022; Karp, 2022; Krishnan et al, 2021). Similar to staff members, active participation alongside the entrepreneurs is a meaningful way for building a social role that ideally supports the emergence of trustable bonds and results in the collection of first‐hand detailed data about the entrepreneurs' experiences and views.…”

“…Although many scholars use ethnographic methods to study entrepreneurship (e.g., Brattström, 2023; Gidley et al, 2022; Mansoori et al, 2019; Miller et al, 2023; Skade et al, 2020), scholarly discussions on the use of ethnography in entrepreneurship research are rare (for an exception see Johnston, 2008). This article develops this scholarship by connecting fundamental ethnographic insights to NVC research and explaining how to use them.…”

“…First, accelerators provide access to cohorts of very early stage ventures sharing similar characteristics (e.g., Dumont, 2023a; Karp, 2022; Krishnan et al, 2021). Second, accelerators allow real‐time, longitudinal observation of the kind of entrepreneurial work that typically takes place out of sight (e.g., Brattström, 2023; Gidley et al, 2022). Third, accelerators offer a space for social action by gathering multiple stakeholders around entrepreneurs (e.g., Goswami et al, 2018; Miller et al, 2023).…”