ENTREPRENEURIAL FRAMING: A LITERATURE REVIEW AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Yuliya SnihurToulouse Business School, University of Toulouse

1, Place Jourdain31068 Toulouse, France

E-mail: y.snihur@tbs-education.fr

Llewellyn D W ThomasIESE Business School

08034 BarcelonaSpain

e-mail: lthomas@iese.edu

Raghu GarudPennsylvania State University

Smeal College of BusinessUniversity Park, PA 16802, USA

E-mail: rug14@psu.edu

Nelson PhillipsImperial College Business Scool

South Kensington CampusLondon SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom

E-mail: n.phillips@imperial.ac.uk

1

ENTREPRENEURIAL FRAMING: A LITERATURE REVIEW AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Abstract

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.

2

“A notable example of framing is Intel’s Moore’s Law with regard to advances in semiconductors. This roadmap was as much a shared human vision as a law of physics. Framed to define both core issues and characteristic solutions, […] serving the interests of both Intel and the business partners who came to believe in it.” (Hung & Whittington, 2011, p. 528)

There is growing interest in understanding how entrepreneurs use framing to

legitimize their venture and the organizational field—the “recognized area of institutional life:

key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations

that produce similar services and products” (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, pp. 64–65)—within

which their entrepreneurial action unfolds (Clarke, Cornelissen, & Healey, 2019; Khaire,

2014; York, Hargrave, & Pacheco, 2016). Framing—“the use of rhetorical devices in

communication to mobilize support and minimize resistance” (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014,

p. 185)—is used by entrepreneurs to construct meaning around novel endeavors in an effort to

influence audience engagement by focusing attention on selected salient features of their

venture. Framing is particularly relevant for entrepreneurs seeking to shape the meaning of

their novel and impactful solutions for individuals, organizations, and broader society. For

example, entrepreneurial framing played a key role in the emergence of pay TV (Gurses &

Ozcan, 2015), satellite radio (Navis & Glynn, 2010), cloud software (Snihur, Thomas, &

Burgelman, 2018a) and sharing platforms (Garud, Kumaraswamy, Roberts, & Xu, 2020) by

engaging key audiences and overcoming regulatory resistance.

However, while several disciplines, including entrepreneurship, sociology, and

organization theory, have begun to shed light on entrepreneurial framing, there is no unifying

framework to help researchers coordinate and build upon existing efforts. The diversity of

theoretical approaches, methodologies, and research questions addressed adds richness but

also risks fragmentation. Given the growing recognition of entrepreneurial framing as a

domain of research in entrepreneurship, we believe there are opportunities to generate deeper

3

insights on entrepreneurial framing by taking stock of what we know and moving forward

with a focused research agenda.

To provide an up-to-date synthesis, we systematically reviewed the entrepreneurial

framing literature to examine how scholars have studied framing efforts by entrepreneurs. We

searched the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science Social Science Index

for all the papers that mentioned both “entrepreneur” and “framing” in their titles, abstracts,

or keywords. To ensure comprehensiveness, we also examined related research on

entrepreneurial storytelling, narratives, and symbolic action, and selected those papers that

substantively examined framing. We analyzed the papers to derive an integrative framework

that connects entrepreneurial framing with two main outcomes—legitimation of the venture

and legitimation of the field in which entrepreneurial actions unfold—and that underscores

the complicated and performative nature of framing.

We contribute to the literature on entrepreneurship in several ways. First, we identify

and integrate the relationships and links between framing and entrepreneurship, including a

classification of various framing content and processes and their outcomes. This synthesis

provides an inclusive view of the literature by integrating the different levels of analyses

across which audiences are involved in entrepreneurial framing. Second, we highlight

unexamined bridges and interplays between existing conversations, including a common

focus on distinctiveness, coherence, and resonance mechanisms across different studies and

theoretical approaches. Third, we build on our review to chart a course for future research on

the complications and performativity of entrepreneurial framing. In sum, our review not only

consolidates existing work in this area, but also provides scholars with directions in which to

take new research.

4

Entrepreneurial Framing

Framing is “the use of rhetorical devices in communication to mobilize support and

minimize resistance” (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014, p. 185).1 Entrepreneurial framing can be

undertaken by an entrepreneur and their team,2 or it can be a collective undertaking with

several entrepreneurs acting jointly across different ventures. Entrepreneurs use framing to

construct meaning around their novel endeavors and influence audience engagement by

focusing attention on selected salient features of their venture. For example, entrepreneurs can

draw attention to the distinctiveness of their offerings (McKnight & Zietsma, 2018), the

market leadership position of their venture (Snihur et al., 2018a), or the environmentally

friendly practices their ventures embrace (Weber, Heinze, & DeSoucey, 2008).

As part of their framing efforts, entrepreneurs leverage cultural resources to make “the

unfamiliar familiar by framing the new venture in terms that are understandable and

legitimate” (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001, p. 549; see also Rao, 1998).3 Cultural resources are

useful to entrepreneurs when their ventures confront legitimacy challenges due to novelty

(Giorgi, Lockwood, & Glynn, 2015; Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001; Überbacher, 2014). Thus,

entrepreneurial frames typically originate within cultures; culture provides a treasure-trove of

resources for entrepreneurs to develop meaning and explain their actions to gain material

support, social acceptability, and credibility for their ventures and the field in which their

entrepreneurial actions unfold (Dalpiaz & Cavotta, 2019; Gehman & Soubliere, 2017;

Lounsbury & Glynn, 2019; Rao, 1998; Überbacher, Jacobs, & Cornelissen, 2015).

Storytelling is a key mechanism that entrepreneurs deploy to leverage cultural

resources. Storytelling involves a plot with “three time-based structural components—

beginning, middle, and end—with transitions and event sequences propelled by plot lines and 1 See Cornelissen and Werner (2014) for a broader discussion of the origins and use of framing across social sciences, including sociology and social and cognitive psychology; and see Chong and Druckman (2007) for the use of framing in political science.2 In this review, we use the term “entrepreneurs” to cover both.3 Entrepreneurial framing has been also studied from institutional and social movement perspectives, as detailed below.

5

twists and shaped by defining characters” (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001, p. 549).4 As part of

storytelling, entrepreneurs use a variety of rhetorical devices such as frames and symbols

(“something that stands for or suggests something else”, see Zott & Huy, 2007, p. 72).

However, frames can also be used as rhetorical devices independent of stories to mobilize

support and minimize resistance, such as when entrepreneurs use carefully selected frames in

press releases or company descriptions (e.g., Hiatt & Carlos, 2019; Snihur et al., 2018a).

Similarly, symbols can be part of a frame (Fisher, Kotha, & Lahiri, 2016), although this is not

always the case. Consequently, we include in our review research from storytelling,

narratives, and symbols that is pertinent to entrepreneurial framing.

A related literature on brands and brand positioning in marketing has some similarity

to entrepreneurial framing, but there are important differences. Both brand positioning and

framing draw attention to selectively constructed communications that differentiate an

organization and its offerings from competitors (Park, Jaworski, & MacInnis, 1986; Sujan &

Bettman, 1989). Yet entrepreneurial framing is different from branding. The objective of

branding is to reach out to and interact with audiences about a venture’s goods and services,

whereas the objective of framing is to mobilize support and minimize audience resistance for

the entire venture and its business model by explaining “who we are and what we do.”5 For

example, when launching Amazon as a brand, Jeff Bezos simultaneously used a variety of

frames such as “Earth’s biggest bookstore” and “the world’s most customer centric company”

during Amazon’s early years (Beunza & Garud, 2007; Thomas & Snihur, 2020).

Thus, entrepreneurial framing is more dynamic, fluid, contextual, and interactive6 than

brand positioning in terms of content and communication goals. Brand positioning clarifies

4 Narratives, or “temporal, discursive constructions that provide meaning” (Vaara et al., 2016, p. 496) are often used interchangeably with stories (e.g., Martens et al., 2007). However, others have differentiated them as separate components that can be articulated in fragments rather than told in full, like a story (see Vaara et al., 2016, for a review). Similar to stories, frames can be used as parts of narratives, but frames can also be used independently from narratives.5 We thank Charlene Zietsma and Timo Mandler for their insights here. 6 We thank our editor, Jim Chrisman, for his insightful suggestions.

6

the features and benefits of goods or services for consumers,7 and the success of brand

positioning is usually evaluated through consumer purchasing intentions, real choices, and

brand loyalty (e.g. Paharia, Keinan, Avery, & Schor, 2011); in contrast, the success of

entrepreneurial framing is evaluated through the resonance of the frames with audiences

embedded in particular cultural contexts (Giorgi et al., 2015). Furthermore, while a brand

calls for a long-term investment to build “customer-based brand equity” (Keller, 1993, p. 17),

frames are typically used to meet short-term audience-specific needs, such as fundraising,

sales pitches, or project kickoffs, and can therefore change and evolve more often. Given

these differences and because of the focus of this paper on entrepreneurial framing, we have

not drawn on the literature on brands or brand positioning. In a future endeavor, it may be

useful to draw on articles, reviews, and related empirical work on branding (e.g. Fuchs &

Diamantopoulos, 2010; Keller, 1993; Keller & Lehmann, 2006) for potential cross-

fertilization.

Method and Scope of Review

We cast a wide net to identify research on framing by entrepreneurs as a basis for our

systematic review (Rauch, 2019). We undertook a keyword search in the ISI Web of Science

Social Science Index as it is generally considered the most comprehensive database for

scholarly work and includes many thousands of journals. Although not all journals are

included, ISI typically includes the most prominent journals from each discipline. We

searched for entrepreneur* AND fram* in article titles, abstracts, or keywords, resulting in

4,312 journal articles published by the end of 2019.8

We then excluded articles that were not relevant to our review. We first filtered for

duplicates (n = 3). Then, to ensure that only literature in the management discipline remained,

7 Note for instance that “what customers think and feel about the brand” is central to Keller and Lehmann’s (2006) review of brands and branding (Figure 1, p. 753).8 We complemented this set with articles we were able to identify on entrepreneurial framing published or forthcoming during the review process, including Garud et al. (2020), Pan, Li, Chen, & Chen (2020), and Thomas & Ritala (2021).

7

given the large number of articles, we considered journals listed by the Academic Journal

Quality Guide 2018 of the Association of Business Schools (n = 1,170 journals), reducing the

number to 2,903 articles. The Academic Journal Quality Guide provides a guide to the range,

subject matter, and relative quality of the journals in which business and management

academics publish.9 We discarded articles that exclusively used the word “framework” (n =

2,551), resulting in 352 articles. We then reviewed the abstracts of the remaining articles, and

as a result excluded 141 articles that referred to “frames of analysis,” 31 that referred to

methods, such as “time frames” and “sampling frames,” and 120 that did not consider framing

in the context of entrepreneurship. We downloaded the 60 remaining articles for analysis.

To ensure comprehensiveness, we also examined adjacent research on entrepreneurial

storytelling, narratives, and symbolic action by searching for entrepreneur* AND story* (n =

487), entrepreneur* AND narrativ* (n = 625), entrepreneur* AND symbol* (n = 254) in

article titles, abstracts, or keywords. We filtered for duplicates (n = 192) and checked whether

framing was examined substantively in the remaining papers, adding 11 articles to our review.

This resulted in a final corpus of 71 articles, which the first two authors then read in detail,

sorted by discipline, method, data, and journal quality, producing tables and graphs of the

distinguishing characteristics, and mapping patterns, theories, key findings, and contexts. We

also undertook a co-citation analysis to identify the key referenced articles. This provided a

mechanism to highlight key concepts, theoretical bases, and invisible colleges (Gmur, 2003).

Table 1 presents the method and summary statistics.

[Insert Table 1 around here]

We took several steps to refine the focus of our review. First, we focused on studies of

entrepreneurship and excluded those that referred only indirectly to entrepreneurship (e.g.,

discussing policy entrepreneurs). Second, we focused on studies of framing by entrepreneurs

to audiences and excluded those that either mentioned framing to other audiences only

9 https://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-2018/

8

indirectly, or which did not consider audiences at all. For example, we excluded studies that

investigated how entrepreneurs cognitively framed their decisions where specific audiences

were not identified (e.g. McEnany & Strutton, 2015) and studies that examined how

entrepreneurs framed potential opportunities to themselves before deciding to start a new

venture (e.g. Barbosa, Fayolle, & Smith, 2019).10

Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Framing

We based our framework (Figure 1) on the overall set of articles we identified. Our

framework connects entrepreneurial framing with important outcomes: the legitimation of the

venture and the legitimation of the field in which entrepreneurial actions unfold. It also

suggests that venture and field legitimation are ongoing, and that firms continue to (re)frame

their ventures over time.

[Insert Figure 1 around here]

Our framework shows that entrepreneurial framing consists of two interacting

dimensions—framing content and framing processes—that collectively constitute the

dynamics of entrepreneurial framing. In our analysis of framing content, we distinguish

between (a) framing mode, relating to written, verbal, or visual content of framing; (b)

framing language, relating to linguistic characteristics of frames, such as figurative, abstract,

or ambiguous; and (c) framing emphasis, relating to the focus of attention a frame seeks to

highlight, such as novelty or familiarity. For our analysis of framing processes, we distinguish

between processes involving (a) frame deployment, where entrepreneurs bring frame content

into action; (b) framing contests, where audiences react to an entrepreneur’s framing with

their own framing; and (c) complementary actions used by entrepreneurs to supplement

framing efforts.

10 Although we reviewed all articles carefully, we do not cite them all in this paper because the increase in length would not bring corresponding increase in insight. The full list of papers reviewed is available in Tables 2 and 3.

9

Our framework also emphasizes the fundamental connections between the content and

process of entrepreneurial framing, and the legitimation of the new venture and its field. As

Lounsbury, Gehman, and Glynn (2019, p. 22) explain, framing can help legitimate “both the

firms themselves and the broader institutional milieu (e.g., market category) in which they are

embedded.” The legitimation process is aimed at fostering a belief among resource-holding

audiences that the new venture, its offering and business model, and its field and the related

practices and regulations, are desirable and congruent with social expectations, values, and

norms (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990; Etzioni, 1987; Überbacher, 2014). Often, as part of these

efforts, entrepreneurs also construct novel or alternative venture identities and broader

collective identities (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2019).

However, legitimation is not an inherent outcome of framing but a “culturally

mediated process” (Wry, Lounsbury, & Glynn, 2011, p. 456) that can be enhanced or

hindered by framing content and processes that strive for distinctiveness (to show how the

venture is distinguishable and differs from competitors); coherence (consistency between

framing content and processes); and resonance (framing alignment with audiences’ beliefs,

values, and aspirations). We include these three mechanisms as part of framing

performativity, where “to say something is to do something,” meaning that language can enact

reality rather than simply describe it (Austin, 1962, p. 12; cf. Garud, Gehman, & Giuliani,

2014).

In other words, by establishing distinctiveness, coherence, and resonance through

framing, entrepreneurs enact entrepreneurial opportunities (top right-facing arrow in Figure

1). Performativity unfolds within dynamically changing contexts of meaning, which in turn

temper what entrepreneurs can and cannot say and do (Garud, Gehman, & Tharchen, 2018).

Consequently, entrepreneurs may need to pivot, which involves making changes to the

entrepreneurial frames they have previously established (Grimes, 2018; McDonald & Gao,

10

2019). We represent this dynamic graphically in Figure 1 with the bottom left-facing arrow.

In sum, the process is recursive; in their attempts to gain legitimacy for their ventures and

fields entrepreneurs need to update and pivot their framing as the process unfolds (bottom

arrow in Figure 1).

We use our framework as an organizing heuristic to present the entrepreneurial

framing literature focused on venture legitimation and the literature focused on field

legitimation. We subsequently discuss the interplay between venture and field legitimation,

and then develop an agenda for future research around two undertheorized facets of our

framework—framing complications and performativity. Table 2 provides details about the

venture legitimation framing articles reviewed, and Table 3 provides details about the field

legitimation framing articles reviewed.

[Insert Tables 2 and 3 around here]

Venture legitimation framing

Venture legitimation, defined as gaining societal support for a venture (Zimmerman &

Zeitz, 2002), is a crucial framing outcome (Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010; Lounsbury & Glynn,

2001; Überbacher, 2014) for both for-profit and social entrepreneurs (Allison, Davis, Short, &

Webb, 2015; Allison, McKenny, & Short, 2013). Research on venture legitimation addresses

how entrepreneurs use cultural resources to convince audiences that their new venture offers

something distinctly new and valuable (Fisher, Kuratko, Bloodgood, & Hornsby, 2017;

McKnight & Zietsma, 2018; Navis & Glynn, 2010). For example, as well as using framing to

legitimate venture offerings with customers and investors (Ansari, Garud, & Kumaraswamy,

2016; McDonald & Gao, 2019; McKnight & Zietsma, 2018), entrepreneurs undertake framing

to legitimate their novel business models with investors, customers, partners, media, and

financial analysts (McKnight & Zietsma, 2018; Snihur et al., 2018a). Entrepreneurs also use

11

framing to legitimate the identity of the venture with investors and customers (Dalpiaz &

Cavotta, 2019; Lee & Huang, 2018; Manning & Bejarano, 2017).

Establishing the distinctiveness of offerings, business models, and venture identities

through framing is important to gain venture legitimation. In entrepreneurial contexts,

distinctiveness can be established by highlighting the innovativeness of the offerings or the

disruptiveness of the business model of the new venture (Ansari et al., 2016; McDonald &

Gao, 2019; McKnight & Zietsma, 2018; Snihur et al., 2018a). Distinctiveness is also often

associated with a venture’s legitimating identity, such as market leadership (Santos &

Eisenhardt, 2009; Snihur et al., 2018a).

Venture legitimation also requires framing to be coherent. Coherence is important

because entrepreneurs interact with various audiences, including investors, customers,

partners, or regulators, who might consider several issues around the new venture (Lee,

Ramus, & Vaccaro, 2018; McDonald & Gao, 2019). To be coherent, framing needs internal

consistency in the combination of the elements it comprises (Cornelissen, Holt, & Zundel,

2011; Fischer & Reuber, 2014; Manning & Bejarano, 2017; Snihur et al., 2018a).

Furthermore, venture legitimation only occurs if different audiences resonate with the

entrepreneurial framing in terms of their own ideas and expectations (Cornelissen et al., 2011;

Fisher et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2018).

Successful venture legitimation framing is performative in that it can result in access

to resources like financing (Allison et al., 2015; Clarke et al., 2019) or time available for

action (McDonald & Gao, 2019). McDonald and Gao (2019) show how skillful framing of an

entrepreneurial pivot is as much a cultural as an economic accomplishment. By successfully

anticipating, justifying, and staging the reorientation of their venture with audiences,

entrepreneurs can create additional time and resource leeway to pursue product-market fit.

Others have shown how successful framing is performative in addressing the competitive

12

challenges posed by incumbents (Ansari et al., 2016; Snihur et al., 2018a). For example,

TiVo’s framing was performative in gaining the support of the incumbents that it intended to

disrupt (Ansari et al., 2016).

Framing content. Entrepreneurs frame by using cultural resources through a variety of

modes, including written, verbal, and visual (Clarke, 2011; Clarke et al., 2019; Cornelissen,

Clarke, & Cienki, 2012; see also Meyer, Hollerer, Jancsary, & Van Leeuwen, 2013). Cultural

resources leveraged for entrepreneurial framing include endorsements by various audiences

(Navis & Glynn, 2010), cultural references about value propositions and business models

(Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001; Snihur et al., 2018a), and visual props and identities (Clarke,

2011). For instance, entrepreneurs can use setting, props, and dress to present an appropriate

and appealing scene to audiences, so as to create a professional identity and emphasize control

(Clarke, 2011).

The language used in framing also varies, with many studies analyzing entrepreneurial

framing using linguistic techniques (e.g. Allison et al., 2015; Clarke et al., 2019; Cornelissen

et al., 2011; Fischer & Reuber, 2014). In entrepreneurial framing, metaphors serve important

cognitive functions in reducing uncertainty about the predictability and control of the new

venture (Cornelissen et al., 2012). Other characteristics such as past, present, and future

orientation (Manning & Bejarano, 2017), abstraction and concreteness (McDonald & Gao,

2019), and figurativeness and literalness (Clarke et al., 2019) also have an effect. For instance,

the use of abstract, in contrast to concrete, language when describing a product allows

audiences to “see what they want to see” and makes it easier for entrepreneurs to ensure that

future frames are consistent with past frames (McDonald & Gao, 2019). In fact, entrepreneurs

can combine verbal tactics (such as literal and figurative frames) and hand gestures in pitches

to produce remarkably strong effects (Clarke et al., 2019).

13

A variety of emphasis frames focus on the attributes of the venture that distinguish it

from others (McKnight & Zietsma, 2018; Pan, Li, Chen, & Chen, 2020; Snihur et al., 2018a).

Here entrepreneurs endeavor to demonstrate the distinctiveness of their ventures through their

offerings, business models, or identity. For instance, entrepreneurs can emphasize both the

novelty and familiarity of their venture; Pan et al. (2020) have found that entrepreneurs may

need to use a combination of both to maximize resonance. Relatedly, a differentiation frame

can emphasize problems with current approaches, by, for instance, presenting a new business

model as different from those of incumbents (McKnight & Zietsma, 2018). Leadership

framing has also been shown to resonate with audiences (Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009; Snihur

et al., 2018a). For example, Salesforce drew on cultural resources from the Bible (e.g., David

and Goliath) to assert a differentiation frame, highlighting unique characteristics of its

business model, and a leadership frame, accentuating leadership of the new ecosystem, to

emphasize how it differed from the incumbent (Snihur et al., 2018a, 2018b). This use of

cultural resources is similar to the anti-leader framing that can be effective in nascent markets

(Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009).

To legitimize social business models, the emphasis tends to be more pragmatic and

solution-centric, leveraging less abstract language, than the framing used for conventional for-

profit ventures (Chandra, 2018). For instance, ventures that are framed as an opportunity to

help others are more likely to gain legitimacy than those that are framed as a straightforward

business opportunity (Allison et al., 2015). Interestingly, an emphasis on blame and concern

can lead to more rapid funding, while an emphasis on accomplishment, tenacity, and variety

leads to slower funding (Allison et al., 2013). Lee and Huang (2018) show that an emphasis

on social impact in framing business models by female-led ventures has a greater effect on

business evaluation than similar framing by male-led ventures. This effect enables female

entrepreneurs to shape perceptions of their ventures in alignment with gender stereotypes.

14

For frames to be coherent and to resonate, the emphasis needs to align with the

dominant conversations within the domain in which it is promulgated (Hartman & Coslor,

2019; Lee et al., 2018; McKnight & Zietsma, 2018). For example, Lee et al. (2018) show how

the framing of an Italian anti-racketeering organization resonated with tourists and tourism

service providers because it was consistent with the dominant narrative that responsible

tourism should empower and strengthen local communities. On a more cautionary note,

frames that draw on morally tainted cultural resources (for example, the Italian mafia) are a

double-edged sword for entrepreneurs as they may enhance the venture’s distinctive identity

among some audiences but spark fierce opposition among offended social groups (Dalpiaz &

Cavotta, 2019).

Framing processes. A common frame deployment process in venture legitimation is

reframing, where a frame is restated to emphasize different aspects of the venture to overcome

opposition (Tracey, Phillips, & Jarvis, 2011). For instance, to overcome resistance from

incumbents, TiVo reframed its innovation, changing the emphasis from the “disruptive”

aspect that upstaged established incumbents, to the “beneficial” aspect that enhanced the

value generated for and by various incumbents within the ecosystem (Ansari et al., 2016). In

their study of human egg donation, where there are contradictory meanings between gift-

giving and commodified market exchanges, Hartman and Coslor (2019) find that reframing

donation as a form of work, so that a woman would be paid for her “time and effort” rather

than for her eggs, neutralized opposition to the practice. Similarly, social entrepreneurs

combine existing development ideas and models but reframe them in new ways to address

complex development challenges (Chandra, 2018).

Another frame deployment process is frame transformation, which originates in

keying and lamination processes first identified by Goffman (1974). Keying is a process

where a given activity is transformed into “something quite different” (e.g., from play to

15

combat) (Goffman, 1974, pp. 43-44). When keying is successful—that is, a new interpretation

of an existing frame emerges—the new interpretation is laminated onto the original frame,

leading to frame transformation (Lee et al., 2018). If the process of keying is unsuccessful—

that is, no new interpretation of an existing frame emerges—entrepreneurs continue managing

the original frame by referring to it only selectively (Lee et al., 2018). Compiling these

processes, Lee et al. (2018) propose an interactive process of “strategic frame brokerage,”

comprising the ways frames are retained, managed, or transformed.

Frame deployment can also be sequential. For example, in its quest to disrupt the

incumbent, Salesforce used two different frames sequentially to facilitate optimal

distinctiveness and coherence, first claiming uniqueness, and subsequently asserting

ecosystem leadership (Snihur et al., 2018a). McDonald and Gao (2019) found that

entrepreneurs were more successful in pivoting their venture when they explained the

venture’s new business model in terms of its original aims, by using bridging “justifications”

to signal frame continuity and coherence. When entrepreneurs restated frames reactively with

a new business model without asserting temporal continuity, ventures were much less

successful.

Framing contests occur when there is a struggle over meaning between different

audiences (Fischer & Reuber, 2014). Cornelissen et al. (2011) suggest that metaphors and

analogies may be useful in securing support in framing contests and Kumaraswamy, Garud,

and Ansari (2018) note that incumbents and other audiences can play the framing game as

well as entrepreneurs. There are indirect empirical suggestions of framing contests in Ansari

et al. (2016) and Snihur et al. (2018a); however, most research on framing contests has been

conducted from the perspective of field legitimation rather than venture legitimation.

During the framing process, entrepreneurs can also undertake complementary action,

such as business model and technological adaptation, to ensure the coherence of the venture

16

and its framing over time. For example, TiVo continually adjusted its strategy, its technology

platform, and how it framed itself within the evolving U.S. television ecosystem to gain the

support of the incumbents it intended to disrupt (Ansari et al., 2016). Similarly, business

model changes need to be paired with appropriate language, and audiences need to be

prepared accordingly to ensure that such transformations seem coherent. McDonald and Gao

(2019) show that pairing strategic actions with conciliatory language softens the impact of an

unexpected deviation and engenders loyalty.

Field legitimation framing

Field legitimation is the process by which the field in which the new venture competes

garners societal support (Kim, Croidieu, & Lippmann, 2016), such as, for example, when a

collective of (often loosely coordinated) entrepreneurs enacts the legitimation of organic food

(Weber et al., 2008), satellite radio (Navis & Glynn, 2010), nanotechnology (Granqvist &

Laurila, 2011), or social entrepreneurship (Friedman & Desivilya, 2010; Hervieux & Voltan,

2018; Montgomery, Dacin, & Dacin, 2012). Entrepreneurial framing can foster the

legitimation of new or redefined practices (Chen & Sun, 2019; Elzen, Geels, Leeuwis, & van

Mierlo, 2011; Helms, Oliver, & Webb, 2012), regulations (Gurses & Ozcan, 2015; Merrie &

Olsson, 2014), or collective identities (Delmestri & Greenwood, 2016; Navis & Glynn, 2010;

Weber et al., 2008) within organizational fields.

Research on field legitimation framing is anchored theoretically in institutional theory,

with important connections to social movement theory. Entrepreneurs can become

institutional entrepreneurs progressively, through proactive framing that engages

organizational field participants such as regulators (Gurses & Ozcan, 2015), consumers

(Weber et al., 2008), or media (Hervieux & Voltan, 2018; Hiatt & Carlos, 2019; Navis &

Glynn, 2010) to promote and construct meaning around their (new) field’s practices,

regulations, and collective identities. It is particularly efficient when entrepreneurs act jointly.

17

Framing is thus a critical process of institutional work undertaken for purposes of institutional

change or transformation.

Social movement research studies how collective mobilization, often undertaken by

low-powered actors, can transform institutions through frames that offer new alternatives

(Benford & Snow, 2000; Sine & Lee, 2009). These insights are transferable to the context of

new ventures, which often aim to challenge existing arrangements. Entrepreneurial framing

research anchored in the social movement literature (e.g., Martin, 2016; Montgomery et al.,

2012; Weber et al., 2008) studies the ways in which collective entrepreneurial action in

various fields uses framing to create a sense of unity and belonging that results in collective

identities formed around new interpretations of problems or solutions (Arbuthnott, Eriksson,

& Wincent, 2010; see also Thomas & Ritala, 2021).

Similar to venture legitimation, field legitimation is enabled through distinctiveness,

coherence, and resonance. Distinctiveness in field legitimation framing is focused on how a

field is distinct and where its boundaries lie. For instance, Delacour and Leca (2017) showed

how framing and celebrating distinctiveness was an effective way to attract attention and

legitimize controversial practices in emerging fields. Coherence in field legitimation involves

ensuring the consistency of different framing within a field. For example, frames that were

coherent with notions of authenticity, sustainability, and naturalness (as opposed to

manipulative, exploitative, and artificial practices) contributed to the legitimation of the new

field of grass-fed meat production as distinct from conventional production methods (Weber

et al., 2008). Resonance with the beliefs, values, and aspirations held in common between the

entrepreneurs and consumers, other producers, or regulators is also vital for successful field

legitimation framing. For instance, the strong political resonance of entrepreneurial framing

led to the legitimation of the U.S. nanotechnology field (Granqvist & Laurila, 2011).

18

Field legitimation framing is performative in that it provides the basis for subsequent

choices, and venture and field development, by offering new vocabularies and cognitive

understanding that enable additional opportunities for entrepreneurs. For instance, the original

framing of grass-fed meat and dairy products motivated both entry and commitment from

entrepreneurs, ascribed value to new organic practices, provided a basis for product valuation

(at a price premium), and established physical and cultural exchange, resulting in consumer

adoption (Weber et al., 2008). Garud, Lant, and Schildt (2019) show how the performative

contexts of technology ventures in Manhattan (i.e., Silicon Alley) changed with the rise, fall,

and re-stabilization of discursive contexts within which ventures operate. Ventures initially

engaged in “generative imitation” during a growth phase, and then “strategically distanced”

themselves from cultural resources that lost legitimacy (such as dot.com and e-tailing), and

finally engaged in efforts to generate optimal distinctiveness from one another once the field

had stabilized.

Framing content. Most research has considered the written mode of framing rather

than verbal or visual modes, and thus have examined the language characteristics of framing

(Figure 1), drawing inspiration from linguistics (Slager, Gond, & Moon, 2012; Werner &

Cornelissen, 2014). For field legitimation, metaphors are viewed as a powerful framing

resource that helps anchor unfamiliar concepts in more familiar terms (see also Markowitz,

Cobb, & Hedley, 2012; Navis & Glynn, 2010; Perretti, Negro, & Lomi, 2008), and analogies

can also serve a similar function (Slager et al., 2012). Ambiguity can also be a useful

linguistic technique, as “a balance between enough ambiguity to invite participation, and

enough specification to regulate the understanding of the problem, promote[s] the

experimentation of new practices, and clarif[ies] the impetus for action” (Feront & Bertels,

2019, p. 1). However, the danger of using ambiguous language is that it might hinder

comprehension and make field legitimation more difficult.

19

Emphasis in field legitimation framing highlights novelty, leadership, and public

interest. Navis and Glynn (2010) show how novelty can be used to distinguish an emerging

field and shape its identity. The construction of the “modern” physician as a professional, and

the association of new work practices with the new profession, were driven by proactive and

emphatic framing of physicians as leaders who work across disciplinary and organizational

boundaries, enabling practice change in terms of decentralization and integration of care

(Berghout, Oldenhof, Fabbricotti, & Hilders, 2018). Framing a new technology in terms of the

public interest (i.e., the dominant frame of the regulator) enables entrepreneurs to gain

regulatory support (Gurses & Ozcan, 2015). Similar framing by Marconi of its wireless

telegraphy technology’s “utility” for the U.S. Navy during World War I helped the company

legitimize the field and maintain a central field position for a number of years (Kim, Croidieu,

et al., 2016).

Culture and history have been integral to these emphasis frames as resources for

developing framing content. As Rao (1998, p. 917) puts it, entrepreneurs “create frames by

selecting items from a pre-existing cultural menu.” Thus, in addition to purely economic or

technological motivations for change, entrepreneurial framing relies on a repertoire of cultural

skills and resources (e.g., Delmestri & Greenwood, 2016; Giorgi, Bartunek, & King, 2017;

Khaire, 2014; Rao, 1998; Rao & Giorgi, 2006). For example, early designers of Indian high-

fashion framed national heritage and the revival of craftsmanship and traditions as part of the

value of the Indian high-fashion field (Khaire, 2014).11 In a similar manner, science fiction

publications have provided cultural resources for framing the emerging nanotechnology field

(Granqvist & Laurila, 2011), while an authenticity and naturalness framing helped ranchers

develop novel, environmentally friendly, production practices when legitimizing grass-fed

meat production in the U.S. (Weber et al., 2008).

11 See also McGaughey (2013) on the use of history in framing.

20

Framing processes. Various frame deployment processes can transform frame content

as frames travel through an organizational field. Such processes are usually undertaken

intentionally by entrepreneurs. For example, by renaming unlicensed “black” mobile phones

as “shan-zhai” (after the mountain fortress for revolutionaries), illegal vendors helped to

legitimate their field in China through references to meaning “beyond illegality and

inferiority” (Lee & Hung, 2014). Similarly, Ferran Adria, the head chef of the famed El Bulli

restaurant in Catalonia, subverted the classical meaning of the chef as artist by reframing

chefs as scientists conducting laboratory experiments with food in what became known as

molecular gastronomy (Rao & Giorgi, 2006). This suggests that framing content interacts

dynamically with framing processes over time (Figure 1), which has been conceptualized as

“reinforcing loops” (see, e.g. Weber et al., 2008).

Frames can also be reframed by other field participants (see also “redefinition” in

Giorgi et al., 2017; Martin, 2016; York et al., 2016). For example, Martin (2016) documents

how the sharing economy has been reframed as an “economic opportunity” to open new

marketplaces. This reframing (similar to the “frame shifting” proposed by Werner &

Cornelissen, 2014) made it less likely that the sharing economy would be perceived as a threat

to consumption-centered (rather than sharing-centered) business models of existing

incumbents. Related processes include shifting and blending (see also “bricolage” in Rao,

1998; Werner & Cornelissen, 2014), bridging, or transforming (Hiatt & Carlos, 2019),

processes with roots in social movement theorizing.

Framing can also be openly contested by other entrepreneurs (Gurses & Ozcan, 2015;

Rao, 1998) or other actors (Hiatt & Carlos, 2019; Martin, 2016). For instance, new

organizational forms can arise as an “insurrection against the prevailing frame” (Rao, 1998).

In the context of the emergence of pay TV in the U.S., framing contests between

entrepreneurs and incumbents resulted in frame multiplicity, characterized by multiple

21

interpretations of the notion of “public interest” promulgated by the entrepreneurs (Ansari,

Wijen, & Gray, 2013). After several battles around establishing regulations, a consensus

favorable to entrepreneurs was reached, enabling field legitimation. Interestingly, framing

contests that involve collective negotiation can also result in consensus (Ansari et al., 2013;

Helms et al., 2012; Merrie & Olsson, 2014), convergence of meaning (Forbes, 2012; Khaire,

2014), or industrial renewal (Arbuthnott et al., 2010).

As an example, consensus was achieved during negotiations for new corporate social

responsibility (CSR) standards by an ISO standard-setting body comprised of 130 diverse

organizations due to successful framing based on proactive engagement with opponents rather

than through normative pressure or coercive imposition of the frames (Helms et al., 2012).

Similarly, when discussing global climate change issues over 40 years of negotiation, the

frame shifts that occurred during contestation enabled actors with different logics to reach

consensus (Ansari et al., 2013). Frame consensus in fields can be attained either from the

bottom-up or from the top-down. Merrie and Olsson (2014) depict a top-down negotiation

process where international-level articulation and framing of ecological tools for marine

preservation enabled adoption of the tool in policy frameworks at local and regional levels.

Forbes (2012) documents a bottom-up process, where civil servants in Scotland loosened

institutional inertia and, through framing, enabled new practice implementation in urban

healthcare.

Framing alone might not be sufficient to enable field legitimation, and entrepreneurs

may need to undertake complementary action to build cooperation and support from other

participants in the field (Hung & Whittington, 2011; Mayer & Knox, 2010; Rao & Giorgi,

2006; Slager et al., 2012; Woolthuis, Hooimeijer, Bossink, Mulder, & Brouwer, 2013). For

instance, Taiwanese entrepreneurs mobilized local and overseas networks to support their

framing of a new vision for professionalized Taiwanese IT firms (Hung & Whittington,

22

2011). Similarly, support from elite allies helped Ferran Adria to introduce his new way of

cooking (Rao & Giorgi, 2006).

Interplay between venture and field legitimation

Our framework (Figure 1) also illustrates the interplay between venture and field

legitimation suggested by the research reviewed. One important interplay is the impact the

field has on the venture when entrepreneurs depend heavily on audiences’ understanding of

the broader field structures in which they operate, in terms of existing practices, regulations,

or collective identities (see also Lee et al., 2018). For instance, entrepreneurs must consider

the institutional logics of different audiences that may come from different fields, as the

legitimacy criteria for a new technology venture vary depending on the institutional logics of

distinct investors (Fisher et al., 2017). Relatedly, entrepreneurs may need to navigate

simultaneous adversarial logics in a field. Hartman and Coslor (2019), for example, show how

entrepreneurs in the market for human egg donation successfully navigated oppositional

market and altruism logics.

However, entrepreneurs must not only comply with existing field practices or

regulations for venture framing (c.f. DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), but must also be aware of

their ability to shape them (see also Autio & Thomas, 2018; Gurses & Ozcan, 2015; Rindova

& Courtney, 2020). Thus, a second interplay concerns the impact of ventures on the field, as

entrepreneurs move between legitimizing their venture and legitimizing the field sequentially

or simultaneously. This is particularly relevant for new ventures competing in nascent fields

that still lack legitimacy.

For example, Navis and Glynn (2010) examine how two firms, Sirius and XM, first

framed their ventures using futuristic language about their new market category (satellite

radio), and then emphasized the distinctiveness of each venture. Their research, covering the

period 1990–2005, suggests that, early on, satellite radio entrepreneurs focused on

23

legitimizing the field and only later shifted their focus to differentiating venture identities and

business models. In contrast, Uber’s entry into multiple cities across different countries

illustrates how entrepreneurs might simultaneously undertake framing for venture and field

legitimation (Garud, Kumaraswamy, Roberts, & Xu, 2020). Uber framed its ride-sharing

services to build legitimacy for its venture, i.e., to attract investors, users, and drivers. At the

same time, it engaged in field framing by positioning itself between existing taxi and

limousine market categories. In addition, Uber engaged in “regulatory entrepreneurship”

(Pollman & Barry, 2016) to change the regulations that governed its operations. Similarly,

Chinese businessman Huang Fajing, motivated by economic self-interest, undertook

regulatory entrepreneurship to address field-level concerns about child-safety regulations of

cigarette lighters and coordinated Chinese officials’ interaction with the European

Commission to shape the field (Mertha, 2009).

Future Research Directions

Our conceptual framework (Figure 1) highlights the links between entrepreneurial

framing and venture and field legitimation, where framing aimed at distinctiveness,

coherence, and resonance fosters legitimation of new venture offerings, business models, and

identities, as well as field practices, regulations, and collective identities. We now bring into

sharper focus some of the key complications concerning entrepreneurial framing, which

represent gaps in our understanding. Complications arise when framing is considered across

time and across different audiences and geographies. These complications suggest promising

directions to advance understanding of (1) the dynamics of framing by studying framing

complications, and (2) the issues around framing performativity and the wider implications of

entrepreneurial framing. We present these, summarized as questions for future research, in

Table 4.

[Insert Table 4 around here]

24

Drilling deeper into framing complications

First, research needs to probe deeper into framing complications across audiences,

time, and geographies. Here we echo calls in the entrepreneurship literature for additional

emphasis on time and process research (Davidsson & Gruenhagen, 2020; Lévesque &

Stephan, 2020).

Complications across audiences. Framing complications can arise when there is a

multiplicity of framing audiences with divergent interests. For instance, Granqvist and Laurila

(2011), studying the emergence of nanotechnology in the U.S., find that confusion about

where to draw the boundaries of nanotechnology led to a framing confrontation between

futurist engineers highlighting the perils of nanotechnology and scientists trying to defend it.

Faling and Biesbroek (2019) show how entrepreneurs had to frame their message in multiple

ways to address different audiences when pushing for climate-smart agriculture in Kenya.

These findings suggest that entrepreneurial framing might need to be adjusted depending on

the types of audiences targeted, such as city versus national regulators or private versus public

investors. However, past research mostly assumes that new ventures seek similar legitimacy

judgments from regulators, investors, consumers, journalists, etc. (Überbacher, 2014). At the

same time, empirical research on entrepreneurial framing often focuses on one specific type

of audience, such as investors (e.g. Allison et al., 2013) or customers (e.g. Hartman & Coslor,

2019). As a result, there is only limited research on how the attributes of different audiences

might necessitate different, potentially multi-layered, framing approaches to address such

plurality (for an exception see Fisher et al., 2017).

Another under-explored area concerns emotions: what is the role of emotions for

effective entrepreneurial framing across audiences? How does emotional resonance with a

new venture’s offering, business model, or field amplify or detract from cognitive resonance?

For instance, the enthusiasm that entrepreneurs feel for their ventures is often projected onto

25

their audiences, who become stakeholders to the extent that they, too, become enthusiastic.

Furthermore, there is insufficient research on what happens when ventures encounter negative

events. Does enthusiasm give way to despair for the entrepreneurs and/or their audiences?

And, as a result, do they pivot or stay the course?

Given the variety of audiences that entrepreneurs target (e.g., employees, customers,

partners, investors, and analysts), it is less well-understood how frames might resonate

differently with distinct audiences and how framing coherence can be maintained across

audiences. For instance, Uber’s framing generated tensions between audiences (Garud et al.,

2020). On the one hand, Uber had to gain cognitive and pragmatic legitimacy in the eyes of

users and drivers. However, this came at the price of deepening a socio-political legitimacy

crisis with respect to policy makers. To deal with this situation, Uber challenged policy

makers in the courts and galvanized its growing support among users and drivers to lobby

policy makers on its behalf. What made the challenge even more difficult for Uber was that

the various strategies had to be deployed rapidly and in sequence (cf. Snihur et al., 2018a).

This suggests that framing effects with different audiences must be studied in the context of

institutional complexity, where some audiences might be more opposed than others to a new

venture or have different expectations of it. Future research could evaluate how entrepreneurs

frame their ventures differently for different audiences, and the effectiveness of their

strategies. Other questions concern the possible contributions different audiences, such as

investors, customers, or competitors, make to entrepreneurial framing; these can be

potentially salient over time as amplifiers or detractors.

Complications across time. An important aspect of entrepreneurial framing and

legitimation is time and temporality. Research suggests that framing the new venture as a bold

and distinctive leader early on is important to generate a perception of distinctiveness, and

acquire support and media resonance, particularly when building new ecosystems (Snihur et

26

al., 2018a). Fisher et al. (2016) argue that such framing might be more important for

entrepreneurs to acquire legitimacy early in the venture life cycle, before tangible

performance metrics become available and uncertainty decreases. But what happens when

initial promises cannot be met? Garud, Schildt, and Lant (2014) argue that entrepreneurs will

have to reframe, but this process of maintaining legitimacy in light of unfulfilled promises has

received little attention, despite its ubiquity (although see Thomas & Ritala, 2021).

Similarly, as the new venture becomes more established and needs to scale, framing

might need to change to emphasize cooperation with established players and potential

ecosystem partners, rather than continuously emphasizing novelty and disruptive innovation,

as illustrated by the case of TiVo (Ansari et al., 2016). In other words, there is a risk that an

early entrepreneurial framing of novelty and disruption may backfire by generating resistance

from established players and unwillingness to cooperate from ecosystem partners. Here, more

complex approaches involving sequences of framing that emphasize or downplay

disruptiveness successively may be necessary to ensure legitimation. Additional quantitative

research is needed to verify and potentially generalize the insights from existing single case

studies on this topic (i.e. Ansari et al., 2016; Snihur et al., 2018a).

Other interesting questions concern the potential lasting effects of entrepreneurial

framing: even when using a sequential approach, do original frames persist over time,

imprinting audiences or even fields with specific references?12 How are different audiences

likely to react when entrepreneurs strategically shift the emphasis of their framing over time?

And what effect might this have on their venture’s resonance and legitimacy?

Complications across geography. Further complications arise when we consider

geographical contexts. In prior work, scholars have argued that contexts matter for

entrepreneurial innovation and activities (Autio, Kenney, Mustar, Siegel, & Wright, 2014).

12 Marketing research suggests that branding efforts can have long-lasting effects, particularly if brand image is carefully managed and maintained (Park et al., 1986). These insights can be useful to research on entrepreneurial framing, which might be considered in some cases as an antecedent to branding.

27

Indeed, entrepreneurs contextualize their narratives (Garud, Gehman, et al., 2014) when they

enter and operate in different geographical locales, each with its own cultural and regulatory

structures. We will use Uber’s entry into multiple markets (Garud et al., 2020) as an example

to highlight the kinds of questions that researchers could pursue, noting that the issues that

Uber confronted apply in various ways to other kinds of products and services.

We begin with the physical characteristics of specific locales. Clearly, from a

transportation point of view, New York City (NYC) is very different from San Francisco,

Portland, or Austin. This was a reality that Uber had to confront when entering these cities.

Uber dealt with these differences by subtly shaping the messages it communicated to multiple

constituents in each city. For instance, in NYC, Uber framed its ride-sharing services as

offering busy Wall Street executives an opportunity to get rides in a densely populated city. In

Portland, it stressed the availability of rides in underserved areas. Cultural differences across

geographical settings are also implicated here. While Uber emphasized convenience and

immediacy for Wall Street executives needing rides late in the evening in Manhattan, it

simultaneously stressed the greenness of its ride-sharing offering in San Francisco. In Austin,

Uber framed its offering as a way for people to attend evening parties without having to

identify designated drivers.

These observations raise questions about how practices, regulations, and collective

identities across geographic contexts influence a venture’s framing strategies when it enters

and continues to operate in a new locale. The questions become more complicated when we

consider regulations. For instance, the local city and state regulations in place across NYC,

San Francisco, Portland, and Austin all differ, requiring companies like Uber to tailor their

framing strategies to each locale. Dealing with multiple sites with different physical, cultural,

and regulatory structures complicates matters, leading to questions about how ventures can

28

maintain distinctiveness and coherence through their framing efforts across locales while

responding to the opportunities and threats that they pose.

Further, given variations in culture around the world, entrepreneurial framing might

refer to local individual, industry, or national myths that might be less well understood in

other locations (c.f. Uzunca, Rigtering, & Ozcan, 2018). This raises questions about how well

entrepreneurial framing can be translated across different contexts and locations—for

instance, by platform ventures that attempt to scale quickly globally. Are there universal

mechanisms that make entrepreneurial framing resonate in different contexts and to what

degree do entrepreneurs have to tailor their framing to specific locations? Even more

fundamentally, can findings from North American or Western European countries (which

dominate our review) be replicated in Asian, African, or other contexts? Finally, can

entrepreneurs do too much in terms of framing by over-zealously pursuing legitimation,

leading either to interpretations of self-serving or manipulative motives (Ashforth & Gibbs,

1990) or to raised expectations that are difficult to fulfill (Garud, Schildt, et al., 2014)? And is

this particularly dangerous when venturing into countries very different from their own? We

believe that the study of such “multi-yet-coherent” framing strategies offers a particularly rich

avenue for exploration.

Performativity and wider implications of entrepreneurial framing

An emerging strand of research in entrepreneurial framing is based on performativity

(Garud et al., 2018; Snihur et al., 2018b). While there are different ways of understanding

performativity, for the purposes of this review we begin with Austin’s (1962) insight that

language is not just a passive instrument describing reality, but instead a constitutive force

that can enact reality. For instance, a priest constitutes a “new reality” for a couple in the

pronouncement that the couple is married when felicitous conditions hold, such as when the

wedding unfolds in a church and when the individuals getting married also agree by saying “I

29

do.” In a similar fashion, entrepreneurs are performative when they imagine a business model

that they pitch to various audiences in that they bring about the “realities” that they envision

(Doganova & Eyquem-Renault, 2009).

An understanding of entrepreneurial framing through performativity raises a puzzle

—“saying is doing” holds when the agents doing the saying have a voice. However, to the

extent that entrepreneurs lack credibility, and their ideas and the venture lack legitimacy, how

do they gain legitimacy for their nascent ideas from audiences? The top performativity arrow

connecting entrepreneurial framing to entrepreneurial legitimation in Figure 1 reflects this

question, and possible answers. One answer is the use of various framing devices by

entrepreneurs to establish distinctiveness, coherence, and resonance for their entrepreneurial

initiatives. Paradoxically (from a performativity perspective), there is utility in entrepreneurs

saying only so much and no more to their audiences and future stakeholders through their

frames and stories (see Bartel & Garud, 2009 for specific arguments). Indeed, what is left

unsaid is as important as what is said, as the former allows, and even invites, audiences to

imagine what the venture can accomplish from their vantage points. As they engage with the

venture, these audiences then become stakeholders through this framing process. This socio-

psychological mechanism for gaining legitimacy and participation through framing raises

questions about what is said and what is left unsaid.

While these observations serve as a useful starting point on performativity and

entrepreneurship, they do not fully explain what happens during entrepreneurial journeys. For

that, we make a distinction between illocutionary and perlocutionary performativity (Garud &

Gehman, 2019). Illocutionary performativity refers to felicitous conditions already in

existence for statements to have effects. But such pre-existing conditions rarely exist for

entrepreneurial ventures, which brings us to perlocutionary performativity, or speech acts that

30

set in motion a chain of events that brings about the felicitous conditions needed for the

entrepreneurial frame to have effects.

When we take such a process perspective, it is evident that entrepreneurial journeys

seldom unfold as initially proposed. More often, expected and unexpected events emerge

during an entrepreneurial journey, requiring entrepreneurs to update their ideas and frames

(bottom arrow in Figure 1). Such updating, which has come to be known as pivoting in the

literature (Grimes, 2018; Hampel, Tracey, & Weber, 2020; McDonald & Gao, 2019; Ries,

2011), generates a tension for entrepreneurs. On the one hand, entrepreneurs may need to

change course to address the positive and negative events they confront; but on the other,

there is value in persevering, as entrepreneurs have to fulfill the promises that they originally

made. In short, entrepreneurs confront a tension between continuity and change as their

journeys unfold.

How this tension is addressed raises important questions for entrepreneurial framing

that go beyond those that arise around how frames might need to change when entrepreneurs

encounter different audiences as the entrepreneurial process unfolds (Fisher et al., 2017). For

instance, how can entrepreneurs pivot or persevere without losing legitimacy? While

McDonald and Gao (2019) show the types of actions entrepreneurs should undertake while

pivoting, questions remain for serial entrepreneurs who realize they will probably have to

pivot in the future. For instance, how might they frame their pitches and business models in

the first place, knowing that there will be accountability and the need for change later as their

journeys unfold? Other questions have to do with how far “fake it till you make it” can take

ventures with questionable practices, as was the case with Theranos, a firm that attained a

peak valuation of $9 billion in 2014 and subsequently ceased operations in 2018 (Carreyrou,

2018).

31

These questions can be addressed in multiple contexts. One is sustainability

transitions. How can framing and legitimation help entrepreneurs to constitute new meanings

for sustainability-oriented ventures in diverse fields such as energy or transportation?

Answers to this question are important if we are to address the ongoing climate crisis.

Another context is the digital data-driven economy. How can entrepreneurial framing and

legitimation be enhanced using machine learning and other data analysis tools? Indeed, the

digital economy offers an important empirical setting for conducting such research.

Conclusion

Entrepreneurship scholars are well-positioned and suitably equipped to advance the

study of entrepreneurial framing. We believe our conceptual framework and the varied and

interrelated theoretical approaches outlined in this paper offer great potential for future

research. Entrepreneurship scholars seeking to understand framing should build new

connections with research on entrepreneurial cognition, emotions, passion, and affect

(Shepherd, Wennberg, Suddaby, & Wiklund, 2019). Scholars should also investigate the

framing of female entrepreneurs and within family firms (Chrisman, Chua, Pearson, &

Barnett, 2012) and link framing with entrepreneurial orientation (Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin,

& Frese, 2009). There also are opportunities to consider organizational growth in different

institutional contexts (Nason & Wiklund, 2018). We hope our review and suggestions for

future research will inspire scholars to continue investigating this area and build on our

conceptual framework.

32

References

Allison, T. H., Davis, B. C., Short, J. C., & Webb, J. W. (2015). Crowdfunding in a Prosocial Microlending Environment: Examining the Role of Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Cues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 53-73.

Allison, T. H., McKenny, A. F., & Short, J. 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.

Ansari, S., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2016). The disruptor's dilemma: TiVo and the U.S. television ecosystem. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9), 1829-1853.

Ansari, S., Wijen, F., & Gray, B. (2013). Constructing a Climate Change Logic: An Institutional Perspective on the "Tragedy of the Commons". Organization Science, 24(4), 1014-1040.

Arbuthnott, A., Eriksson, J., & Wincent, J. (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.

Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177-194.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Austin, J. L. (2000). Performative utterances. In R. J. Stainton (Ed.), Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language: A Concise Anthology (pp. 239-252). Toronto, ON: Broadview Press.

Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097-1108.

Autio, E., & Thomas, L. D. W. (2018). Tilting the playing field: Towards an endogenous strategic action theory of ecosystem creation. In S. Nambisan (Ed.), Open Innovation, Ecosystems and Entrepreneurship: Issues and Perspectives (pp. 111-140). New Jersey, NJ: World Scientific Publishing.

Barbosa, S. D., Fayolle, A., & Smith, B. 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.

Bartel, C. A., & Garud, R. (2009). The Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational Innovation. Organization Science, 20(1), 107-117.

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assesment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.

Berghout, M. A., Oldenhof, L., Fabbricotti, I. N., & Hilders, C. (2018). Discursively framing physicians as leaders: Institutional work to reconfigure medical professionalism. Social Science & Medicine, 212, 68-75.

Beunza, D., & Garud, R. (2007). Calculators, lemmings or frame-makers? The intermediary role of securities analysts. The Sociological Review, 55(2_suppl), 13-39.

Carreyrou, J. (2018). Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup. New York, NY: Knopf.

Chandra, Y. (2018). New narratives of development work? Making sense of social entrepreneurs' development narratives across time and economies. World Development, 107, 306-326.

Chen, V. Z., & Sun, S. 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.

33

Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103-126.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Pearson, A. W., & Barnett, T. (2012). Family Involvement, Family Influence, and Family–Centered Non–Economic Goals in Small Firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 267-293.

Clarke, J. S. (2011). Revitalizing Entrepreneurship: How Visual Symbols are Used in Entrepreneurial Performances. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1365-1391.

Clarke, J. S., Cornelissen, J. P., & Healey, M. 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.

Cornelissen, J. P., & Clarke, J. S. (2010). Imagining and rationalizing opportunities: Inductive reasoning and the creation and justification of new ventures. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 539-557.

Cornelissen, J. P., Clarke, J. S., & Cienki, A. (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.

Cornelissen, J. P., Holt, R., & Zundel, M. (2011). The Role of Analogy and Metaphor in the Framing and Legitimization of Strategic Change. Organization Studies, 32(12), 1701-1716.

Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181-235.

Dalpiaz, E., & Cavotta, V. (2019). A double-edged sword: cultural entrepreneurship and the mobilisation of morally tainted cultural resources. Innovation-Organization & Management, 21(1), 214-228.

Davidsson, P., & Gruenhagen, J. H. (2020). Fulfilling the Process Promise: A Review and Agenda for New Venture Creation Process Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1042258720930991.

Delacour, H., & Leca, B. (2017). The Paradox of Controversial Innovation: Insights From the Rise of Impressionism. Organization Studies, 38(5), 597-618.

Delmestri, G., & Greenwood, R. (2016). How Cinderella Became a Queen: Theorizing Radical Status Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(4), 507-550.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.

Doganova, L., & Eyquem-Renault, M. (2009). What do business models do? Innovation devices in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 38(10), 1559-1570.

Elzen, B., Geels, F. W., Leeuwis, C., & van Mierlo, B. (2011). Normative contestation in transitions 'in the making': Animal welfare concerns and system innovation in pig husbandry. Research Policy, 40(2), 263-275.

Essen, A., & Varlander, S. W. (2019). How Materiality Enables and Constrains Framing Practices: Affordances of a Rheumatology E-Service. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(4), 458-471.

Etzioni, A. (1987). Entrepreneurship, adaptation and legitimation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 8(2), 175-189.

Faling, M., & Biesbroek, R. (2019). Cross-boundary policy entrepreneurship for climate-smart agriculture in Kenya. Policy Sciences, 52(4), 525-547.

Feront, C., & Bertels, S. (2019). The Impact of Frame Ambiguity on Field-Level Change. Organization Studies, 31.

34

Fischer, E., & Reuber, A. R. (2014). Online entrepreneurial communication: Mitigating uncertainty and increasing differentiation via Twitter. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(4), 565-583.

Fisher, G., Kotha, S., & Lahiri, A. (2016). Changing with the times: An integrated view of identity, legitimacy, and new venutre life cycles. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 383-409.

Fisher, G., Kuratko, D. F., Bloodgood, J. M., & Hornsby, J. S. (2017). Legitimate to whom? The challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 52-71.

Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavorial Scientist, 40(4), 397-405.

Forbes, T. (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.

Friedman, V. J., & Desivilya, H. (2010). Integrating social entrepreneurship and conflict engagement for regional development in divided societies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(6), 495-514.

Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of brand‐positioning strategies from a consumer perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11/12), 1763-1786.

Garud, R., & Gehman, J. (2019). Performativity: Not a destination but an ongoing journey. Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 1-5.

Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Giuliani, A. P. (2014). Contextualizing entrepreneurial innovation: A narrative perspective. Research Policy, 43(7), 1177-1188.

Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Tharchen, T. (2018). Performativity as ongoing journeys: Implications for strategy, entrepreneurship, and innovation. Long Range Planning, 51(3), 500-509.

Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., Roberts, A., & Xu, L. (2020). Liminal movement by digital platform‐based sharing economy ventures: The case of Uber Technologies. Strategic Management Journal.

Garud, R., Lant, T. K., & Schildt, H. A. (2019). Generative imitation, strategic distancing and optimal distinctiveness during the growth, decline and stabilization of Silicon Alley. Innovation-Organization & Management, 21(1), 187-213.

Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. K. (2014). Entrepreneurial Storytelling, Future Expectations, and the Paradox of Legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(5), 1479-1492.

Gehman, J., & Soubliere, J. F. (2017). Cultural entrepreneurship: from making culture to cultural making. Innovation-Organization & Management, 19(1), 61-73.

Giorgi, S., Bartunek, J. M., & King, B. 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. In B. M. Staw & A. P. Brief (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 37, pp. 125-142). New York: Elsevier.

Giorgi, S., Lockwood, C., & Glynn, M. 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.

Gmur, M. (2003). Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation. Scientometrics, 57(1), 27-57.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay On The Organization Of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

35

Granqvist, N., & Laurila, J. (2011). Rage against Self-replicating Machines: Framing Science and Fiction in the US Nanotechnology Field. Organization Studies, 32(2), 253-280.

Grimes, M. G. (2018). The Pivot: How Founders Respond to Feedback through Idea and Identity Work. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1692-1717.

Gurses, K., & Ozcan, P. (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.

Hampel, C. E., Tracey, P., & Weber, K. (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.

Hartman, A. E., & Coslor, E. (2019). Earning while giving: Rhetorical strategies for navigating multiple institutional logics in reproductive commodification. Journal of Business Research, 105, 405-419.

Heimstadt, M., & Reischauer, G. (2019). Framing innovation practices in interstitial issue fields: open innovation in the NYC administration. Innovation-Organization & Management, 21(1), 128-150.

Helms, W. S., Oliver, C., & Webb, K. (2012). Antecdents of settlement on a new institutional practice: Negotiation of the ISO 26000 on social responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1120-1145.

Hervieux, C., & Voltan, A. (2018). Framing Social Problems in Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(2), 279-293.

Hiatt, S. R., & Carlos, W. C. (2019). From farms to fuel tanks: Stakeholder framing contests and entrepreneurship in the emergent US biodiesel market. Strategic Management Journal, 40(6), 865-893.

Hung, S. C., & Whittington, R. (2011). Agency in national innovation systems: Institutional entrepreneurship and the professionalization of Taiwanese IT. Research Policy, 40(4), 526-538.

Jones, J., York, J., Vedula, S., Conger, M., & Lenox, M. (2019). The Collective Construction of Green Building: Industry Transition Toward Environmentally Beneficial Practices. Academy of Management Perspectives.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities. Marketing Science, 25(6), 740-759.

Khaire, M. (2014). Fashioning an Industry: Socio-cognitive Processes in the Construction of Worth of a New Industry. Organization Studies, 35(1), 41-74.

Kim, P. H., Buffart, M., & Croidieu, G. (2016). TMI: Signaling Credible Claims in Crowdfunding Campaign Narratives. Group & Organization Management, 41(6), 717-750.

Kim, P. H., Croidieu, G., & Lippmann, S. (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.

Kumaraswamy, A., Garud, R., & Ansari, S. (2018). Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1025-1042.

Langenohl, A. (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.

Lee, C. K., & Hung, S. C. (2014). Institutional Entrepreneurship in the Informal Economy: China's Shan-Zhai Mobile Phones. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(1), 16-36.

36

Lee, M., & Huang, L. (2018). Gender Bias, Social Impact Framing, and Evaluation of Entrepreneurial Ventures. Organization Science, 29(1), 1-16.

Lee, M., Ramus, T., & Vaccaro, A. (2018). From protest to product: Strategic frame brokerage in a commercial social movement organization. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2130-2158.

Lévesque, M., & Stephan, U. (2020). It’s Time We Talk About Time in Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(2), 163-184.

Lounsbury, M., Gehman, J., & Glynn, M. A. (2019). BeyondHomo Entrepreneurus: Judgment and the Theory of Cultural Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies.

Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 545-564.

Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2019). Cultural Entrepreneurship: A New Agenda for the Study of Entrepreneurial Processes and Possibilities.

Manning, S., & Bejarano, T. A. (2017). Convincing the crowd: Entrepreneurial storytelling in crowdfunding campaigns. Strategic Organization, 15(2), 194-219.

Markowitz, L., Cobb, D., & Hedley, M. (2012). Framing ambiguity: insider/outsiders and the successful legitimation project of the socially responsible mutual fund industry. Organization, 19(1), 3-23.

Martens, M. L., Jennings, J. E., & Jennings, P. 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.

Martin, C. J. (2016). The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecological Economics, 121, 149-159.

Mayer, H., & Knox, P. (2010). Small-Town Sustainability: Prospects in the Second Modernity. European Planning Studies, 18(10), 1545-1565.

McDonald, R., & Gao, C. (2019). Pivoting Isn't Enough? Managing Strategic Reorientation in New Ventures. Organization Science, 30(6), 1289-1318.

McEnany, R., & Strutton, D. (2015). Leading the (r)evolution: Succession and leadership rules for re-entrepreneurs. Business Horizons, 58(4), 401-410.

McGaughey, S. L. (2013). Institutional entrepreneurship in North American lightning protection standards: Rhetorical history and unintended consequences of failure. Business History, 55(1), 73-97.

McKnight, B., & Zietsma, C. (2018). Finding the threshold: A configurational approach to optimal distinctiveness. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(4), 493-512.

Merrie, A., & Olsson, P. (2014). An innovation and agency perspective on the emergence and spread of Marine Spatial Planning. Marine Policy, 44, 366-374.

Mertha, A. (2009). “Fragmented Authoritarianism 2.0”: Political Pluralization in the Chinese Policy Process. The China Quarterly, 200, 995-1012.

Meyer, R. E., Hollerer, M. A., Jancsary, D., & Van Leeuwen, T. (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.

Montgomery, A. W., Dacin, P. A., & Dacin, M. T. (2012). Collective Social Entrepreneurship: Collaboratively Shaping Social Good. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 375-388.

Nason, R. S., & Wiklund, J. (2018). An Assessment of Resource-Based Theorizing on Firm Growth and Suggestions for the Future. Journal of Management, 44(1), 32-60.

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.

37

Paharia, N., Keinan, A., Avery, J., & Schor, J. B. (2011). The Underdog Effect: The Marketing of Disadvantage and Determination through Brand Biography. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 775-790.

Pan, L., Li, X., Chen, J., & Chen, T. (2020). Sounds novel or familiar? Entrepreneurs' framing strategy in the venture capital market. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(2), 105930.

Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135-145.

Perretti, F., Negro, G., & Lomi, A. (2008). E pluribus unum: Framing, matching, and form emergence in US television broadcasting, 1940-1960. Organization Science, 19(4), 533-547.

Pollman, E., & Barry, J. M. (2016). Regulatory entrepreneurship. Southern California Law Review, 90, 383.

Rao, H. (1998). Caveat emptor: The construction of nonprofit consumer watchdog organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 912-961.

Rao, H., & Giorgi, S. (2006). Code breaking: How entrepreneurs exploit cultural logics to generate institutional change. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 27, pp. 269-304). San Diego: Jai-Elsevier Science Inc.

Rauch, A. (2019). Opportunities and Threats in Reviewing Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1042258719879635.

Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business Performance: An Assessment of past Research and Suggestions for the Future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761-787.

Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. New York, NY: Crown Business.

Rindova, V., & Courtney, H. (2020). To Shape or Adapt: Knowledge Problems, Epistemologies, and Strategic Postures under Knightian Uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 45(4), 787-807.

Ronnberg, L. (2017). From national policy-making to global edu-business: Swedish edu-preneurs on the move. Journal of Education Policy, 32(2), 234-249.

Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 643-671.

Scarbrough, H., Robertson, M., & Swan, J. (2015). Diffusion in the Face of Failure: The Evolution of a Management Innovation. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 365-387.

Shepherd, D. A., Wennberg, K., Suddaby, R., & Wiklund, J. (2019). What Are We Explaining? A Review and Agenda on Initiating, Engaging, Performing, and Contextualizing Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 45(1), 159-196.

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.

Slager, R., Gond, J. P., & Moon, J. (2012). Standardization as Institutional Work: The Regulatory Power of a Responsible Investment Standard. Organization Studies, 33(5-6), 763-790.

Snihur, Y., Thomas, L. D. W., & Burgelman, R. A. (2018a). An Ecosystem-Level Process Model of Business Model Disruption: The Disruptor's Gambit. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1278-1316.

Snihur, Y., Thomas, L. D. W., & Burgelman, R. A. (2018b). The performative power of words: How business model innovators use framing for strategic advantage. In S.

38

Brusoni, K. J. Sund & R. J. Galavan (Eds.), Innovation and Cognition (pp. 13-44). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Sujan, M., & Bettman, J. 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.

Thomas, L. D. W., & Ritala, P. (2021). Ecosystem Legitimacy Emergence: A Collective Action View. Journal of Management, in press.

Thomas, L. D. W., & Snihur, Y. (2020). Framing ecosystem leadership: The case of Amazon.Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging Institutional Entrepreneurship and the

Creation of New Organizational Forms: A Multilevel Model. Organization Science, 22(1), 60-80.

Überbacher, F. (2014). Legitimation of new ventures: A review and research programme. Journal of Management Studies, 51(4), 667-698.

Überbacher, F., Jacobs, C. D., & Cornelissen, J. P. (2015). How Entrepreneurs Become Skilled Cultural Operators. Organization Studies, 36(7), 925-951.

Uzunca, B., Rigtering, J. P. C., & Ozcan, P. (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.

Vaara, E., Sonenshein, S., & Boje, D. (2016). Narratives as Sources of Stability and Change in Organizations: Approaches and Directions for Future Research. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 495-560.

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.

Werner, M. D., & Cornelissen, J. P. (2014). Framing the Change: Switching and Blending Frames and their Role in Instigating Institutional Change. Organization Studies, 35(10), 1449-1472.

Woolthuis, R. K., Hooimeijer, F., Bossink, B., Mulder, G., & Brouwer, J. (2013). Institutional entrepreneurship in sustainable urban development: Dutch successes as inspiration for transformation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 91-100.

Wry, T., Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimating Nascent Collective Identities: Coordinating Cultural Entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22(2), 449-463.

York, J. G., Hargrave, T. J., & Pacheco, D. F. (2016). Converging winds: Logic hybridization in the Colorado wind energy field. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 579-610.

Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beoynd Survival: Achieving New Venture Growth by Building Legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414.

Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 70-105.

39

Table 1. Research Protocol and Summary Results.

Protocol a) Search for: TOPIC: (entrepreneur*) AND TOPIC: (fram*) (from ISI Web of Science SSCI Core Collection)

Results: 4,312 papers

b) Remove duplicates

Results: 4,309 papers

c) Remove non-ABS listed journals

Results: 2,903 papers

d) Remove papers that only mention “framework”

Results: 352 papers

e) Remove papers that do not discuss phenomenon of interest

Results: 60 papers

f) Add papers from adjacent literatures that substantively discuss framing

Results: 11 papers

g) In-depth analysis: 71 papers

Sum of times cited by year, as at Dec. 31, 2019. Top ten journals, as at Dec. 31, 2019.

199719982006200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019

01020304050607080 Journal Papers

Organization Studies 8Academy of Management Journal 6Journal of Business Venturing 5Organization Science 4Administrative Science Quarterly 3Journal of Management Studies 3Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 2Research Policy 2Strategic Management Journal 2Journal of Business Ethics 2

ABS Journal Quality, as on Dec. 31, 2019. Top ten cited papers, as on Dec. 31, 2019.13% 2

12%

325%

432%

4*28%

Paper CitedFligstein (1997) 487Weber et al. (2008) 326Rao (1998) 256Mertha (2009) 240Navis & Glynn (2010) 221Martin (2016) 201Martin et al. (2013) 160Allison et al. (2015) 111Slager et al. (2012) 97Elzen et al. (2011) 79

40

Table 2. Summary of Venture Legitimation Framing Articles.

Author (Year) Method Framing Characteristic Focus Venture Legitimation FocusAllison et al. (2013) Quantitative hypotheses testing Content (emphasis) OfferingAllison et al. (2015) Quantitative hypotheses testing Content (emphasis) OfferingAnsari et al. (2016) Qualitative Process (complementary actions) Business modelChandra (2018) Qualitative Content (emphasis) OfferingClarke (2011) Visual ethnography Content (mode, emphasis) IdentityClarke et al. (2019) Mixed method; qualitative and

experimentContent (mode, language) Offering

Cornelissen et al. (2011) Conceptual Content (language) OfferingCornelissen et al. (2012) Conceptual Content (language) OfferingDalpiaz and Cavotta (2019) Conceptual Content (emphasis) OfferingFischer and Reuber (2014) Qualitative Content (emphasis) OfferingFisher et al. (2017) Conceptual Content (language) Offering and business modelGarud et al. (2020) Qualitative Content (emphasis) and process (deployment,

complementary actions)Business model

Hartman and Coslor (2019) Qualitative Content (emphasis) OfferingKim, Buffart, and Croidieu (2016) Quantitative hypotheses testing Content (emphasis, language) OfferingKumaraswamy et al. (2018) Conceptual Content (emphasis) and process (contests) OfferingLee and Huang (2018) Mixed method; qualitative and

experimentContent (content) Business model

Lee et al. (2018) Qualitative Content (emphasis) and process (deployment) IdentityManning and Bejarano (2017) Qualitative Content (language) and process (deployment) OfferingMcDonald and Gao (2019) Qualitative Content (language) and process (complementary

actions)Offering and business model

McKnight and Zietsma (2018) Configurational approach; QCA Content (emphasis) Offering (technology) and business model

Meyer et al. (2013) Conceptual Content (mode) OfferingPan et al. (2020) Quantitative hypotheses testing Content (emphasis) Offering and business modelSantos and Eisenhardt (2009) Qualitative Content (language, emphasis) and process

(complementary actions)Business model

Snihur et al. (2018a) Qualitative Content (emphasis) and process (deployment, complementary actions)

Offering (technology) and business model

Überbacher et al. (2015) Qualitative Content (emphasis, language) Offering

41

42

Table 3. Summary of Field Legitimation Framing Articles.

Author (Year) Method Framing Characteristic Focus Field Legitimation FocusAnsari et al. (2013) Qualitative Process (contest) PracticesArbuthnott et al. (2010) Qualitative Process (deployment, complementary action) Practices, collective identityBerghout et al. (2018) Qualitative Content (written mode, emphasis) Practices, collective identityChen and Sun (2019) Qualitative Content (emphasis) Practices, regulationDelacour and Leca (2017) Qualitative Content (emphasis) and process (complementary action) PracticesDelmestri and Greenwood (2016)

Qualitative Content (visual mode, emphasis) Practices, regulation

Elzen et al. (2011) Qualitative Content (language) and process (contest) Regulation, practicesEssen and Varlander (2019) Qualitative Content (emphasis) PracticesFaling and Biesbroek (2019) Qualitative Content (complementary action) Practices, regulationFeront and Bertels (2019) Qualitative Content (language) Regulation, practicesFligstein (1997) Conceptual Content (emphasis) Practices, field emergenceForbes (2012) Qualitative Process (deployment) Practices, regulationFriedman and Desivilya (2010)

Qualitative Content (emphasis) Practices, collective identity

Garud et al. (2019) Qualitative Process (deployment) Field collapse, practices, collective identity

Giorgi et al. (2017) Conceptual Content (emphasis) and process (deployment, complementary action)

Practices, collective identity

Granqvist and Laurila (2011) Qualitative Content (emphasis) and process (contests) Field emergenceGurses and Ozcan (2015) Qualitative Content (emphasis) and process (contests) RegulationHeimstadt and Reischauer (2019)

Qualitative Process (deployment) Practices

Helms et al. (2012) Quantitative hypotheses-testing

Content (written mode) and process (contests and negotiations)

Practices

Hervieux and Voltan (2018) Qualitative Content (written mode) PracticesHiatt and Carlos (2019) Mixed method,

qualitative and quantitative

Process (deployment, contest) Creation of market categories

Hung and Whittington (2011) Qualitative Process (complementary actions) PracticesJones, York, Vedula, Conger, Qualitative Process (deployment) Practices

43

and Lenox (2019)Khaire (2014) Qualitative Content (emphasis) Field emergence, collective

identityKim, Croidieu, et al. (2016) Qualitative Content (emphasis) and process (deployment) Field emergence, regulationLangenohl (2008) Qualitative Content (written mode) RegulationLee and Hung (2014) Qualitative Process (deployment, complementary action) Practices, collective identityMarkowitz et al. (2012) Qualitative Content (language) and process (deployment) Practices, collective identityMartin (2016) Qualitative Content (written mode) and process (deployment, contest) PracticesMayer and Knox (2010) Qualitative Content (emphasis, language) and process (complementary

actions)Practices

McGaughey (2013) Qualitative Process (deployment) RegulationMerrie and Olsson (2014) Qualitative Process (deployment, contest) PracticesMertha (2009) Qualitative Content (language) RegulationMontgomery et al. (2012) Conceptual Process (deployment) Field emergenceNavis and Glynn (2010) Qualitative Content (language, emphasis) Creation of market categoriesPerretti et al. (2008) Quantitative

hypotheses testingContent (written mode, language, emphasis) Collective identity

Rao and Giorgi (2006) Conceptual Content (emphasis) and process (deployment, complementary action)

Practice change

Rao (1998) Qualitative Content (emphasis) and process (deployment, contest) Field emergenceRonnberg (2017) Qualitative Content (emphasis) and process (complementary action) Practices, regulationScarbrough, Robertson, and Swan (2015)

Qualitative Process (deployment) Practices

Slager et al. (2012) Qualitative Content (language) and process (complementary action) Regulation, practicesThomas and Ritala (2021) Conceptual Content (emphasis) and process (deployment) Collective (ecosystem) identityWeber et al. (2008) Qualitative Content (emphasis) and process (deployment, complementary

actions)Field emergence, practices

Werner and Cornelissen (2014)

Conceptual Content (language), and process (deployment) Practices

Woolthuis et al. (2013) Qualitative Content (language) and process (complementary action) Practices, regulationYork et al. (2016) Qualitative Process (deployment and contests) Practices

44

Table 4. Research Agenda.

Key Areas Research Questions Research Design and Methodology Recommendations

Better understand framing complications across audiences, time, and geographies

Framing across audiences- How can attributes of different audiences necessitate different, potentially multi-layered

framing approaches? - What is the role of emotions for effective entrepreneurial framing across audiences to enable

not only cognitive but also emotional resonance with the new venture or its field?- How can framing coherence be maintained across audiences (as well as time and

geographies)?- What are the possible contributions of different audiences such as investors, customers, or

competitors to entrepreneurial framing, potentially salient over time as amplifiers or detractors of entrepreneurial framing?

Framing across time- Can original frames persist over time, imprinting audiences or fields with specific references? - How are different audiences likely to react when entrepreneurs strategically shift the

emphasis of their framing over time, and with what effects for their venture’s resonance and legitimacy?

Framing across geographies- How do practices, regulations, and collective identities in place across geographic contexts

influence a venture’s framing strategies when it enters and continues operating there? - Are there universal mechanisms that make entrepreneurial framing resonate in different

contexts and to what degree do entrepreneurs have to tailor their framing to specific locations?

New conversations about framing in the digital and increasingly data-driven economy are needed, for instance, to examine how digitalization impacts entrepreneurial framing content or processes in terms of language and emphasis, as well as frequency and sequencing of frames used across audiences, time, and geographies.

Experiments, little used in the reviewed framing research, could be developed to comparatively evaluate framing effectiveness with different audiences, across time, or geographies.

Develop understanding of performativity and wider implications of entrepreneurial framing

- How could entrepreneurs balance between what is said and what is left unsaid during entrepreneurial framing from a performativity perspective?

- How might entrepreneurs be able to pivot or persevere without losing legitimacy during entrepreneurial journey? For serial entrepreneurs who realize that they will probably have to pivot in the future, a question is how they could frame their pitches and business models in the first place, knowing that changes will be called for later as their journeys unfold.

- How far can “fake it till you make it” take ventures with questionable practices?- How can entrepreneurial framing and legitimation help enable and constitute new meanings,

for instance needed for sustainability transitions in diverse industries such as energy or transportation?

The use of artificial intelligence for entrepreneurial framing could be a new empirical setting for future research.

Need for theory testing in larger samples with quantitative analysis of entrepreneurial framing, pivoting, and their outcomes.

45

Figure 1. A Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Framing.

* Black arrows and shapes indicate existing conversations. Grey arrows and shapes indicate emerging research and future research directions.

46