There is increasing recognition among scholars that entrepreneurs use framing to legitimize their ventures and the broader fields within which they operate. Yet, there is no unifying framework to bring together existing theoretical perspectives on entrepreneurial framing and to make sense of their underlying mechanisms. Based on an integrative review of prior studies, we propose a conceptual framework for organizing this important literature. Our review also suggests directions for future research on entrepreneurial framing.
AllisonT. H.DavisB. C.ShortJ. C.WebbJ. W. (2015). Crowdfunding in a prosocial microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 53–73.doi:10.1111/etap.12108
2.
AllisonT. H.McKennyA. F.ShortJ. C. (2013). The effect of entrepreneurial rhetoric on microlending investment: An examination of the warm-glow effect. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 690–707.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.01.003
3.
AnsariS. S.GarudR.KumaraswamyA. (2016). The disruptor’s dilemma: TiVo and the U.S. television ecosystem. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9), 1829–1853.doi:10.1002/smj.2442
4.
AnsariS.WijenF.GrayB. (2013). Constructing a climate change logic: An institutional perspective on the “Tragedy of the Commons”. Organization Science, 24(4), 1014–1040.doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0799
5.
ArbuthnottA.ErikssonJ.WincentJ. (2010). When a new industry meets traditional and declining ones: An integrative approach towards dialectics and social movement theory in a model of regional industry emergence processes. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(3), 290–308.doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2010.05.001
6.
AshforthB. E.GibbsB. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.doi:10.1287/orsc.1.2.177
7.
AustinJ. L. (1962). How to do things with words: The William James lectures delivered at Harvard university in 1955. Clarendon Press.
8.
AutioE.KenneyM.MustarP.SiegelD.WrightM. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.015
9.
AutioE.ThomasL. D. W. (2018). Tilting the playing field: Towards an endogenous strategic action theory of ecosystem creation. InNambisanS. (Ed.), Open innovation, ecosystems and entrepreneurship: Issues and perspectives (pp.111–140). World Scientific Publishing.
10.
BarbosaS. D.FayolleA.SmithB. R. (2019). Biased and overconfident, unbiased but going for it: How framing and anchoring affect the decision to start a new venture. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(3), 528–557.
11.
BartelC. A.GarudR. (2009). The role of narratives in sustaining organizational innovation. Organization Science, 20(1), 107–117.doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0372
12.
BenfordR. D.SnowD. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639.doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
13.
BerghoutM. A.OldenhofL.FabbricottiI. N.HildersC. G. J. M. (2018). Discursively framing physicians as leaders: Institutional work to reconfigure medical professionalism. Social Science & Medicine, 212, 68–75.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.01330014983
14.
BeunzaD.GarudR. (2007). Calculators, lemmings or frame-makers? The intermediary role of securities analysts. The Sociological Review, 55(2_suppl), 13–39.doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2007.00728.x
15.
CarreyrouJ. (2018). Bad blood: Secrets and lies in a silicon valley startup. Knopf.
16.
ChandraY. (2018). New narratives of development work? Making sense of social entrepreneurs’ development narratives across time and economies. World Development, 107(4), 306–326.doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.02.033
17.
ChenV. Z.SunS. L. (2019). Barbarians at the gate of the middle Kingdom: The International mobility of financing contract and governance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(4), 802–837.doi:10.1177/1042258717745808
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.PearsonA. W.BarnettT. (2012). Family involvement, family influence, and family-centered non-economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 267–293.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00407.x
20.
ClarkeJ. (2011). Revitalizing entrepreneurship: How visual symbols are used in entrepreneurial performances. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1365–1391.doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.01002.x
21.
ClarkeJ. S.CornelissenJ. P.HealeyM. P. (2019). Actions speak louder than words: How figurative language and gesturing in entrepreneurial pitches influences investment judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 335–360.doi:10.5465/amj.2016.1008
22.
CornelissenJ. P.ClarkeJ. S. (2010). Imagining and rationalizing opportunities: Inductive reasoning and the creation and justification of new ventures. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 539–557.
23.
CornelissenJ. P.ClarkeJ. S.CienkiA. (2012). Sensegiving in entrepreneurial contexts: The use of metaphors in speech and gesture to gain and sustain support for novel business ventures. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 30(3), 213–241.doi:10.1177/0266242610364427
24.
CornelissenJ. P.HoltR.ZundelM. (2011). The role of analogy and metaphor in the framing and Legitimization of strategic change. Organization Studies, 32(12), 1701–1716.doi:10.1177/0170840611425729
25.
CornelissenJ. P.WernerM. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235.doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.875669
26.
DalpiazE.CavottaV. (2019). A double-edged sword: Cultural entrepreneurship and the mobilisation of morally tainted cultural resources. Innovation, 21(1), 214–228.doi:10.1080/14479338.2018.1479188
27.
DavidssonP.GruenhagenJ. H. (2020). Fulfilling the process promise: A review and agenda for new venture creation process research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 50(8), 104225872093099.doi:10.1177/1042258720930991
28.
DelacourH.LecaB. (2017). The paradox of controversial innovation: Insights from the rise of Impressionism. Organization Studies, 38(5), 597–618.doi:10.1177/0170840616663237
29.
DelmestriG.GreenwoodR. (2016). How Cinderella became a queen: Theorizing radical status change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(4), 507–550.
30.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
31.
DoganovaL.Eyquem-RenaultM. (2009). What do business models do? Innovation devices in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 38(10), 1559–1570.
32.
ElzenB.GeelsF. W.LeeuwisC.van MierloB. (2011). Normative contestation in transitions ‘in the making’: Animal welfare concerns and system innovation in pig husbandry. Research Policy, 40(2), 263–275.
33.
EssenA.VarlanderS. W. (2019). How materiality enables and constrains framing practices: Affordances of a rheumatology E-Service. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(4), 458–471.doi:10.1177/1056492618760722
34.
EtzioniA. (1987). Entrepreneurship, adaptation and legitimation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 8(2), 175–189.doi:10.1016/0167-2681(87)90002-3
35.
FalingM.BiesbroekR. (2019). Cross-boundary policy entrepreneurship for climate-smart agriculture in Kenya. Policy Sciences, 52(4), 525–547.doi:10.1007/s11077-019-09355-1
36.
FerontC.BertelsS. (2019). The impact of frame ambiguity on field-level change. Organization Studies, 133(1), 017084061987846.doi:10.1177/0170840619878467
37.
FischerE.Rebecca ReuberA.ReuberA. R. (2014). Online entrepreneurial communication: Mitigating uncertainty and increasing differentiation via Twitter. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(4), 565–583.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.02.004
38.
FisherG.KothaS.LahiriA. (2016). Changing with the times: An integrated view of identity, legitimacy, and new venutre life cycles. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 383–409.doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0496
39.
FisherG.KuratkoD. F.BloodgoodJ. M.HornsbyJ. S. (2017). Legitimate to whom? The challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 52–71.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.10.005
40.
FligsteinN. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4), 397–405.doi:10.1177/0002764297040004003
41.
ForbesT. (2012). Institutional entrepreneurship in hostile settings: Health and social care partnerships in Scotland, 2002–05. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(6), 1100–1115.doi:10.1068/c11275b
42.
FriedmanV. J.DesivilyaH. (2010). Integrating social entrepreneurship and conflict engagement for regional development in divided societies. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(6), 495–514.doi:10.1080/08985626.2010.488400
43.
FuchsC.DiamantopoulosA. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of brand‐positioning strategies from a consumer perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11/12), 1763–1786.doi:10.1108/03090561011079873
44.
GarudR.GehmanJ. (2019). Performativity: Not a destination but an ongoing journey. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 679–684.doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0315
45.
GarudR.GehmanJ.GiulianiA. P. (2014). Contextualizing entrepreneurial innovation: A narrative perspective. Research Policy, 43(7), 1177–1188.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.04.015
46.
GarudR.GehmanJ.TharchenT. (2018). Performativity as ongoing journeys: Implications for strategy, entrepreneurship, and innovation. Long Range Planning, 51(3), 500–509.doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2017.02.003
47.
GarudR.KumaraswamyA.RobertsA.XuL. (2020). Liminal movement by digital platform‐based sharing economy ventures: The case of Uber technologies. Strategic Management Journal, 13(10).doi:10.1002/smj.3148
48.
GarudR.LantT. K.SchildtH. A. (2019). Generative imitation, strategic distancing and optimal distinctiveness during the growth, decline and stabilization of silicon alley. Innovation, 21(1), 187–213.doi:10.1080/14479338.2018.1465822
49.
GarudR.SchildtH. A.LantT. K. (2014). Entrepreneurial storytelling, future expectations, and the paradox of legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(5), 1479–1492.doi:10.1287/orsc.2014.0915
50.
GehmanJ.SoublièreJ.-F. (2017). Cultural entrepreneurship: From making culture to cultural making. Innovation, 19(1), 61–73.doi:10.1080/14479338.2016.1268521
51.
GiorgiS.BartunekJ. M.KingB. G. (2017). A Saul Alinsky primer for the 21st century: The roles of cultural competence and cultural brokerage in fostering mobilization in support of change. InStawB. M.BriefA. P. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior(Vol. 37, pp. 125–142). Elsevier.doi:10.1016/j.riob.2017.09.002
52.
GiorgiS.LockwoodC.GlynnM. A. (2015). The many faces of culture: Making sense of 30 years of research on culture in organization studies. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 1–54.doi:10.5465/19416520.2015.1007645
53.
GmürM. (2003). Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation. Scientometrics, 57(1), 27–57.doi:10.1023/A:1023619503005
54.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
55.
GranqvistN.LaurilaJ. (2011). Rage against self-replicating machines: Framing science and fiction in the US nanotechnology field. Organization Studies, 32(2), 253–280.doi:10.1177/0170840610397476
56.
GrimesM. G. (2018). The pivot: How founders respond to feedback through idea and identity work. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1692–1717.doi:10.5465/amj.2015.0823
57.
GursesK.OzcanP. (2015). Entrepreneurship in regulated markets: Framing contests and collective action to introduce pay TV in the U.S. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1709–1739.doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0775
58.
HampelC. E.TraceyP.WeberK. (2020). The art of the pivot: How new ventures manage identification relationships with stakeholders as they change direction. Academy of Management Journal, 63(2), 440–471.doi:10.5465/amj.2017.0460
59.
HartmanA. E.CoslorE. (2019). Earning while giving: Rhetorical strategies for navigating multiple institutional logics in reproductive commodification. Journal of Business Research, 105(3), 405–419.doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.05.010
60.
HeimstädtM.ReischauerG. (2019). Framing innovation practices in interstitial issue fields: Open innovation in the NYC administration. Innovation, 21(1), 128–150.doi:10.1080/14479338.2018.1514259
61.
HelmsW. S.OliverC.WebbK. (2012). Antecedents of settlement on a new institutional practice: Negotiation of the iso 26000 standard on social responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1120–1145.doi:10.5465/amj.2010.1045
62.
HervieuxC.VoltanA. (2018). Framing social problems in social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(2), 279–293.doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3252-1
63.
HiattS. R.CarlosW. C. (2019). From farms to fuel tanks: Stakeholder framing contests and entrepreneurship in the emergent U.S. biodiesel market. Strategic Management Journal, 40(6), 865–893.doi:10.1002/smj.2989
64.
HungS.-C.WhittingtonR. (2011). Agency in national innovation systems: Institutional entrepreneurship and the professionalization of Taiwanese it. Research Policy, 40(4), 526–538.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.008
65.
JonesJ.YorkJ. G.VedulaS.CongerM.LenoxM. (2019). The collective construction of green building: Industry transition toward environmentally beneficial practices. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(4), 425–449.doi:10.5465/amp.2017.0031
66.
KellerK. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.doi:10.1177/002224299305700101
67.
KellerK. L.LehmannD. R. (2006). Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science, 25(6), 740–759.doi:10.1287/mksc.1050.0153
68.
KhaireM. (2014). Fashioning an industry: Socio-cognitive processes in the construction of worth of a new industry. Organization Studies, 35(1), 41–74.doi:10.1177/0170840613502766
69.
KimP. H.BuffartM.CroidieuG. (2016). TMI: Signaling credible claims in crowdfunding campaign narratives. Group & Organization Management, 41(6), 717–750.
70.
KimP. H.CroidieuG.LippmannS. (2016). Responding from that vantage point: Field position and discursive strategies of legitimation in the US wireless telegraphy field. Organization Studies, 37(10), 1417–1450.doi:10.1177/0170840616634132
71.
Klein WoolthuisR.HooimeijerF.BossinkB.MulderG.BrouwerJ. (2013). Institutional entrepreneurship in sustainable urban development: Dutch successes as inspiration for transformation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50(5), 91–100.doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.031
72.
KumaraswamyA.GarudR.AnsariShahzad (Shaz).AnsariS. (2018). Perspectives on disruptive innovations. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1025–1042.doi:10.1111/joms.12399
73.
LeeC.-K.HungS.-C. (2014). Institutional entrepreneurship in the informal economy: China’s Shan-Zhai mobile phones. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(1), 16–36.doi:10.1002/sej.1174
74.
LangenohlA. (2008). How to change other people’s institutions: Discursive entrepreneurship and the boundary object of competition/competitiveness in the German banking sector. Economy and Society, 37(1), 68–93.doi:10.1080/03085140701760882
75.
LeeM.HuangL. (2018). Gender bias, social impact framing, and evaluation of entrepreneurial ventures. Organization Science, 29(1), 1–16.doi:10.1287/orsc.2017.1172
76.
LévesqueM.StephanU. (2020). It’s time we talk about time in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(2), 163–184.doi:10.1177/1042258719839711
77.
LounsburyM.GehmanJ.Ann GlynnM. (2019). Beyond homo entrepreneurus : Judgment and the theory of cultural entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 7.doi:10.1111/joms.12429
78.
LounsburyM.GlynnM. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 545–564.doi:10.1002/smj.188
79.
LounsburyM.GlynnM. A. (2019). Cultural entrepreneurship: A new agenda for the study of entrepreneurial processes and possibilities.
80.
LeeM.RamusT.VaccaroA. (2018). From protest to product: Strategic frame brokerage in a commercial social movement organization. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2130–2158.doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0223
81.
ManningS.BejaranoT. A. (2017). Convincing the crowd: Entrepreneurial storytelling in crowdfunding campaigns. Strategic Organization, 15(2), 194–219.doi:10.1177/1476127016648500
82.
MarkowitzL.CobbD.HedleyM. (2012). Framing ambiguity: Insider/outsiders and the successful legitimation project of the socially responsible mutual fund industry. Organization, 19(1), 3–23.doi:10.1177/1350508411398055
83.
MartensM. L.JenningsJ. E.JenningsP. D. (2007). Do the stories they tell get them the money they need? The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource acquisition. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1107–1132.doi:10.5465/amj.2007.27169488
84.
MartinC. J. (2016). The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism?Ecological Economics, 121, 149–159.doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.027
85.
MayerH.KnoxP. (2010). Small-town sustainability: Prospects in the second modernity. European Planning Studies, 18(10), 1545–1565.doi:10.1080/09654313.2010.504336
86.
McDonaldR.GaoC. (2019). Pivoting isn’t enough? Managing strategic reorientation in new ventures. Organization Science, 30(6), 1289–1318.doi:10.1287/orsc.2019.1287
87.
McEnanyR.StruttonD. (2015). Leading the (r)evolution: Succession and leadership rules for re-entrepreneurs. Business Horizons, 58(4), 401–410.doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2015.03.005
88.
McGaugheyS. L. (2013). Institutional entrepreneurship in North American lightning protection standards: Rhetorical history and unintended consequences of failure. Business History, 55(1), 73–97.doi:10.1080/00076791.2012.687537
89.
McKnightB.ZietsmaC. (2018). Finding the threshold: A configurational approach to optimal distinctiveness. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(4), 493–512.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.03.004
90.
MerrieA.OlssonP. (2014). An innovation and agency perspective on the emergence and spread of marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 44(5734), 366–374.doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.006
91.
MerthaA. (2009). “Fragmented authoritarianism 2.0”: Political pluralization in the Chinese policy process. The China Quarterly, 200, 995–1012.doi:10.1017/S0305741009990592
92.
MeyerR. E.HöllererM. A.JancsaryD.van LeeuwenT. (2013). The visual dimension in organizing, organization, and organization research: Core ideas, current developments, and promising avenues. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 489–555.doi:10.5465/19416520.2013.781867
93.
MontgomeryA. W.DacinP. A.DacinM. T. (2012). Collective social entrepreneurship: Collaboratively shaping social good. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 375–388.doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1501-5
94.
NasonR. S.WiklundJ. (2018). An assessment of resource-based theorizing on firm growth and suggestions for the future. Journal of Management, 44(1), 32–60.doi:10.1177/0149206315610635
95.
NavisC.GlynnM. 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.doi:10.2189/asqu.2010.55.3.439
96.
PahariaN.KeinanA.AveryJ.SchorJ. B. (2011). The underdog effect: The marketing of disadvantage and determination through brand biography. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 775–790.doi:10.1086/656219
97.
PanL.LiX.ChenJ.ChenT. (2020). Sounds novel or familiar? Entrepreneurs’ framing strategy in the venture capital market. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(2), 105930.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.02.003
98.
ParkC. W.JaworskiB. J.MacInnisD. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image management. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135–145.doi:10.1177/002224298605000401
99.
PerrettiF.NegroG.LomiA. (2008). E pluribus unum: Framing, matching, and form emergence in U.S. television broadcasting, 1940–1960. Organization Science, 19(4), 533–547.doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0319
100.
PollmanE.BarryJ. M. (2016). Regulatory entrepreneurship. Southern California Law Review, 90, 383.
101.
RaoH. (1998). Caveat emptor: The construction of nonprofit consumer watchdog organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 912–961.doi:10.1086/231293
102.
RaoH.GiorgiS. (2006). Code breaking: How entrepreneurs exploit cultural logics to generate institutional change. InStawB. M. (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior(Vol. 37, pp. 125–142). Jai-Elsevier Science Inc.doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27007-2
103.
RauchA. (2019). Opportunities and threats in reviewing entrepreneurship theory and practice. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(5), 847–860.doi:10.1177/1042258719879635
104.
RiesE. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business.
105.
RindovaV.CourtneyH. (2020). To shape or adapt: Knowledge problems, epistemologies, and strategic postures under Knightian uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 45(4), 787–807.doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0291
106.
RauchA.WiklundJ.LumpkinG. T.FreseM. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00308.x
107.
RönnbergL. (2017). From national policy-making to global edu-business: Swedish edu-preneurs on the move. Journal of Education Policy, 32(2), 234–249.doi:10.1080/02680939.2016.1268725
108.
SantosF. M.EisenhardtK. M. (2009). Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 643–671.doi:10.5465/amj.2009.43669892
109.
ScarbroughH.RobertsonM.SwanJ. (2015). Diffusion in the face of failure: The evolution of a management innovation. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 365–387.doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12093
110.
ShepherdD. A.WennbergK.SuddabyR.WiklundJ. (2019). What are we explaining? A review and agenda on initiating, engaging, performing, and contextualizing entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 45(1), 159–196.doi:10.1177/0149206318799443
111.
SineW. D.LeeB. 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.doi:10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.123
112.
SlagerR.GondJ.-P.MoonJ. (2012). Standardization as institutional work: The regulatory power of a responsible investment standard. Organization Studies, 33(5–6), 763–790.doi:10.1177/0170840612443628
113.
SnihurY.ThomasL. D. W.BurgelmanR. A. (2018a). An ecosystem-level process model of business model disruption: The disruptor’s gambit. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1278–1316.doi:10.1111/joms.12343
114.
SnihurY.ThomasL. D. W.BurgelmanR. A. (2018b). The performative power of words: How business model innovators use framing for strategic advantage. InBrusoniS.SundK. J.GalavanR. J. (Eds.), Innovation and cognition (pp.13–44). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
115.
SujanM.BettmanJ. R. (1989). The effects of brand positioning strategies on consumers’ brand and category perceptions: Some insights from schema research. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4), 454–467.
116.
ThomasL. D. W.RitalaP. (2021). Ecosystem legitimacy emergence: A collective action view. Journal of Management. in press.
117.
ThomasL. D. W.SnihurY. (2020). Framing ecosystem leadership: The case of Amazon: Working Paper.
118.
TraceyP.PhillipsN.JarvisO. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(1), 60–80.doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0522
119.
ÜberbacherF. (2014). Legitimation of new ventures: A review and research programme. Journal of Management Studies, 51(4), 667–698.doi:10.1111/joms.12077
120.
ÜberbacherF.JacobsC. D.CornelissenJ. P. (2015). How entrepreneurs become skilled cultural operators. Organization Studies, 36(7), 925–951.doi:10.1177/0170840615575190
121.
UzuncaB.RigteringJ. P. C.OzcanP. (2018). Sharing and shaping: A cross-country comparison of how sharing economy firms shape their institutional environment to gain legitimacy. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(3), 248–272.doi:10.5465/amd.2016.0153
122.
VaaraE.SonensheinS.BojeD. (2016). Narratives as sources of stability and change in organizations: Approaches and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 495–560.doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1120963
123.
WeberK.HeinzeK. L.DeSouceyM. (2008). Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in the movement for grass-fed meat and dairy products. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 529–567.doi:10.2189/asqu.53.3.529
124.
WernerM. D.CornelissenJ. P. (2014). Framing the change: Switching and blending frames and their role in instigating institutional change. Organization Studies, 35(10), 1449–1472.doi:10.1177/0170840614539314
125.
WryT.LounsburyM.GlynnM. A. (2011). Legitimating nascent collective identities: Coordinating cultural entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22(2), 449–463.doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0613
126.
YorkJ. G.HargraveT. J.PachecoD. F. (2016). Converging winds: Logic hybridization in the Colorado wind energy field. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 579–610.doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0657
127.
ZimmermanM. A.ZeitzG. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414–431.doi:10.5465/amr.2002.7389921
128.
ZottC.HuyQ. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 70–105.doi:10.2189/asqu.52.1.70
