Contextualizing entrepreneurial innovation: A …utrechtce.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/garud20141.pdfContextualizing entrepreneurial innovation: A narrative perspective ... Regions;

Page 1

C

Ra

b

c

a

ARAA

KEDCSPP

1

otpase“Lpaa(

mtndkI2

h0

Research Policy 43 (2014) 1177–1188

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research Policy

jo ur nal ho me page: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / respol

ontextualizing entrepreneurial innovation: A narrative perspective

aghu Garuda,∗, Joel Gehmanb, Antonio Paco Giuliani c

Smeal College of Business, Pennsylvania State University, United StatesAlberta School of Business, University of Alberta, CanadaCollege of Business Administration, University of Illinois at Chicago, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 31 March 2013ccepted 31 January 2014vailable online 15 May 2014

eywords:ntrepreneurship

a b s t r a c t

We review literatures that inform entrepreneurial innovation, paying particular attention to differentconceptualizations of contexts. Early research explored micro and macro approaches with some scholarstaking an actor-centric perspective and others a context-centric perspective. Bridging these perspectives,different scholars proposed multilevel approaches, arguing that opportunities are “found” or “made” byentrepreneurs whose efforts are moderated by contexts. More recent constitutive approaches, such asthose informed by structuration, complexity and disequilibrium theories, have viewed entrepreneurial

iscoveryreationtoriesrocesserformativity

innovation as a process wherein actors and contexts are co-created. We add to constitutive approachesby examining how entrepreneurs contextualize innovation through narratives. A narrative perspectiveconsiders entrepreneurial innovation as an ongoing process involving embedded actors who contextu-alize innovation through performative efforts. We discuss the implications of this perspective for policy,entrepreneurs, and research.

. Introduction

Entrepreneurial innovation, by which we mean the emergencef new business opportunities (Schumpeter, 1939), is impor-ant to diverse stakeholders, including entrepreneurs, investors,olicymakers, and the public at large. Over the years, consider-ble research has emerged that informs this topic. For instance,ome scholars have taken a micro approach to studying howntrepreneurs and their teams (both henceforth referred to asentrepreneurs”) are able to successfully innovate (Baum andocke, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2002). In contrast to this agent-centricerspective, others have taken a context-centric perspective. Such

macro approach offers insights on the role of national, regional,nd industrial contexts in inducing entrepreneurial innovationFreeman, 1987; Saxenian, 1996; Van de Ven and Garud, 1989).

Several multilevel approaches have attempted to bridge theicro-macro divide. For instance, individual-opportunity nexus

heory (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000) suggests that opportu-ities are preexisting features of contexts, and thus, awaitingiscovery by alert entrepreneurs (Kirzner, 1997) or those in bro-

erage positions (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997; Obstfeld, 2005).n contrast, opportunity creation theory (Alvarez and Barney,007) suggests that entrepreneurs create new opportunities, with

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Garud).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.04.015048-7333/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

contexts selecting certain outcomes over others. Other creation-oriented research has highlighted processes such as bricolage(Baker and Nelson, 2005) and effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001).

Despite their differences, these multilevel approaches typicallyretain a view of individuals as atomistic actors working withinestablished contexts. Namely, both consider contexts to be exoge-nous, serving either as ex ante sources of opportunities in the“discovery” school, or as post hoc arbiters of creative efforts in the“creation” school (Alvarez et al., 2013; Shane, 2012). In other words,whether opportunities are found or made, contexts are key moder-ators of success or failure, dictating the availability or the viabilityof entrepreneurial innovation, respectively.

More recently, different scholars have attempted to avoid thediscovery-creation dichotomy. For instance, the literatures onstructuration theory (Chiasson and Saunders, 2005; Sarason et al.,2006), complexity theory (Lichtenstein, 2011), and disequilibriumtheory (Chiles et al., 2010) have offered constitutive approacheson entrepreneurial innovation, drawing attention to how actorsand contexts are co-created through an interactive and emergentprocess. However, these literatures stop short of exploring howentrepreneurs contextualize by translating, shaping and infusinginnovation with meaning (Callon, 1986; Garud and Giuliani, 2013;Hargadon and Douglas, 2001).

We review the diverse literatures that inform the progressionof ideas on entrepreneurial innovation, paying particular attentionto different conceptualizations of contexts. Although these litera-tures are far richer than can be fully captured within any organizing

Page 2

1178 R. Garud et al. / Research Policy 43 (2014) 1177–1188

Table 1Different perspectives on entrepreneurial innovation.

Approach Micro-macro approaches Multilevel approaches Constitutive approaches

Analytic focus Antecedents: Factors that explainentrepreneurial innovation

Events: Episodes when entrepreneurialinnovation is “found” or “made”

Journeys: Dynamics wherebyentrepreneurial innovation emerges

Perspective Agent-centric Context-centric Discovery Creation Co-creation Narrative

Emphasis Emphasis onentrepreneurialagency

Emphasis onentrepreneurialcontexts

Emphasis onopportunitydiscovery

Emphasis onopportunitycreation

Emphasis ondynamicequilibrium andongoing change

Emphasis on meaningmaking throughinterplay ofentrepreneurs andenvironments

Locus and nature ofagency

Agency establishedby actor attributes

Agency prescribedby institutionalstructures

Agency cultivatedby being alert or byspanning structuralholes

Agency derivedfrom capacity tobricolage andeffectuate

Agency located inecology ofinteractions

Agency “translated”through social andmaterial networks

Role of context Contexts are notexplicitlyconsidered

Contexts explainentrepreneurialinnovation

Contexts moderateavailability ofopportunities

Contexts moderateviability ofcreations

Contexts are boththe medium andoutcome of action

Contexts areconstituted throughperformative efforts

Notable research Personality; Nations; Alertness; Bricolage; Structuration; Actor-network theory;e

smmta2ieia

2

esecf

2

btEn1sci2eaatas

tfiia

streams Cognition; Regions; BrokeragTeams Industries

cheme, our analysis (see Table 1 for a summary) suggests a move-ent from micro-macro approaches to multilevel approaches, andore recently to constitutive approaches. The narrative perspec-

ive offers a distinctive constitutive approach (Gartner, 2007; Garudnd Giuliani, 2013; Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001; Martens et al.,007; Zott and Huy, 2007), wherein entrepreneurs contextualize

nnovation through their relational, temporal and performativefforts. We conclude the paper by drawing out some importantmplications of the narrative perspective for policy, entrepreneurs,nd research.

. Micro-macro approaches on entrepreneurial innovation

Early scholars of entrepreneurial innovation generally tookither an actor-centric perspective, or a context-centric per-pective. Among others, the actor-centric perspective highlightsntrepreneurial personality, cognition, and teams. The context-entric perspective highlights national, regional and industrialactors that drive entrepreneurial innovation.

.1. Agent-centric perspectives

Many scholars have focused on individual characteristics as theasis for why some people are more likely to exploit opportuni-ies than others (Gartner, 1985; McMullen and Shepherd, 2006).arly work emphasized personality traits, such as locus of control,eed for achievement, and risk-taking propensity (Begley and Boyd,987; Brockhaus, 1980; Low and MacMillan, 1988). Other workhowed that self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), or the belief in one’sapabilities to produce effects, is consequential to entrepreneurialnnovation (Chen et al., 1998; Markman et al., 2002; Zhao et al.,005). According to this literature, individuals who have self-fficacy will be more likely to take on risk, recognize opportunities,nd improvise when required. In an interesting twist, research haslso shown that fortune is likely to favor those people who considerhemselves to be lucky (Dew, 2009; Wiseman, 2003). Such peoplere lucky because they are open to opportunities and can adapt toituations.

Despite the appeal of considering personality characteristics as

he primary explanation for entrepreneurial innovation, the overallndings of this research stream are mixed. Whereas some stud-

es have reported correlations between various personality traitsnd entrepreneurial innovation, others have found no significant

Effectuation Complexity; Path creationDisequilibrium

relationships, and even relationships that were contrary to expec-tations (Ciavarella et al., 2004; Hansemark, 2003). In an effort tosort through these apparent contradictions, a growing number ofmeta-analyses have been conducted, again with mixed results (seeBrandstätter, 2011 for a review). Germane to this review are thecomments of some researchers who have suggested that incon-sistent findings may be a result of failing to consider the role ofcontexts (Hjorth et al., 2008).

Going beyond personality, scholars have studiedentrepreneurial cognition, defined as “the knowledge structuresthat people use to make assessments, judgments, or decisionsinvolving opportunity evaluation, venture creation, and growth”(Mitchell et al., 2002:97), as an explanation for entrepreneurialinnovation. This work posits fundamental differences betweenentrepreneurs and others in terms of how they think (Baronand Ward, 2004; Grégoire et al., 2011). For instance, Busenitzand Barney (1997) showed that entrepreneurs tend to rely moreon decision heuristics than managers of established companies.However, this research has been critiqued for not unpacking thereasons why entrepreneurs use heuristics, noting several possibleexplanations, including self-selection bias, environmental con-straint selection, and dynamic learning processes (Grégoire et al.,2011). As a corrective, Grégoire et al. (2011) proposed exploringentrepreneurial cognition as a process (i.e., the development,transformation, and use of mental representations and constructs),in addition to investigating its multilevel dynamics.

Even as discussions around individual characteristics haveunfolded, a parallel stream of research has emerged onentrepreneurial teams. For instance, informed by literatureson social networks, strategic management and organizationalambidexterity, researchers have investigated how team compo-sition influences organizational dynamics, innovation strategiesand firm performance (Beckman, 2006; Ensley and Hmieleski,2005; Ruef et al., 2003). Despite coordination costs (Foo et al.,2006), entrepreneurial teams possess advantages over loneentrepreneurs, as evidenced in superior performance outcomes ofventures led by entrepreneurial teams (Vissa and Chacar, 2009).Internally, team member diversity offers ventures access to hetero-geneous skills (Colombo and Grilli, 2005). Externally, ventures can

draw resources from multiple networks to which team membersbelong (Florin et al., 2003). While the latter speaks to considerationsof entrepreneurs embedded in larger social structures, for themost part the literature on entrepreneurial teams has focused on

Page 3

Polic

ic(

usrat(

2

vtttu2asAee

e2stsiamodH

(cce2u(ParieH

to2s2eoi1ealS(

R. Garud et al. / Research

nternal dynamics. It is for this reason that some scholars havealled for a more contextualized account of entrepreneurial teamsHarper, 2008).

Overall, scholars have explored different agent-centric factorsnderlying entrepreneurial innovation. Despite differences in thepecific explanations and mechanisms they have pursued, thisesearch under-emphasizes innovation contexts. Consequently,gent-centric research does not adequately theorize the challengeshat entrepreneurs confront when negotiating their environmentsThornton, 1999; Zahra and Wright, 2011).

.2. Context-centric perspectives

A different stream of research approaches entrepreneurial inno-ation from a context-centric perspective that covers three primaryopics: national, regional, and industry contexts. Contexts mat-er, according to these scholars, because they shape not onlyhe opportunities that are available, but also the dynamics thatnfold (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994; Sørensen, 2007; Zahra and Wright,011). That is, different contexts offer different initial conditionsnd different possibilities; therefore, they have the potential topawn different entrepreneurial trajectories (Powell et al., 2012).t the same time, because contexts matter, the overall process ofntrepreneurial innovation can be described as being path depend-nt (Arthur, 1989; David, 1985; Kenney and von Burg, 1999).

With respect to national contexts, a considerable literature hasmerged over the past 25 years (Lundvall, 2010; Mustar and Larédo,002; Nelson, 1993; Porter, 1990). For instance, in his landmarktudy of national systems of innovation, Freeman (1987) notedhe possibility that innovation, and as a corollary, entrepreneur-hip, differs across national systems based on various parametersncluding: the level of support for entrepreneurial and innovativectivities; the extent of military spending on research and develop-ent, and thus, spillover effects for private enterprise; the network

f linkages between users, producers and subcontractors; and theegree of competition in various product markets (Furman andayes, 2004; Hu and Mathews, 2008).

In a similar vein, a number of studies have built on Porter’s1990) diamond model to investigate the extent to which nationalompetitiveness is related to the performance of firms withinlusters, together with government interventions and chancevents (Aziz and Norhashim, 2008; Berggren and Laestadius,003; Padmore and Gibson, 1998). Although this work was pop-lar, numerous limitations to Porter’s model have been identifiedDavies and Ellis, 2000; Grant, 1991; Van Den Bosch and Vanrooijen, 1992), leading others to propose various extensionsnd modifications (Öz, 2002; Rugman and Verbeke, 1993). Moreecently, a number of studies have compared entrepreneurialnnovation possibilities based on national systems in emergingconomies such as China and India (Gupta and Wang, 2009;oskisson et al., 2013; Khanna and Palepu, 1999).

Considerable literature also has accumulated on regional con-exts. Entrepreneurial activities tend to cluster in certain places,ffering entrepreneurial firms considerable benefits (Powell et al.,012; Saxenian, 1996). For instance, agglomeration generatespillovers of knowledge (Fagerberg et al., 2009; Fritsch and Franke,004) and spinoffs of entrepreneurial firms (Klepper, 2007; Lockettt al., 2005; McCann and Folta, 2008; Robinson et al., 2007). More-ver, specific regions have distinct sets of resources, which maynclude talent, technology and tolerance for deviance (Florida,995). Within a region, an ecosystem exists that not only includesntrepreneurial firms, but also other kinds of organizations such

s venture capitalists (Florida and Kenney, 1988; Guler, 2007),aw firms (Suchman et al., 2001), and universities (Colyvas, 2007;iegel et al., 2003), all connected through different social networksPowell et al., 2012; Saxenian, 1996).

y 43 (2014) 1177–1188 1179

Within this research stream, there has been considerable anal-ysis and debate as to the similarities and differences betweenSilicon Valley in California and the Route 128 Corridor in Mas-sachusetts (Dorfman, 1983; Kenney and von Burg, 1999; Saxenian,1996, 1999). These studies have shown how even small differ-ences between two regions in the same country can create differentdynamics, such as whether non-compete clauses are enforced(Gilson, 1999; Marx, 2011). Other scholars have examined regionaldifferences in technology entrepreneurship across continents andcountries, for example, with wind turbines (Andersen and Drejer,2008; Garud and Karnøe, 2003; Hendry and Harborne, 2011) andelectric vehicles (Kirsch, 2000; Schot et al., 1994). This researchshows that differences in the design, production, use, regulationand evaluation of technologies can have a profound impact on themicro-learning dynamics that unfold, and the outcomes that areobtained.

In addition to national and regional contexts, industry con-texts also matter (Benner and Tripsas, 2012; Bijker et al., 1987;Hughes, 1993; Murtha et al., 2001). In this regard, Van de Venand Garud (1989) offered a framework for understanding dif-ferences across industries. Their model conceptualized industryinnovation infrastructure to include: institutional arrangementsto legitimize, regulate, and standardize a new technology; publicresource endowments to facilitate the creation of basic scien-tific knowledge, financing mechanisms, and a pool of competentlabor; market mechanisms to educate consumers and stimulatedemand for a new technology; and proprietary activities by privateentrepreneurial firms to fulfill research and development, manu-facturing, marketing, and distribution functions.

Clearly, industries differ on these dimensions, with importantconsequences for entrepreneurial innovation (Acs and Audretsch,1988; Streb, 2003; Tether and Storey, 1998). For instance, thenature and scope of opportunities in the software industry are verydifferent from those in the pharmaceutical industry. There are dif-ferent trajectories in each (Dosi, 1982; von Tunzelmann et al., 2008)based on what the actors believe is possible with the materialsand social structures at hand. There also are different temporalrhythms involved (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997; Eisenhardt andBourgeois, 1988; Garud et al., 2011). Device makers and softwaredevelopers have so far adhered to Moore’s law, where the num-ber of transistors on a silicon wafer is expected to double every18 months. In contrast, the pharmaceutical industry has a verydifferent temporal rhythm partially driven by the need to meetFDA regulatory requirements such as concerns related to safety andefficacy (Pisano, 1991).

In sum, scholars have conceptualized how national, regional andindustrial contexts shape entrepreneurial innovation. Extendingthe insights offered by these scholars, Zahra and Wright (2011)offered additional facets of contexts (spatial, time, practice, andchange) that scholars should include in their theorization. Theynoted that entrepreneurial context is “part of the story; some-times it is the story” (Zahra and Wright, 2011:73). This observationraises questions about how entrepreneurs create their stories inthe first place. We address this later in the paper, and propose howentrepreneurs contextualize innovation through narratives, a per-spective that tends to be under-theorized. But, before doing so, wefirst continue our review by looking at some attempts that havebeen made to bridge the micro and macro approaches.

3. Multilevel approaches on entrepreneurial innovation

Agent-centric and context-centric perspectives have bothcontributed considerably to our understanding of entrepreneurialinnovation by showing that entrepreneurial efforts and contextsboth matter. Yet one without the other offers only a partial

Page 4

1 Polic

uftimdac

3

thc“iio“

akae1““cg

t(i1i(otck

btaa(nrsut

3

vaeetap

id

180 R. Garud et al. / Research

nderstanding. According to Powell et al. (2012:435), suchunctional and entrepreneurial accounts are limited, leadingo explanations in which outcomes are predetermined andnevitable. In this regard, scholars have attempted to bring

icro-macro approaches together in two different ways: theiscovery-oriented, individual-opportunity nexus theory (Shanend Venkataraman, 2000), and the creation-oriented, opportunityreation theory (Alvarez and Barney, 2007).

.1. Opportunity discovery perspective

An early multilevel approach is individual-opportunity nexusheory, a perspective that conceptualized certain individuals asaving the potential to discover opportunities preexisting in theirontexts (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Contexts therefore areobligatory passage points” (Callon, 1986) for entrepreneurs, andn the absence of opportunities, there can be no entrepreneurialnnovation (Shane, 2012). The entrepreneur’s role is to seize thesepportunities before others, a feat that can be accomplished byalert” individuals (Kirzner, 1997).

Extending this line of thinking is work that introduces howlertness can be cultivated. For instance, individuals with priornowledge of the supply or demand side of a market (Shane, 2000)re more likely to recognize and benefit from opportunities thatmerge during the process of creative destruction (Schumpeter,942). On this account, the source of entrepreneurial innovationlies in differences in information about opportunities” and thus,individual differences influence the opportunities that people dis-over, how their entrepreneurial efforts are organized, and how theovernment can influence this process” (Shane, 2000:448).

In addition, entrepreneurs who span structural holes betweenwo or more communities are also more likely to spot opportunitiesObstfeld, 2005). Entrepreneurs who occupy such structural pos-tions have been conceptualized as brokers (Hargadon and Sutton,997; Lingo and O’Mahony, 2010) who can benefit from arbitrag-

ng across different contexts. For instance, Hargadon and Sutton1997) found that IDEO, a product design firm with clients in dozensf industries, exploited its network position to introduce solutionshat were not otherwise known to a focal client. In the process, theyreated new products that were original combinations of existingnowledge from disparate industries.

Although individual-opportunity nexus theory is notable forridging agent-centric and context-centric perspectives, it con-inues to preserve a dualism. Entrepreneurs are conceptualizeds actors who work within contexts, as opposed to actors whosegency is constituted by the networks of which they are a partSaxenian, 1996), a position that is more fully explicated by actor-etwork theorists (Callon, 1986; Latour, 2005). Moreover, contextsemain exogenous sources of opportunities that entrepreneurs caneize to the extent that they are alert. In other words, the theorynder-emphasizes entrepreneurial efforts to contextualize innova-ion.

.2. Opportunity creation perspective

Opportunity creation theory posits that entrepreneurial inno-ation emerges not through the discovery of opportunities bylert individuals, but instead through their creative efforts (Alvarezt al., 2013). Such creative efforts are attributed to facets such asntrepreneurs’ prior beliefs, their understanding of resources, andheir capabilities to exploit opportunities. As these facets will varycross entrepreneurs, different creative efforts unfold, each in a

ath dependent manner.

Theories on bricolage and effectuation provide additionalnsights on the process of creation. Bricolage refers to makingo with things at hand (Lévi-Strauss, 1966), a notion that Baker

y 43 (2014) 1177–1188

and Nelson (2005) productively elaborated upon to explicate howindividual entrepreneurs use materials at hand to move forward.According to their account, entrepreneurs break through resourceconstraints imposed by environments by creating new resourcesthrough a process involving recombination. A complementary posi-tion is effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001). As it is not possible forindividuals to foresee ends, the process of entrepreneurial inno-vation is conceptualized as being driven by non-teleological forces.This account emphasizes a logic of control over an unpredictablefuture as opposed to the logic of prediction that drives causal think-ing.

Contexts continue playing a role by moderating the outcomesof these creative efforts (Alvarez et al., 2013). At any point in theprocess, there is always the possibility of a mismatch between thecreative efforts of entrepreneurs and the external environmentsthat they confront. The feedback that is generated when the out-comes of creative efforts confront external environments serves asthe basis for the modification of entrepreneurial beliefs. Overall,the process is one of enactment (Weick, 1995).

In sum, the opportunity creation perspective rests on a set ofontological assumptions that are different from those underly-ing the opportunity discovery perspective. According to Alvarezand Barney (2007:11–12), these two perspectives “have impor-tant implications for the effectiveness of a wide variety ofentrepreneurial actions in different contexts. . . In the former case[i.e., the ‘discovery perspective’], entrepreneurs would spend agreat deal of time and energy developing a single, comprehensiveand complete, business plan. In the latter case [i.e., the ‘creationperspective’], entrepreneurs may find that business plans can onlybe written after an opportunity has been created, and that rig-orous planning too early in this process can be, at best, a wasteof resources, and at worst, fundamentally misleading – to bothentrepreneurs and those that invest in them.” However, consti-tutive approaches allow for the possibility that opportunities areboth found and made, with business plans serving as performa-tive devices that change as entrepreneurial innovation unfolds(Doganova and Eyquem-Renault, 2009).

4. Constitutive approaches on entrepreneurial innovation

As our review demonstrates, various strands of literatures haveadded legitimacy and momentum to the field of entrepreneurship.Agent-centric perspectives brought entrepreneurial agency to theforefront, but at the cost of underemphasizing contexts, or at bestby considering contexts as control variables (Zahra and Wright,2011). Context-centric perspectives offered a correction, but atthe cost of under-emphasizing agency. Seeking to find some mid-dle ground, individual-opportunity nexus theory and opportunitycreation theory emphasized discovery and creation respectively,leading to views on contexts as moderators of entrepreneurial inno-vation. Emerging now are alternative constitutive approaches thatemphasize the different ways in which entrepreneurs and theirenvironments are co-created. We review co-creation processesinformed by theories of structuration, complexity and disequili-brium before proceeding to detail our contributions to constitutiveapproaches by explicating a narrative perspective.

4.1. Co-creation perspectives

Some entrepreneurship scholars have applied structuration the-ory (Chiasson and Saunders, 2005; Sarason et al., 2006), which

suggests that the outcomes of any action serve as the medium forfuture action (Giddens, 1984). Specifically, Chiasson and Saunders(2005) argued that opportunity recognition and opportunity for-mation are recursively implicated, and thus, entrepreneurial action

Page 5

Polic

itAoatfp

eccuSwohipp

iecttLifhtMboa(td

aaonWgdahth

4

tmR

qvrItas

R. Garud et al. / Research

s both enabled and constrained by the conscious selection, imi-ation, and modification of business scripts by entrepreneurs.nother paper reexamined Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000) workn entrepreneurship as the nexus of opportunity and agencynd proposed that entrepreneurs and opportunities “co-evolve”hrough “recursive processes that evolve as the entrepreneur inter-aces with the sources of opportunity and engages in the venturingrocess” (Sarason et al., 2006:288).

Still other scholars have applied complexity theory as a way ofncompassing entrepreneurial action as unfolding within dynamicontexts (see Lichtenstein, 2011 for a review). For instance, usingomplexity as a metaphor, Biggiero (2001) studied how individ-als can influence the self-organization of a regional network.imilarly, Nicholls-Nixon (2005) used metaphors borrowed fromork on complex adaptive systems to emphasize the importance

f relationships between agents (in this case founders and CEOs ofigh-growth firms) and the deep structures of their firms. Another

mportant contribution to this line of thinking is McKelvey’s (2004)aper advocating for the use of heterogeneous agent-based com-utation modeling by scholars of entrepreneurial innovation.

Underlying both these viewpoints is ongoing change, a facet thats more explicitly developed by Chiles and his colleagues (Chilest al., 2010). Moving beyond Schumpeter’s emphasis on resourceombinations and Kirzner’s emphasis on alertness and discovery,hese authors highlighted the role of disequilibrium evident inhe works of Lachmann (1986) and Shackle (1974). According toachmann (1986), opportunities arise as entrepreneurs creativelymagine the future and then pursue their goals based on theirorward-looking expectations. Events are to be understood in theiristoricity (Chiles et al., 2010), a position consistent with the “con-extualistic” worldview originally developed by Pepper (1942).

oreover, an entrepreneur’s imagination continually changesased in part on new information generated by interactions withther entrepreneurs and stakeholders such as investors, regulators,nd advisors. These considerations give rise to kaleidic interactionsShackle, 1974) wherein it is impossible to fully coordinate activi-ies, and so, the process of entrepreneurial innovation is always inisequilibrium.

These theoretical efforts all speak to how entrepreneurialgency and contexts co-emerge. Although these strands of liter-ture agree on the need to endogenize contexts, they stop shortf theorizing how entrepreneurs contextualize their activities. Theeed to do so is evident from the arguments offered by Zahra andright (2011:67) who urged scholars to begin considering “hetero-

eneous aspects of context and factoring them into future theoryevelopment and testing efforts.” Viewed appreciatively (Nelsonnd Winter, 1982), this argument and our review of the literaturesighlight the potential for examining how entrepreneurs too con-extualize innovation through their narratives, a perspective thatas so far been under-theorized.

.2. Narrative perspective

At the core of a narrative perspective is an appreciation of

he efforts by actors to organize and imbue experiences with

eaning (Bruner, 1986; Czarniawska, 2004; Polkinghorne, 1988;icoeur, 1984).1 Emplotment is the process of generating meaning

1 For some authors, narratives and stories are synonyms, but for others they areuite different. For instance, Boje (2001:1) noted that “traditionally, story has beeniewed as less than narrative. Narrative requires plot, as well as coherence. To nar-ative theory, story is folksy, without emplotment, a simple telling of chronology.”n contrast, Czarniawska (2004:17) offered a nearly opposite definition. “This chap-er introduces a differentiation between narratives as purely chronological accountsnd stories as emplotted narratives.” In this paper we refer to both narratives andtories interchangeably.

y 43 (2014) 1177–1188 1181

by constituting diverse elements of a situation as part of a largerwhole (Ricoeur, 1984). As applied to entrepreneurial innovation,a narrative perspective does not begin with a priori assumptionsby researchers on what counts as contexts or how boundariesshould be drawn. Instead, a narrative perspective draws attentionto attempts by entrepreneurs to contextualize innovation throughrelational, temporal and performative efforts (Garud et al., 2010).The relational facet refers to the constitution of agency throughexisting and anticipated relationships across social and materialelements. The temporal facet refers to the various accounts of thepast, present and future that are offered as innovation unfolds. Theperformative facet highlights how narratives serve as triggers foraction towards goals that are forever changing.

4.2.1. Relational facetAs we have highlighted in our review, studies of entrepreneurial

innovation have either under-emphasized the importance of con-texts or have considered them to be exogenously given. A narrativeperspective deals with contexts in a different way. It holds thatentrepreneurs “neither accept nor reject ‘reality.’ Instead, they seekto mold it, shape it, and infuse it with meaning” (Gabriel, 2000:41).Specifically, entrepreneurs contextualize innovation through theirnarratives (see Law and Moser, 2012; Tsoukas and Hatch, 2001 forarguments from outside the field of entrepreneurship). These nar-ratives include not only texts such as business plans, press releases,and pitches (Doganova and Eyquem-Renault, 2009; Kennedy, 2008;Phillips et al., 2004), but also the actions that entrepreneurs under-take, such as developing prototypes, raising capital, and cultivatingcustomers (Garud and Karnøe, 2003; Hargadon and Douglas, 2001;Martens et al., 2007).

Clearly, skill is involved in generating these narratives (Fligstein,2001; Hosking and Hjorth, 2004). Not only is the overall inter-nal coherence of a narrative important, but also its fidelity toaudiences (Fisher, 1987). Here we connect with literature onecosystems (Adner and Kapoor, 2010) and value nets (Nalebuffand Brandenburger, 1996). This literature draws attention to thelarger structures within which ventures operate and the linksentrepreneurs must forge with stakeholders (such as owners ofcomplementary assets, financiers, and users) to gain access tofinancial, technical, and human resources, among others. To explorewhether or not firms must tap into such external economies(Langlois and Robertson, 1992), many studies draw from transac-tion cost economics (e.g., Teece, 1986). However, these scholarsdo not explore the mechanisms whereby entrepreneurs gener-ate interest and mobilize others to lend their support to theirprojects, especially given that many of these ventures lack legit-imacy (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994; Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001). This isa lacuna that the literature on narratives fills.

First, entrepreneurial narratives render innovation comprehen-sible to stakeholders (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994; Lounsbury and Glynn,2001; Martens et al., 2007; Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002) by “trans-lating” (Callon, 1986) different social and material elements fromvarious contexts to offer a coherent and plausible account. Withinany narrative, comparisons and contrasts are established (Taylorand Van Every, 2000) between what is old and what is new, whatis distinctive and what is similar, to serve as the basis for the emer-gence of a plot (Polkinghorne, 1988). As different entrepreneurialnarratives accumulate, they often reference each other, leading tothe emergence of a collective field identity (Andrew, 2006; Wryet al., 2011).

Second, entrepreneurial narratives establish credibility by high-lighting the role of entrepreneurs along with other high status

actors and high potential technologies. These narratives estab-lish entrepreneurs’ identities (Czarniawska, 2008; Downing, 2005)through the chains of human and non-human actants they areable to enroll (Callon, 1986). Moreover, by mobilizing these allies

Page 6

1 Polic

toata2

gboieffitto

4

lAmi(io

tjraeeto

raaaid2oG

f(p1btf(iwms

ceier

182 R. Garud et al. / Research

hrough their narratives, entrepreneurs are able to gain the supportf additional stakeholders. Specifically, as the number of associ-tions with elements that provide credibility increases, so doeshe plausibility of accomplishing what has been proposed. In turn,dditional elements will preferentially attach (Albert and Barabási,002) to narratives that gain legitimacy.

Overall, the relational facet does not conceptualize contexts asiven, or entrepreneurs as atomistic agents. Entrepreneurs recom-ine elements from different contexts to articulate and implementpportunities that are exciting to themselves and to stakeholdersncluding investors, regulators, and advisors. When presented withntrepreneurial narratives, stakeholders actively read into themrom their own perspectives (Ricoeur, 1984). This, in turn, generatesresh interpretations, some of which entrepreneurs incorporatento their narratives. Consequently the narratives that emergehrough such interactions and dialogue reflect not just the aspira-ions and motivations of the entrepreneurs, but also bear an imprintf the inputs that stakeholders offered.

.2.2. Temporal facetAs is well established, entrepreneurial innovation is not an iso-

ated event, but an unfolding journey (Van de Ven et al., 1999).t any moment in the journey, entrepreneurs and stakeholdersust make sense of what has already transpired, coordinate what

s currently unfolding, and imagine what is plausible in the futureGarud and Giuliani, 2013). To understand how entrepreneurs nav-gate these challenges, it is useful to unpack the different notionsf time, timing and temporality implicated in narratives.

One is a chronological notion of time, which is implicated inhe sequencing of events that are remembered, unfolding, and pro-ected. For instance, stringing together two events such as – “weeleased our knowledge assets for others to access,” and “we soughtnd obtained patent protection” – may not make much sense. How-ver, what may make sense is reversing the sequence of these twovents and adding a third: “we sought and obtained patent protec-ion,” and then “released our knowledge assets to the public,” “inrder to create a standard.”

The meaning making that is involved in such sequencing is moreeadily evident when we consider that the past, present, and futurere mutually constituted (Mead, 1934; Ricoeur, 1984). Specifically,ttention is forged by anticipation and memory, all constituted innd through narratives. Such plasticity of temporal experiencesmplies that different anticipations evoke different memories, andifferent memories can evoke different anticipations (Garud et al.,010). It is up to the actors, therefore, to work with emerging mem-ries and anticipations to give meaning to their projects (Garud andehman, 2012; Kaplan and Orlikowski, 2013).

Such plasticity also implies that entrepreneurs may have dif-erent temporal orientations to accomplish different purposesEmirbayer and Mische, 1998; Mead, 1934). They may look to theast to make sense of what has happened (Gioia and Chittipeddi,991; Weick, 1995), to the present to speculate about what maye happening (Boje, 2001), and to the future to imagine what canranspire (van Lente, 2000). Of course, nothing stops entrepreneursrom maintaining multiple temporal orientations simultaneouslyCunliffe et al., 2004). Actors must decide either implicitly or explic-tly the time spans their narratives ought to cover, how much

eight to accord to the past, present and future, and what ele-ents of the past, present and future ought to be emphasized in

uch narratives (Garud and Gehman, 2012).While temporal plasticity is one way of thinking about how

ontextualization occurs, it is equally important to recognize that

ntrepreneurs do not operate in a vacuum. To have “verisimil-tude” (Bruner, 1986), the temporal sequence of events of anntrepreneurial narrative will have to resonate with the lived expe-iences and anticipations of not just the entrepreneurial team,

y 43 (2014) 1177–1188

but also of others. Entrepreneurs often must entrain themselvesinto broader ecosystem rhythms while simultaneously providinga sequence of anticipated events to which their stakeholders canbecome entrained (Ancona and Chong, 1996). For instance, in thesemiconductor industry, entrepreneurial narratives may have to beconsistent with Moore’s law, which serves as a temporal institutionto facilitate the orchestration of field actors.

In this regard, narratives also serve as devices for temporal coor-dination across different social groups (Star and Griesemer, 1989;Yakura, 2002). One way they do so is by generating broader con-textual milestones that establish the timing (opportune moments,or kairos in narrative terminology) for stakeholders to act. Forinstance, entrepreneurial narratives may refer to the time it takesfor ventures and their alliance partners to develop required capa-bilities. In a similar vein, these narratives may highlight the timeit takes to obtain regulatory permits (e.g., FDA approvals). Theseprojections assist with the pacing and entrainment of stakehol-ders (Ancona and Chong, 1996; Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997) to theoverall progression of events associated with any specific venture.

Overall, narratives implicate time, timing and temporality. Timeimplicit in the sequencing of events blends with entrepreneurs’temporal experiences. Together, narrative time and temporality aremanifest in the form of milestones and roadmaps that generatethe timing for action. But, any action is contingent upon the emer-gence of appropriate conditions. This speaks to the performativityof narratives that we now discuss.

4.2.3. Performative facetSo far, we have discussed how entrepreneurial innovation is

contextualized through relational and temporal facets that arepart of the narrative perspective. Here, we want to emphasize yetanother facet of narratives: their performativity. Performativityrefers to utterances “in which to say something is to do something”(Austin, 1962:12, emphasis in original), and whereby actors’ nar-ratives generate “the capacity to act and to give meaning to action”(Callon, 2007:160). Understood in this way, narratives are perfor-mative: they trigger action as entrepreneurs try actualizing the veryarrangements they have proposed in order to generate meaningaround their ventures.

One performative facet of narratives is enrolling stakeholders(Callon, 1986). This is not an easy task as the future benefits ofemerging innovation are fundamentally uncertain (Garud et al.,2014). Such uncertainty is magnified by the cross-referential natureof stakeholder support, wherein one stakeholder may only beinduced to support a venture to the extent that others also lendtheir support. It is here that entrepreneurial narratives are help-ful. Specifically, entrepreneurs use narratives to generate an overallgestalt (Polkinghorne, 1988) on the viability of an innovation basedon support from potential stakeholders, thereby triggering dis-tributed yet collective action required to enact the narrative.

The performativity of entrepreneurial narratives is readily evi-dent in Doganova and Eyquem-Renault’s (2009) case study of therole that business models play in entrepreneurship. They foundthat business models take a variety of forms, ranging from cor-porate presentations to business plans. They also show how abusiness model is both a narrative and a calculative device thatoffers entrepreneurs an opportunity to explore a market while alsoassembling a techno-economic network of an innovation. Specifi-cally, the authors showed that a business model circulates amongdisparate actors and gradually builds the network of the newventure that it represents. However, despite modifications to itsbusiness model, the venture (known by the pseudonym Koala in

their study) did not succeed in building the network of partnersthat could bring it into existence.

This lack of success could be written off as a failure. But, con-siderations of performativity suggest that such “misfires” are an

Page 7

Polic

encemipeb(

cotiecopwa

aiEbTtsraahi

4

–cittrto

5

eFaccFd

5

dnmtaa

are occasions when entrepreneurs can display prototypes, negoti-ate with others and strike deals to realize a commonly envisionedfuture. In other words, these events serve as venues for “critical

R. Garud et al. / Research

ssential part of the process (Callon, 2010). Indeed, as Austin (1962)oted, the emergence of “felicitous conditions” (i.e., appropriateircumstances) is a core facet of performativity. For instance, themergence of an entrepreneurial venture, including its businessodel, is conditional upon the support of the networks evoked

n the articulation of an entrepreneurial narrative. However, it isossible that anticipated social and material elements of such anmergent network resist enrollment (Callon, 1986). Thus, there wille misfires, and the narrative will therefore need to be modifiedGarud et al., 2014).

In this regard, Doganova and Eyquem-Renault (2009:1567) con-lude their study by noting: “At the time of writing, the processf framing and overflowing continues and, following the oppor-unities generated by the introduction of Apple’s iPhone, Koalas currently investigating a new path. Its current business modelxtends the list of private users beyond drivers and their vehi-les (to include public transportation and pedestrians), focuses onne technological artifact (the mobile phone) and relies on newartners (mobile manufacturers and service operators).” In otherords, there is co-emergence of a venture’s sociomaterial networks

nd its overall business model.All of this suggests that entrepreneurial activities, such as

ttracting stakeholders, implementing a human resources pol-cy or bringing a product to market, are ongoing and emergent.ntrepreneurs do not just offer a narrative once and for all,ut continue to offer revised narratives to different stakeholders.hese narratives serve as the basis for entrepreneurs to “takehe inside out” as evidenced by their attempts to connect withtakeholders (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001). At the same time, nar-atives “bring the outside in” as stakeholders engage in discussionsnd dialogue with entrepreneurs, offering support, resistance, ormbivalence (O’Connor, 2000). Overall, as entrepreneurs and stake-olders attempt to assign meaning to these emergent relationships,

nnovation is constituted.

.2.4. SummaryThese three facets – relational, temporal, and performative

form a narrative toolkit for appreciating how entrepreneursonstitute innovation. Entrepreneurs attempt to contextualizennovation by establishing links with the past, present and futureo generate meaning. However, the conditions required to contex-ualize innovation do not always emerge as envisioned, therebyequiring entrepreneurs to revise their narratives. Consequently,he quest for meaning making is ongoing (see Fig. 1 for a depictionf our model).

. Discussion

A narrative perspective holds implications for policy,ntrepreneurs and research that we discuss in this section.or policy, we highlight the importance of what we conceptualizes “anchor events,” wherein diverse stakeholders can engage andoordinate their activities. For entrepreneurs, we propose theyontextualize innovation through narratives to generate meaning.or research, we propose overcoming the discovery-creationichotomy by taking a process perspective.

.1. Implications for policy

Zahra and Wright (2011) explored how policy can shape threeimensions of entrepreneurial activities (the rate, magnitude ofovelty, and variety of entrepreneurial exploitation modes) by

odulating four dimensions of entrepreneurial contexts (spatial,

ime, practice, and change). For instance, with respect to issues thatrise from considerations of space on the rate of entrepreneurialctivities, they suggested the need for policy support “to increase

y 43 (2014) 1177–1188 1183

the extent of entrepreneurial geographic and organizational mobil-ity” (Zahra and Wright, 2011:75). Complementing these efforts, andresonating with culturally induced views on innovation (Ruttan andHayami, 1984), we reflect on policy implications of the narrativeperspective. This perspective highlights the potential benefits ofpolicy initiatives that go beyond establishing contexts to includethe creation of enabling infrastructures that can help entrepreneursin their contextualization efforts.2

To explore one such initiative, we revisit a commonentrepreneurial challenge for regions, nations, and industries – thecreation and sustenance of a robust ecosystem. Several scholarshave demonstrated how large companies often anchor ecosystems(Agrawal and Cockburn, 2003; Feldman, 2005; Klepper, 2007; Niosiand Zhegu, 2010). But, what if anchor companies are not available innewly emerging industries, or if ecosystems must be fundamentallychanged in mature ones?

We suggest the notion of ‘anchor events’ within policy initiativesto serve as platforms for different constituencies of an ecosystemto coordinate their activities. These represent what Usher (1954)labeled as “setting the stage,” and one that Ruttan (1959) offered asan important policy initiative to induce entrepreneurial innovation.Although difficult to orchestrate, anchor events such as regionalconferences and state-sponsored entrepreneurial expositions (or“expos”) already exist. However, their theoretical significance hasnot been explored, a task that we undertake from the narrativeperspective.

First, these events are forums for allowing different actors toconnect and to integrate multiple constraints in a dynamic fashion.Prior literature on networks in general, and small world networks inparticular, has highlighted how knowledge flows through networks(Podolny, 2001). However, Powell et al. (2012) have advocated a farmore dynamic view of networks, to which a narrative perspectiveis sympathetic. Indeed, highlighting ongoing translation of knowl-edge, anchor events are venues for the creation, maintenance, andrejuvenation of networks that constitute ecosystems. By encour-aging interactions among actors who hold different dimensions ofworth (Boltanski and Thévenot, 2006), such events spawn dialec-tical processes (Hargrave and Van de Ven, 2006) to catalyze theemergence of opportunities and institutional innovations (Ruttanand Hayami, 1984).

Second, these anchor events serve as important venues for thetemporal coordination of different activities, both during the emer-gence of ecosystems and thereafter. Temporal coordination is achallenge in ecosystem dynamics covering facets such as sequenc-ing investments in co-specialized assets (Teece, 1986) to preventhype cycles (van Lente et al., 2013) by establishing a temporalarchitecture (Albert, 2013), regulating the rate at which technologyplatforms and complementary products and services are refreshed(Garud and Kumaraswamy, 1995), and modulating policies to steerfield transitions (Nill and Kemp, 2009). In this regard, anchor eventsare occasions when actors can pitch their ideas to diverse audiencesto help engender temporal coordination.

These observations lead to the third facet of narratives: theirperformativity. Innovation is driven by entrepreneurs’ imaginationof the future (Gartner, 2007; Chiles et al., 2010). However, pos-itive outcomes can only unfold if felicitous conditions emerge, apossibility that anchor events can enhance. Indeed, anchor events

2 Paschen and Ison (2014) explore the implications of narrative perspective forpolicy. More broadly, Jones and McBeth (2010) propose a “narrative policy frame-work” that builds upon the constructivist paradigm and yet satisfies the standardsof science.

Page 8

1184 R. Garud et al. / Research Policy 43 (2014) 1177–1188

Perfo rmativity

Rel ationality

Tempo rality NNtt11

P T

R

NNtt22

P T

R

NNtt33

Rel ationality: Entrepreneu rs cont extualize by associating with social and material elements Tempo rality: Entrepreneu rs cont extualize by accounting for the past, p resent and futu re Perfo rmativity: Entrepreneu rs cont extualize by per forming the conditions requi red for making p rogress

es both

e on e

ri

doitfet

5

tenetateWpnitht2gs

ft(vnRpt

Nt1, Nt2, Nt3: Entrepreneu rs cont extualize th rough narrat iv

Fig. 1. Narrative perspectiv

evision” (Usher, 1954) of opportunities by turning ideas into real-ty, and talk into action.

Moreover, as every entrepreneurial journey is full of ups andowns (Van de Ven et al., 1999), such anchor events can serve asccasions for retrospective, real time and prospective sensemak-ng (Boje, 2001; Weick, 1995). Such sensemaking, in turn, becomeshe basis for making fundamental changes to a venture. Viewedrom a narrative perspective, such changes involve re-plottingntrepreneurial narratives (O’Connor, 2000) to regain verisimili-ude (Bruner, 1986) in light of changed circumstances.

.2. Implications for entrepreneurs

Central to the narrative perspective are attempts to contex-ualize innovation through relational, temporal and performativefforts. These insights on entrepreneurial innovation are onlyow emerging in the literature. For instance, we know thatntrepreneurs gain legitimacy for their ventures by pitching storieso stakeholders (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001; Martens et al., 2007)nd that they create an industry identity through collective story-elling (Fiol and Romanelli, 2012; Gartner, 2007; Wry et al., 2011)ven while maintaining distinctiveness (Navis and Glynn, 2011).e also know that opportunities emerge through a relational

rocess involving recombination (Schumpeter, 1942). To this, thearrative perspective adds meaning making as an important facet

n the constitution of opportunities. Specifically, it draws attentiono insights from the literature on institutional entrepreneurshipighlighting how actors create a whole new system of meaninghrough their institutional efforts (DiMaggio, 1988; Garud et al.,007). The mainstream literature on entrepreneurship has notrappled with this literature in any depth, and the narrative per-pective is one way of doing so.

The narrative perspective also draws attention to the temporalacets of opportunity constitution. We know from existing litera-ure that pacing (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997) and entrainmentAncona and Chong, 1996) are important temporal facets of inno-ation and ecosystem dynamics. A consideration of alternative

otions of temporality associated with narratives (Mead, 1934;icoeur, 1984) yields further insights. Specifically, attention in theresent is forged by recollections of the past and anticipations ofhe future. From such a perspective, the creative imaginings of

in real time and over time (i.e., Ntn)

ntrepreneurial innovation.

entrepreneurs about the future shapes what facets of the past they‘discover’ (Garud et al., 2010). Symmetrically, how one looks at thepast may change the nature of the opportunities that entrepreneursconceptualize unfolding into the future. In short, embracing a nar-rative perspective on temporality offers entrepreneurs additionalresources to constitute their opportunities by reflexively shapingtheir temporal frames.

Perhaps least explored in the entrepreneurship literature is thenotion of performativity. Entrepreneurs confront a paradox. Theyproject a future that can only be realized if different stakehol-ders lend their support. But, stakeholders may find it risky to lendtheir support given uncertainties involved, a perception that is onlyenhanced to the extent that a venture has not yet gained the sup-port of other stakeholders. In other words, entrepreneurs confront achicken-and-egg problem; they need stakeholder support to jump-start innovation, but such support is more likely to be forthcomingonce the venture has gained momentum.

How might a narrative perspective inform this dilemma? As wehave already discussed, entrepreneurs narrate the future to gen-erate an overall gestalt that allows stakeholders to envision thefuture and so become involved. However, it is possible that someelements of what was envisioned will not transpire. When suchfelicitous conditions do not emerge, innovation contexts will bedifferent from what was envisioned, requiring changes to businessmodels and plans (Doganova and Eyquem-Renault, 2009).

All of this suggests that entrepreneurial innovation ought to beviewed as an unfolding process (McMullen and Dimov, 2013). Thereare false-starts and dead-ends, ups and downs, “backing and for-thing” as an entrepreneurial journey unfolds (Van de Ven et al.,1999). Entrepreneurs stand at the cusp of relational space and time(Clandinin and Connelly, 2000) to coordinate their activities in thepresent, anticipate what may happen in the future, and rememberwhat has already transpired.

5.3. Implications for research

One implication of the narrative perspective has to do with the

focus of research. Extant literature on entrepreneurship is miredin a debate on whether opportunities are discovered or created(Alvarez et al., 2013; Shane, 2012). From a narrative perspec-tive, this dichotomy no longer holds (Garud and Giuliani, 2013;

Page 9

Polic

VeelfaT

aitcctbso

nr2tpFrejcittapdhn

asdssotif

rtrteeotiu

nbaaitae

R. Garud et al. / Research

enkataraman et al., 2013). Given the relational and temporal prop-rties of narratives we introduced earlier, entrepreneurs discoverxisting ideas to create others, and creatively imagine new ideaseading them to discover what exists. Performativity considerationsurther establish that both discovery and creation are involved as

part of an ongoing process of path creation (Garud et al., 2010).he result is a view of opportunities as constituted.

An appreciation of such processes opens up new questionsnd issues that must be addressed to understand entrepreneurialnnovation. For instance, how can entrepreneurs craft narra-ives that will generate legitimacy for their ventures, and yethange their narratives to deal with emergent situations? Howan entrepreneurs cultivate serendipity and luck by using narra-ive resources? How might narratives reduce the costs of goingack to abandoned assets to create a new future? These are onlyome indicative research questions that the narrative perspectivepens.

One way to conduct such research is to follow entrepreneurialarratives in the making (Czarniawska, 2004). Such processualesearch designs (Gehman et al., 2013; Langley and Abdallah,011) could yield insights on what entrepreneurs relate to, howiming and temporal experiences shape their ventures, and theerformative effects of narratives on entrepreneurial innovation.or instance, examining entrepreneurial narratives relationally caneveal the social and material elements that entrepreneurs evoke,nact and make sense of as they pursue their entrepreneurialourneys. Examining narratives from a temporal vantage pointan yield insights on the rhythms of the contexts that becomemplicated (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997), the temporal orienta-ions (Emirbayer and Mische, 1998) of the actors involved, andhe time spans that actors have to constitute their ventures (Garudnd Gehman, 2012). Following entrepreneurial narratives for theirerformative properties can generate an understanding of theynamics involved in the creation of entrepreneurial fields, andow entrepreneurs revise their narratives as entrepreneurial jour-eys unfold (Doganova and Eyquem-Renault, 2009).

Such studies will necessarily involve generating contextualizedccounts as advocated by Zahra and Wright (2011). However, manycholars have removed contexts from their studies so as to pro-uce generalizable findings (Hjorth et al., 2008). In doing so, suchtudies may not adequately capture important differences acrossettings. Yet, efforts to contextualize theoretical accounts generatether challenges. For one thing, it is not clear how entrepreneurshemselves contextualize innovation. Additionally, as contextual-zed accounts are generated, it is not clear how insights transferrom one setting to another.

Here again, a narrative perspective adds insights. First, byeporting on and conducting hermeneutic analyses of the narra-ives that entrepreneurs generate (Gadamer, 1960; Madison, 1991),esearchers will be able to generate insights on the facets of the con-exts that the entrepreneurs themselves consider important andndogenous. Given that narratives have a holistic part-whole prop-rty (Bartel and Garud, 2009), each narrative in circulation is partf a larger whole that is constitutive of the field of relevance tohese entrepreneurs (see also Gartner, 2007). As a result, by exam-ning multiple narratives that are linked with one another, a holisticnderstanding of a field can emerge.

Second, the transfer of insights from one entrepreneurial jour-ey to another need not occur through a process of generalization,ut through a process of translation (Callon, 1986; Czarniawskand Joerges, 1996). Specifically, both practitioners and researcherslike are attracted to entrepreneurial narratives because of the var-

ous analogical and metaphorical links that they establish withhe surface level details (Clarke and Cornelissen, 2011; Taylornd Van Every, 2000). Readers translate the insights from thesentrepreneurial narratives based on the underlying generative

y 43 (2014) 1177–1188 1185

forces (Tsoukas, 1989), such as tenacity, bricolage, effectuation, andso forth. They then have the capacity to selectively apply thesegenerative forces to their own settings to develop contextualizedinferences.

6. Conclusion

Over the past three decades, there has been increasing inter-est in entrepreneurial innovation. Along the way, scholars havecontributed a variety of insights. Early agent-centric and context-centric perspectives alternatively emphasized entrepreneurialagency or contexts. Subsequent work attempted to bridge thesepositions through multilevel approaches to entrepreneurial inno-vation, emphasizing either discovery or creation. More recentresearch has attempted to move beyond such dualisms by empha-sizing dynamic equilibrium and ongoing change.

In addition to articulating, unpacking and appreciating thesechanging views of contexts, we offered a narrative perspective onhow entrepreneurs contextualize innovation. Such a perspectivedeparts from atomistic accounts of entrepreneurs, deterministicaccounts of contexts, and multilevel accounts of opportunitiesas being found or made. Instead, a narrative perspective con-siders contexts as core constitutive elements of entrepreneurialinnovation. Entrepreneurs are neither super-agentic nor overlydetermined, but instead mindful actors who try contextualizinginnovation through ongoing narratives.

Any perspective will encounter questions from those who sub-scribe to different set of assumptions. So too will the narrativeperspective. Specifically, there are always risks that narrativeaccounts offered by entrepreneurs, regulators and researchers willbe dismissed by others as conveying nothing more than merestories. Our view is that the insights that the narrative perspec-tive has to offer complement the insights of extant perspectives.More generally, though, the narrative perspective has a built-incapacity to generate meaning, even for actors who hold differentassumptions.

Acknowledgments

This paper is a collaborative effort as reflected in the alphabeticalordering of authorship. We thank an anonymous reviewer and theeditors of the special issue, particularly Martin Kenney, PhilippeMustar, and Mike Wright, for their valuable feedback on earlierversions of this paper. We thank Kara Gehman for her editorialassistance.

References

Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B., 1988. Innovation in large and small firms: an empiricalanalysis. American Economic Review 78 (4), 678–690.

Adner, R., Kapoor, R., 2010. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how thestructure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in newtechnology generations. Strategic Management Journal 31, 306–333.

Agrawal, A., Cockburn, I., 2003. The anchor tenant hypothesis: exploring the role oflarge, local, R&D-intensive firms in regional innovation systems. InternationalJournal of Industrial Organization 21 (9), 1227–1253.

Albert, S., 2013. When: The Art of Perfect Timing. John Wiley & Sons.Albert, R., Barabási, A.-L., 2002. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews

of Modern Physics 74, 47–97.Aldrich, H.E., Fiol, C.M., 1994. Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry

creation. Academy of Management Review 19, 645–670.Alvarez, S.A., Barney, J.B., 2007. Discovery and creation: alternative theories of

entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1 (1–2), 11–26.Alvarez, S.A., Barney, J.B., Anderson, P., 2013. Forming and exploiting opportunities:

the implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial andorganizational research. Organization Science 24 (1), 301–317.

Ancona, D.G., Chong, C.L., 1996. Entrainment: pace, cycle, and rhythm in organiza-tional behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior 18, 251–284.

Andersen, P.H., Drejer, I., 2008. Systemic innovation in a distributed network:the case of Danish wind turbines, 1972–2007. Strategic Organization 6 (1),13–46.

Page 10

1 Polic

A

A

AA

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

BB

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

CC

186 R. Garud et al. / Research

ndrew, D.B., 2006. A narrative approach to collective identities. Journal of Manage-ment Studies 43 (4), 731–753.

rthur, W.B., 1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by his-torical events. Economic Journal 99, 116–131.

ustin, J.L., 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Clarendon Press, Oxford.ziz, K.A., Norhashim, M., 2008. Cluster-based policy making: assessing perfor-

mance and sustaining competitiveness. Review of Policy Research 25 (4),349–375.

aker, T., Nelson, R.E., 2005. Creating something from nothing: resource construc-tion through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly 50,329–366.

andura, A.A., 1977. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological Review 84 (2), 191–215.

aron, R.A., Ward, T.B., 2004. Expanding entrepreneurial cognition’s toolbox: poten-tial contributions from the field of cognitive science. Entrepreneurship Theoryand Practice 28 (6), 553–573.

artel, C.A., Garud, R., 2009. The role of narratives in sustaining organizational inno-vation. Organization Science 20, 107–117.

aum, J.R., Locke, E.A., 2004. The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, andmotivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (4),587–598.

eckman, C.M., 2006. The influence of founding team company affiliations on firmbehavior. Academy of Management Journal 49 (4), 741–758.

egley, T.M., Boyd, D.P., 1987. A comparison of entrepreneurs and managers of smallbusiness firms. Journal of Management 13 (1), 99–108.

enner, M.J., Tripsas, M., 2012. The influence of prior industry affiliation on framingin nascent industries: the evolution of digital cameras. Strategic ManagementJournal 33 (3), 277–302.

erggren, C., Laestadius, S., 2003. Co-development and composite clusters—the sec-ular strength of Nordic telecommunications. Industrial and Corporate Change12 (1), 91–114.

iggiero, L., 2001. Self-organizing processes in building entrepreneurial networks:a theoretical and empirical investigation. Human Systems Management 20 (3),209–222.

ijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P., Pinch, T.J., 1987. Social Construction of Technological Sys-tems. MIT Press, Cambridge.

oje, D.M., 2001. Narrative Methods for Organizational and CommunicationResearch. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

oltanski, L., Thévenot, L., 2006. On Justification. Princeton University Press, Prince-ton.

randstätter, H., 2011. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: a look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differences 51 (3), 222–230.

rockhaus, R.H., 1980. Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Man-agement Journal 23 (3), 509–520.

rown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M., 1997. The art of continuous change: linking com-plexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations.Administrative Science Quarterly 42, 1–34.

runer, J., 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.usenitz, L.W., Barney, J.B., 1997. Differences between entrepreneurs and managers

in large organizations: biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Jour-nal of Business Venturing 12 (1), 9–30.

allon, M., 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of thescallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In: Law, J. (Ed.), Power, Action andBelief. Routledge, London.

allon, M., 2007. An essay on the growing contribution of economic markets to theproliferation of the social. Theory, Culture & Society 24, 139–163.

allon, M., 2010. Performativity, misfires and politics. Journal of Cultural Economy3 (2), 163–169.

hen, C.C., Greene, P.G., Crick, A., 1998. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distin-guish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing 13 (4),295–316.

hiasson, M., Saunders, C., 2005. Reconciling diverse approaches to opportunityresearch using the structuration theory. Journal of Business Venturing 20 (6),747–767.

hiles, T.H., Tuggle, C.S., McMullen, J.S., Bierman, L., Greening, D.W., 2010. Dynamiccreation: extending the radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Organi-zation Studies 31, 7–46.

iavarella, M.A., Buchholtz, A.K., Riordan, C.M., Gatewood, R.D., Stokes, G.S., 2004.The big five and venture survival: is there a linkage? Journal of Business Ven-turing 19 (4), 465–483.

landinin, D.J., Connelly, F.M., 2000. Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qual-itative Research. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

larke, J., Cornelissen, J., 2011. Language, communication, and socially situated cog-nition in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review 36, 776–778.

olombo, M.G., Grilli, L., 2005. Founders’ human capital and the growth of newtechnology-based firms: a competence-based view. Research Policy 34 (6),795–816.

olyvas, J.A., 2007. From divergent meanings to common practices: the early insti-tutionalization of technology transfer in the life sciences at Stanford University.Research Policy 36 (4), 456–476.

unliffe, A.L., Luhman, J.T., Boje, D.M., 2004. Narrative temporality: implications for

organizational research. Organization Studies 25, 261–286.

zarniawska, B., 2004. Narratives in Social Science Research. SAGE.zarniawska, B., 2008. Alterity/identity interplay in image construction. In: Barry,

D., Hansen, H. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of New Approaches in Managementand Organization. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 49–62.

y 43 (2014) 1177–1188

Czarniawska, B., Joerges, B., 1996. Travels of ideas. In: Czarniawska, B., Sevón, G.(Eds.), Translating Organizational Change. de Gruyter, New York, pp. 13–48.

David, P.A., 1985. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review75, 332–337.

Davies, H., Ellis, P., 2000. Porter’s competitive advantage of nations: time for the finaljudgement? Journal of Management Studies 37 (8), 1189–1214.

Dew, N., 2009. Serendipity in entrepreneurship. Organization Studies 30, 735–753.DiMaggio, P.J., 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In: Zucker, L.G. (Ed.),

Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment. Ballinger,Cambridge, pp. 3–21.

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

Dorfman, N.S., 1983. Route 128: the development of a regional high technologyeconomy. Research Policy 12 (6), 299–316.

Dosi, G., 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggestedinterpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. ResearchPolicy 11, 147–162.

Downing, S., 2005. The social construction of entrepreneurship: narrative anddramatic processes in the coproduction of organizations and identities.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29 (2), 185–204.

Eisenhardt, K.M., Bourgeois, L.J., 1988. Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: toward a midrange theory. Academy of ManagementJournal 31, 737–770.

Emirbayer, M., Mische, A., 1998. What is agency? American Journal of Sociology 103,962–1023.

Ensley, M.D., Hmieleski, K.M., 2005. A comparative study of new venturetop management team composition, dynamics and performance betweenuniversity-based and independent start-ups. Research Policy 34 (7), 1091–1105.

Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D., Verspagen, B. (Eds.), 2009. Innovation, Path Dependency,and Policy. Oxford University Press, New York.

Feldman, M., 2005. The locational dynamics of the U.S. biotech industry: knowl-edge externalities and the anchor hypothesis. In: Curzio, P.A.Q., Fortis, P.M.(Eds.), Research and Technological Innovation. Physica-Verlag HD, pp. 201–224,http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-7908-1658-2 9 (09.02.14).

Fiol, C.M., Romanelli, E., 2012. Before identity: the emergence of new organizationalforms. Organization Science 23, 597–611.

Fisher, W.R., 1987. Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy ofReason, Value and Action. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.

Fligstein, N., 2001. Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory 19,105–125.

Florida, R.L., 1995. Toward the learning region. Futures 27 (5), 527–536.Florida, R.L., Kenney, M., 1988. Venture capital, high technology and regional devel-

opment. Regional Studies 22 (1), 33–48.Florin, J., Lubatkin, M., Schulze, W., 2003. A social capital model of high-growth

ventures. Academy of Management Journal 46 (3), 374–384.Foo, M.-D., Sin, H.-P., Yiong, L.-P., 2006. Effects of team inputs and intrateam pro-

cesses on perceptions of team viability and member satisfaction in nascentventures. Strategic Management Journal 27 (4), 389–399.

Freeman, C., 1987. Technology, Policy, and Economic Performance: Lessons fromJapan. Pinter Publishers.

Fritsch, M., Franke, G., 2004. Innovation, regional knowledge spillovers and R&Dcooperation. Research Policy 33 (2), 245–255.

Furman, J.L., Hayes, R., 2004. Catching up or standing still?: National innovativeproductivity among “follower” countries, 1978–1999. Research Policy 33 (9),1329–1354.

Gabriel, Y., 2000. Storytelling in Organizations: Facts, Fictions, and Fantasies: Facts,Fictions, and Fantasies. Oxford University Press, New York.

Gadamer, H.-G., 1960. Truth and Method. Continuum.Gartner, W.B., 1985. A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new

venture creation. The Academy of Management Review 10 (4), 696.Gartner, W.B., 2007. Entrepreneurial narrative and a science of the imagination.

Journal of Business Venturing 22 (5), 613–627.Garud, R., Gehman, J., 2012. Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys:

evolutionary, relational and durational. Research Policy 41, 980–995.Garud, R., Giuliani, A.P., 2013. A narrative perspective on entrepreneurial opportu-

nities. Academy of Management Review 38 (1), 157–160.Garud, R., Karnøe, P., 2003. Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and

embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy 32,277–300.

Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., 1995. Technological and organizational designs forrealizing economies of substitution. Strategic Management Journal 16, 93–109.

Garud, R., Hardy, C., Maguire, S., 2007. Institutional entrepreneurship as embeddedagency. Organization Studies 28, 957–969.

Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., Karnøe, P., 2010. Path dependence or path creation?Journal of Management Studies 47, 760–774.

Garud, R., Gehman, J., Kumaraswamy, A., 2011. Complexity arrangements for sus-tained innovation: lessons from 3m corporation. Organization Studies 32,737–767.

Garud, R., Schildt, H., Lant, T., 2014. Entrepreneurial storytelling, future expectations,and the paradox of legitimacy. Organization Science (forthcoming).

Gehman, J., Trevino, L.K., Garud, R., 2013. Values work: a process study of theemergence and performance of organizational values practices. Academy ofManagement Journal 56 (1), 84–112.

Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.University of California Press.

Page 11

Polic

G

G

G

G

G

G

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

J

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

LL

L

L

L

LL

L

L

L

L

R. Garud et al. / Research

ilson, R.J., 1999. The legal infrastructure of high technology industrial districts:Silicon Valley, Route 128, and covenants not to compete. New York UniversityLaw Review 74, 575.

ioia, D.A., Chittipeddi, K., 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic changeinitiation. Strategic Management Journal 12, 433–448.

rant, R.M., 1991. Porter’s “Competitive Advantage of Nations”: an assessment.Strategic Management Journal 12 (7), 535–548.

régoire, D.A., Corbett, A.C., McMullen, J.S., 2011. The cognitive perspective inentrepreneurship: an agenda for future research. Journal of Management Studies48 (6), 1443–1477.

uler, I., 2007. Throwing good money after bad? Political and institutional influenceson sequential decision making in the venture capital industry. AdministrativeScience Quarterly 52, 248–285.

upta, A.K., Wang, H., 2009. Getting China and India Right: Strategies for Leveragingthe World’s Fastest Growing Economies for Global Advantage. John Wiley &Sons.

ansemark, O.C., 2003. Need for achievement, locus of control and the prediction ofbusiness start-ups: a longitudinal study. Journal of Economic Psychology 24 (3),301–319.

argadon, A.B., Douglas, Y., 2001. When innovations meet institutions: Edisonand the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly 46,476–501.

argadon, A., Sutton, R.I., 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a productdevelopment firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 42, 716–749.

argrave, T.J., Van de Ven, A.H., 2006. A collective action model of institutionalinnovation. Academy of Management Review 31, 864–888.

arper, D.A., 2008. Towards a theory of entrepreneurial teams. Journal of BusinessVenturing 23 (6), 613–626.

endry, C., Harborne, P., 2011. Changing the view of wind power development: morethan “bricolage.”. Research Policy 40 (5), 778–789.

jorth, D., Jones, C., Gartner, W.B., 2008. Introduction for “recreat-ing/recontextualising entrepreneurship.”. Scandinavian Journal of Management24 (2), 81–84.

osking, D.-M., Hjorth, D., 2004. Relational constructionism and entrepreneurship:some key notes. In: Hjorth, D., Steyaert, C. (Eds.), Narrative and Discur-sive Approaches in Entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, pp.255–268.

oskisson, R.E., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Peng, M.W., 2013. Emerging multination-als from mid-range economies: the influence of institutions and factor markets.Journal of Management Studies 50 (7), 1295–1321.

u, M.-C., Mathews, J.A., 2008. China’s national innovative capacity. Research Policy37 (9), 1465–1479.

ughes, T.P., 1993. Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society,1880–1930. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

ones, M.D., McBeth, M.K., 2010. A narrative policy framework: clear enough to bewrong? Policy Studies Journal 38, 329–353.

aplan, S., Orlikowski, W.J., 2013. Temporal work in strategy making. OrganizationScience 24, 965–995.

ennedy, M.T., 2008. Getting counted: markets, media, and reality. American Socio-logical Review 73, 270–295.

enney, M., von Burg, U., 1999. Technology, entrepreneurship and path dependence:industrial clustering in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Industrial and CorporateChange 8 (1), 67–103.

hanna, T., Palepu, K., 1999. Policy shocks, market intermediaries, and corporatestrategy: the evolution of business groups in Chile and India. Journal of Eco-nomics & Management Strategy 8 (2), 271–310.

irsch, D.A., 2000. The Electric Vehicle and the Burden of History. Rutgers UniversityPress, New Brunswick, NJ.

irzner, I.M., 1997. Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process:an Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature 35, 60–85.

lepper, S., 2007. Disagreements, spinoffs, and the evolution of Detroit as the capitalof the U.S. automobile industry. Management Science 53 (4), 616–631.

achmann, L.M., 1986. The Market as an Economic Process. Blackwell, New York.angley, A., Abdallah, C., 2011. Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strat-

egy and management. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management 6,201–235.

anglois, R.N., Robertson, P.L., 1992. Networks and innovation in a modular system:lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries. ResearchPolicy 21, 297–313.

atour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social—An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press, New York.

aw, J., Moser, I., 2012. Contexts and Culling. Science, Technology & Human Values37 (4), 332–354.

évi-Strauss, C., 1966. The Savage Mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.ichtenstein, B.B., 2011. Complexity science contributions to the field of

entrepreneurship. In: Allen, P., Maguire, S., McKelvey, B. (Eds.), The SAGE Hand-book of Complexity and Management. Sage, pp. 473–495.

ingo, E.L., O’Mahony, S., 2010. Nexus work: brokerage on creative projects. Admin-istrative Science Quarterly 55, 47–81.

ockett, A., Siegel, D.S., Wright, M., Ensley, M.D., 2005. The creation of spin-off firmsat public research institutions: managerial and policy implications. Research

Policy 34 (7), 981–993.

ounsbury, M., Glynn, M.A., 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, andthe acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal 22, 545–564.

ow, M.B., MacMillan, I.C., 1988. Entrepreneurship: past research and future chal-lenges. Journal of Management 14 (2), 139–161.

y 43 (2014) 1177–1188 1187

Lundvall, B.-Å., 2010. National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovationand Interactive Learning. Anthem Press.

Madison, G.B., 1991. Getting beyond objectivism: the philosophical hermeneutics ofGadamer and Ricoeur. In: Lavoie, D. (Ed.), Economics and Hermeneutics. Rout-ledge, pp. 32–57.

Markman, G.D., Balkin, D.B., Baron, R.A., 2002. Inventors and new venture forma-tion: the effects of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice 27 (2), 149–165.

Martens, M.L., Jennings, J.E., Jennings, P.D., 2007. Do the stories they tell get them themoney they need? The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource acquisition.Academy of Management Journal 50, 1107–1132.

Marx, M., 2011. The firm strikes back non-compete agreements and the mobility oftechnical professionals. American Sociological Review 76 (5), 695–712.

McCann, B.T., Folta, T.B., 2008. Location matters: where we have been and where wemight go in agglomeration research. Journal of Management 34 (3), 532–565.

McKelvey, B., 2004. Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship. Journal ofBusiness Venturing 19 (3), 313–341.

McMullen, J.S., Dimov, D., 2013. Time and the entrepreneurial journey: the problemsand promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of ManagementStudies 50, 1481–1512.

McMullen, J.S., Shepherd, D.A., 2006. Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncer-tainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review 31(1), 132–152.

Mead, G.H., 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Mitchell, R.K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P.P., Morse, E.A., Smith, J.B., 2002.

Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: rethinking the people sideof entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27 (2),93–104.

Murtha, T.P., Lenway, S.A., Hart, J.A., 2001. Managing New Industry Creation: GlobalKnowledge Formation and Entrepreneurship in High Technology. Stanford Uni-versity Press.

Mustar, P., Larédo, P., 2002. Innovation and research policy in France (1980–2000)or the disappearance of the Colbertist state. Research Policy 31 (1), 55–72.

Nalebuff, B.J., Brandenburger, A.M., 1996. Co-Opetition. Profile Books Limited.Navis, C., Glynn, M.A., 2011. Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial iden-

tity: influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility. Academy ofManagement Review 36, 479–499.

Nelson, R., 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford Uni-versity Press, New York.

Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Har-vard University Press, Cambridge.

Nicholls-Nixon, C.L., 2005. Rapid growth and high performance: the entrepreneur’s“impossible dream?”. The Academy of Management Executive 19 (1), 77–89.

Nill, J., Kemp, R., 2009. Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies:from niche to paradigm? Research Policy 38, 668–680.

Niosi, J., Zhegu, M., 2010. Anchor tenants and regional innovation systems: theaircraft industry. International Journal of Technology Management 50 (3),263–284.

O’Connor, E.S., 2000. Plotting the organization: the embedded narrative as aconstruct for studying change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36 (2),174–192.

Obstfeld, D., 2005. Social networks, the tertius iungens and orientation involvementin innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 50, 100–130.

Öz, Ö., 2002. Assessing Porter’s framework for national advantage: the case ofTurkey. Journal of Business Research 55 (6), 509–515.

Padmore, T., Gibson, H., 1998. Modelling systems of innovation: II. A framework forindustrial cluster analysis in regions. Research Policy 26 (6), 625–641.

Paschen, J.-A., Ison, R., 2014. Narrative research in climate change adaptation:exploring a complementary paradigm for research and governance. ResearchPolicy, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.12.006 (in press).

Pepper, S.C., 1942. World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence. University of CaliforniaPress.

Phillips, N., Lawrence, T.B., Hardy, C., 2004. Discourse and institutions. Academy ofManagement Review 29, 635–652.

Pisano, G.P., 1991. The governance of innovation: vertical integration and collab-orative arrangements in the biotechnology industry. Research Policy 20 (3),237–249.

Podolny, J.M., 2001. Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. AmericanJournal of Sociology 107 (1), 33–60.

Polkinghorne, D.E., 1988. Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. State Univer-sity of New York Press, Albany, NY.

Porter, M.E., 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Free Press, New York.Powell, W.W., Packalen, K., Whittington, K., 2012. Organizational and institutional

genesis: the emergence of high-tech clusters in the life sciences. In: Padgett, J.F.,Powell, W.W. (Eds.), The Emergence of Organizations and Markets. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 434–465.

Ricoeur, P., 1984. Time and Narrative. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Robinson, D.K.R., Rip, A., Mangematin, V., 2007. Technological agglomeration and

the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology. Research Policy 36(6), 871–879.

Ruef, M., Aldrich, H.E., Carter, N.M., 2003. The structure of founding teams:

homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Socio-logical Review 68 (2), 195–222.

Rugman, A.M., Verbeke, A., 1993. Foreign subsidiaries and multinational strategicmanagement: an extension and correction of Porter’s single diamond frame-work. Management International Review 33 (2), 71–84.

Page 12

1 Polic

R

R

S

S

S

S

S

S

SS

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

T

T

188 R. Garud et al. / Research

uttan, V.W., 1959. Usher and Schumpeter on invention, innovation, and techno-logical change. Quarterly Journal of Economics 73, 596–606.

uttan, V.W., Hayami, Y., 1984. Toward a theory of induced institutional innovation.Journal of Development Studies 20, 203–223.

arason, Y., Dean, T., Dillard, J.F., 2006. Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individualand opportunity: a structuration view. Journal of Business Venturing 21 (3),286–305.

arasvathy, S.D., 2001. Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift fromeconomic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Manage-ment Review 26 (2), 243.

axenian, A., 1996. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valleyand Route 128. Harvard University Press.

axenian, A., 1999. Comment on Kenney and von Burg “Technology,entrepreneurship and path dependence: industrial clustering in Sil-icon Valley and Route 128.”. Industrial and Corporate Change 8 (1),105–110.

chot, J., Hoogma, R., Elzen, B., 1994. Strategies for shifting technological systems:the case of the automobile system. Futures 26, 1060–1076.

chumpeter, J.A., 1939. Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and StatisticalAnalysis of the Capitalist Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.

chumpeter, J.A., 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Routledge, New York.hackle, G.L.S., 1974. Keynesian Kaleidics: The Evolution of a General Political Econ-

omy. Edinburgh University Press.hane, S.A., 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportuni-

ties. Organization Science 11 (4), 448–469.hane, S.A., 2012. Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: delivering on the

promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of ManagementReview 37, 10–20.

hane, S.A., Venkataraman, S., 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field ofresearch. Academy of Management Review 25, 217–226.

iegel, D.S., Waldman, D., Link, A., 2003. Assessing the impact of organizational prac-tices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: anexploratory study. Research Policy 32 (1), 27–48.

ørensen, J.B., 2007. Bureaucracy and entrepreneurship: workplace effectson entrepreneurial entry. Administrative Science Quarterly 52 (3),387–412.

tar, S.L., Griesemer, J.R., 1989. Institutional ecology, translations and boundaryobjects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zool-ogy, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science 19, 387–420.

treb, J., 2003. Shaping the national system of inter-industry knowledge exchange:vertical integration, licensing and repeated knowledge transfer in the Germanplastics industry. Research Policy 32 (6), 1125–1140.

uchman, M.C., Steward, D.J., Westfall, C.A., 2001. The legal environment ofentrepreneurship: observations on the legitimation of venture finance in Sil-icon Valley. In: Schoonhoven, C.B., Romanelli, E. (Eds.), The EntrepreneurshipDynamic: Origins of Entrepreneurship and the Evolution of Industries. StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 349–382.

aylor, J.R., Van Every, E.J., 2000. The Emergent Organization: Communication as itsSite and Surface. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

eece, D.J., 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications forintegration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15,285–305.

y 43 (2014) 1177–1188

Tether, B., Storey, D., 1998. Smaller firms and Europe’s high technology sectors: aframework for analysis and some statistical evidence. Research Policy 26 (9),947–971.

Thornton, P.H., 1999. The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual Reviews in Sociol-ogy 25, 19–46.

Tsoukas, H., 1989. The validity of idiographic research explanations. Academy ofManagement Review 14, 551–561.

Tsoukas, H., Hatch, M.J., 2001. Complex thinking, complex practice: the casefor a narrative approach to organizational complexity. Human Relations 54,979–1013.

Usher, A.P., 1954. A History of Mechanical Inventions. Harvard University Press,Cambridge.

Van de Ven, A.H., Garud, R., 1989. A framework for understanding the emergenceof new industries. In: Rosenbloom, R.S., Burgelman, R.A. (Eds.), Research onTechnological Innovation, Management and Policy. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp.195–225.

Van de Ven, A.H., Polley, D.E., Garud, R., Venkataraman, S., 1999. The InnovationJourney. Oxford University Press, New York.

Van Den Bosch, F.A.J., Van Prooijen, A.A., 1992. The competitive advantage of Euro-pean nations: the impact of national culture—a missing element in porter’sanalysis? European Management Journal 10 (2), 173–177.

van Lente, H., 2000. Forceful futures: from promise to requirement. In: Brown, N.,Rappert, B., Webster, A. (Eds.), Contested Futures: A Sociology of ProspectiveTechno-science. Ashgate, Burlington, pp. 43–64.

van Lente, H., Spitters, C., Peine, A., 2013. Comparing technological hype cycles:Towards a theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80 (8),1615–1628.

Venkataraman, S., Sarasvathy, S.D., Dew, N., Forster, W.R., 2013. Of narratives andartifacts. Academy of Management Review 38 (1), 163–166.

Vissa, B., Chacar, A.S., 2009. Leveraging ties: the contingent value of entrepreneurialteams’ external advice networks on Indian software venture performance.Strategic Management Journal 30 (11), 1179–1191.

von Tunzelmann, N., Malerba, F., Nightingale, P., Metcalfe, S., 2008. Technologicalparadigms: past, present and future. Industrial and Corporate Change 17 (3),467–484.

Weick, K.E., 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks.Wiseman, R., 2003. The Luck Factor: Changing Your Luck, Changing Your Life, the

Four Essential Principles. Miramax/Hyperion, New York.Wry, T., Lounsbury, M., Glynn, M.A., 2011. Legitimating nascent collective

identities: coordinating cultural entrepreneurship. Organization Science 22,449–463.

Yakura, E.K., 2002. Charting time: timelines as temporal boundary objects. Academyof Management Journal 45, 956–970.

Zahra, S.A., Wright, M., 2011. Entrepreneurship’s next act. Academy of ManagementPerspectives 25 (4), 67–83.

Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E., Hills, G.E., 2005. The mediating role of self-efficacy in thedevelopment of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology 90

(6), 1265–1272.

Zimmerman, M.A., Zeitz, G.J., 2002. Beyond survival: achieving new venture growthby building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review 27 (3), 414–431.

Zott, C., Huy, Q.N., 2007. How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquireresources. Administrative Science Quarterly 52, 70–105.