Two Advances in Cultural Entrepreneurship Research

Abstract

Cultural entrepreneurship research is on the rise, with a growing community of scholars paying attention to the cultural processes and outcomes involved in entrepreneurship, strategic innovation, and change. To further develop this community, in this volume we assemble a collection of contributions showcasing two promising advances. In section A, a first set of papers puts culture in cultural entrepreneurship by highlighting a multi-faceted view of culture and exposing new ways by which culture shapes and is shaped by entrepreneurial action. In section B, another set of papers takes cultural entrepreneurship beyond entrepreneurship-that is, the prevalent yet narrow focus on new venture legitimation and resource acquisition-by broadening the scope of what cultural entrepreneurship entails and explains. In this introductory paper, we discuss how contributions within each section move the conversation forward and identify cross-cutting themes that can be found in both sections of this volume.

Full text

Two Advances in Cultural Entrepreneurship Research
Christi Lockwood (University of Virginia)
Jean-François Soublière (HEC Montréal)
Abstract: Cultural entrepreneurship research is on the rise, with a growing
community of scholars paying attention to the cultural processes and outcomes
involved in entrepreneurship, strategic innovation, and change. To further
develop this community, in this volume we assemble a collection of
contributions showcasing two promising advances. In section A, a first set of
papers puts culture in cultural entrepreneurship by highlighting a multi-faceted
view of culture and exposing new ways by which culture shapes and is shaped
by entrepreneurial action. In section B, another set of papers takes cultural
entrepreneurship beyond entrepreneurship—that is, the prevalent yet narrow
focus on new venture legitimation and resource acquisition—by broadening the
scope of what cultural entrepreneurship entails and explains. In this introductory
paper, we discuss how contributions within each section move the conversation
forward and identify cross-cutting themes that can be found in both sections of
this volume.
Keywords: cultural entrepreneurship, culture, entrepreneurship, strategic
innovation, legitimacy, meaning-making
INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurship, strategic innovation, and organizational change are fundamentally cultural
undertakings. Although commercial and technological concerns clearly matter (Bower &
Christensen, 1995; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), research emphasizing such aspects tends to
either narrowly view actors as rational, self-interested maximizers (Lounsbury, Gehman, & Glynn,
2019), or to overlook the context in which entrepreneurial action takes place and its broader
potential for social, institutional and cultural change (Rindova, Barry, & Ketchen, 2009). In
contrast, a growing community of scholars emphasizes the centrality of cultural dynamics to
entrepreneurial processes and outcomes (for reviews, see David, Sine, & Kaehr Serra, 2017;

Gehman & Soublière, 2017; Jennings, Greenwood, Lounsbury, & Suddaby, 2013; Lounsbury,
Cornelissen, Granqvist, & Grodal, 2018; Lounsbury & Glynn, 2019; Fisher, 2020; Überbacher,
2014). United under the “cultural entrepreneurship” label, research in this vein has revealed how
entrepreneurial actors harness elements from their cultural milieu to curry the favor of valued
audiences and secure their support (Fisher, Kotha, & Lahiri, 2016; Martens, Jennings, & Jennings,
2007; Tracey, Dalpiaz, & Phillips, 2018; Zhao, Ishihara, & Lounsbury, 2013; Zott & Huy, 2007),
or undertake broader changes to foster a cultural environment supportive of their endeavors
(Grodal, 2018; Hedberg & Lounsbury, 2021; Khaire & Wadhwani, 2010; Navis & Glynn, 2010;
Rao, Monin, & Durand, 2003; Wry, Lounsbury, & Glynn, 2011).
To nurture and develop this community, this volume aims to expand the agenda of cultural
entrepreneurship research by celebrating (and advocating for) two promising advances. Section A
aims to squarely put culture in cultural entrepreneurship research. In their landmark paper,
Lounsbury and Glynn (2001) identified storytelling as a first mechanism by which actors could
mobilize culture to make their endeavors amenable to critical audiences, such as resource
providers. Although their argument implied a broader set of possible mechanisms, they remained
relatively silent on the other modes by which culture operates, and cultural entrepreneurship
research became closely associated with the act of telling stories (e.g., Garud, Schildt, & Lant,
2014; Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009). More recently, however, scholars have grown interested in
understanding additional manifestations of culture and modes of meaning-making, including
emotional resonance, materiality, and temporality. Scholars have also made strides towards
leveraging a plurality of methodological approaches, such as historical, set-theoretic, and
experimental studies, and novel data sources including images and objects, rituals, online
interactions, and big data. Recognizing that culture is a “code of many colors” (Jelinek, Smircich,

& Hirsch, 1983: 331; see also Giorgi, Lockwood, & Glynn, 2015), we have compiled conceptual
and methodological manuscripts that explore the multiple views on culture, and ways by which
culture shapes and is shaped by entrepreneurial action.
Section B seeks to take cultural entrepreneurship beyond entrepreneurship or its more
traditional outcomes. Although early research has made great strides toward enriching our
understanding of the cultural and meaning-making processes that pervade entrepreneurial action,
the “cultural entrepreneurship” label has been predominantly confined to—and sometimes equated
with—the study of new venture legitimation and resource acquisition (Gehman & Soublière, 2017;
Überbacher, 2014). Illustrating an appetite for broadening the scope of what cultural
entrepreneurship entails and can explain, more recent work has begun to apply a cultural lens to
entrepreneurial action in a wide variety of empirical settings, ranging from cool-climate
winemaking (Massa, Helms, Voronov, & Wang, 2017) to multi-centenary Japanese shinise
(Sasaki, Ravasi, & Micelotta, 2019) to the crowdfunding platform Kickstarter (Soublière &
Gehman, 2020). Scholars have also recently illuminated how entrepreneurial actors effect a swath
of meaningful outcomes, such as status attainment (Delmestri & Greenwood, 2016; Giorgi &
Weber, 2015), reputation (Deephouse, 2000; Rao, 1994), celebrity (Rindova, Pollock, & Hayward,
2006), and authenticity (Demetry, 2019; Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005). Thus, we bring together
theoretical and empirical investigations that move research in new directions, looking beyond
early-stage legitimation and toward additional outcomes of consequence.
This volume assembles 12 contributions from 23 leading and emerging scholars across the
globe. We have organized these contributions along the two sections comprising this volume,
which we used to both harness the diversity of perspectives and facilitate exchanges that promise
to advance cultural entrepreneurship research. As an epilogue, Glynn and Lounsbury (2022),

whose landmark ideas propelled this stream of research, reflect on the impact of their work and on
future directions that this volume opens. Below, we provide an overview of the individual
contributions within each section, and discuss cross-cutting themes that emerged in both sections.
SECTION A: PUTTING CULTURE IN CULTURAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
The first aim for this volume is to advocate for a more nuanced understanding of culture in
cultural entrepreneurship, while recognizing the variety of theoretical perspectives and research
traditions on the matter. The papers compiled in this section acknowledge but also look beyond
linguistic manifestations of culture; they account for a fuller cultural “repertoire” (e.g., Swidler,
1986, 2001) that entrepreneurial actors put to work, and for the range of means by which they
skillfully mobilize and enrich their repertoires. This section begins with two papers theorizing how
culture is emotionally and physically experienced, then proceeds with a qualitative study that
highlights the many ways by which culture enables organizations to construct and chart new
entrepreneurial possibilities, and concludes with two provocative essays aiming to expand our
understanding of culture and its effects.
Massa (2022) offers a conceptual paper that presents culture as an engine for both stability
and change. Accounting for this duality, Massa theorizes how cultural entrepreneurs may
simultaneously act as change-makers and culture-bearers, that is, as the advocates of new ways of
doing things as well as guardians of established meanings and practices. He investigates the
inherent tensions that actors face when they seek to promote new endeavors, while also
safeguarding endeavors from undesired external influences. He argues that identity and emotion
explain the “visceral commitment” that actors may develop for certain meanings and practices,
and considers the various strategies by which actors manage this tension. Rather than viewing

cultural “toolkits” as a set of resources that actors instrumentally deploy, Massa offers a more
humanistic take by considering how actors experience their culture and what it means to them.
In their conceptual paper, Clarke and Healey (2022) highlight the embodied dimensions of
culture by considering cultural entrepreneurs’ voice, focusing not on what actors say but on how
they say it. The authors consider how important yet understudied aspects, such as the tone, volume,
and rhythm of speech, also affect audiences’ assessments, especially in entrepreneurial pitch
settings. They zoom in on how the voice conveys gender and emotion, and how these signals tend
to be filtered through stereotypes and other cultural expectations. They cast voice as both a
malleable cultural resource and a limiting constraint that interacts with other resources to persuade
(or dissuade) audiences of the merits of entrepreneurial endeavors. Distilling the vast literature on
voice, which often takes a socio-psychological angle, Clarke and Healey sketch out a research
program tailored for cultural entrepreneurship scholars.
In a qualitative study, Hilkamo and Granqvist (2022) attend to the visual dimension of
culture, examining how actors use visual discourse as a resource for constructing meaning in the
emerging category of quantum computing. They show how cultural entrepreneurs use analogies
and metaphors, both linguistically and visually, to convey highly technical and complex ideas to a
generalist audience. Hilkamo and Granqvist show how the multi-modality of culture enables actors
to convey the future potential of a complex and poorly understood emergent technological
category. Counterintuitively, they reveal how these efforts not only naturalize but also “mystify”
quantum computing, enabling cultural entrepreneurs to gain acceptance and arouse curiosity and
wonder among audiences while also preserving their power as the technical authority in their
domain.

Returning to early work on culture, and particularly its linguistic foundations, Hjorth (2022)
turns the lens on researchers, critiquing our quest for cumulative knowledge-building and
highlighting instead the merits of heterogeneity and incompleteness. Advocating for more cultural
studies of cultural entrepreneurship, Hjorth encourages scholars to do greater justice to the rich
and varied contexts in which entrepreneurial action is embedded. Advocating for more
entrepreneurial studies, Hjorth encourages scholars to emulate entrepreneurs in their theorizing,
and to challenge established conventions. He asks, if cultural entrepreneurship scholars recognize
that culture is rich and varied, shouldn’t these variations also be found in their ideas and concepts?
Finally, in their essay, Gehman and Wry (2022) unpack the potential “dark sides” of cultural
entrepreneurship by drawing on many colorful illustrations. The authors examine how
organizations, as they carve out space for their innovations and new products, may create false
promises or enable harmful practices. In turn, such false promises and harmful practices may have
pernicious effects on the organization and its direct stakeholders, or indirectly spill over to others.
The authors open new avenues for future research by linking work on cultural entrepreneurship
with work on corruption and wrongdoing and on authenticity. Their paper offers a provocative
counterpoint to scholarship that tends to emphasize its merits and positive outcomes.
In sum, the papers in Section A of this volume put culture at the forefront of cultural
entrepreneurship research by considering the multi-faceted nature of culture—i.e., the material,
visual, physical, emotional, and temporal, as well as linguistic modes of meaning-making—and
by taking seriously the idea that culture both shapes and results from entrepreneurial action
(Gehman & Soublière, 2017; Lounsbury & Glynn, 2019). They highlight how entrepreneurs,
broadly defined, must (and do) become “skilled cultural operators” (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001:
549) to realize desired outcomes, whether they aim for commercial success, challenge the status

quo, or seek to safeguard meaningful practices. Thus, the papers in Section A also anticipate some
of the themes reflected in Section B, discussed next, in which authors look beyond
entrepreneurship to expand the scope of what cultural entrepreneurship explains.
SECTION B: CULTURAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP BEYOND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
The second aim for this volume is to take cultural entrepreneurship beyond a relatively
narrow focus on acts of entrepreneurship per se. The authors we convened in this section consider
how cultural entrepreneurship extends past organizational nascence to play a role in other phases
of evolution, in contexts outside of the traditional entrepreneurial realm, and in the service of novel
outcomes. This section begins with two empirical studies taking place in unconventional settings
and showcasing the recursive relationship between individual market outcomes and broader
cultural dynamics. The section proceeds with two conceptual papers that highlight the collective
dimension of cultural entrepreneurship and that the success (and failure) of any new idea or product
should be considered in relation to what others are doing. It concludes with two other conceptual
papers that each advances a new construct and expands our methodological toolset.
In their qualitative study of a cultural revival, Bacco and Dalpiaz (2022) show how
commercial success is closely intertwined with the realization of community-level outcomes. The
authors investigate how The Merchant of Venice, a new venture founded in 2012, leveraged the
long-forgotten Venetian perfume-making tradition of the 16th-18th centuries to create new
entrepreneurial opportunities. The authors show how the extinct tradition of perfume-making was
revived and used in new product development, tying those products to a collective identification
with a shared past and to a potent sense of place and community pride that favorably positioned
the new venture to audiences. This also enhanced place identity in Venice and created positive
value for the city, where those traditions were initially developed.

Carlos and Hiatt (2022) consider how “cultural holes,” that is, the space between institutional
fields, enable the discovery and adoption of alternative values, practices, and understandings,
which may then fuel entrepreneurial action. They highlight how cultural entrepreneurship is
concerned not only with gaining audience acceptance and support, but also with adhering to, and
sometimes challenging, professional and geographical norms. Using an empirical study of
physician entrepreneurship in establishing ambulatory surgery centers—i.e., freestanding centers
owned and operated by physicians that offer outpatient surgeries independent of a hospital—the
authors offer evidence that cultural holes shape doctors’ propensities to become entrepreneurs.
Their findings help to shed light on why, in some cases, entrepreneurial opportunities with
considerable financial promise may fail to gain acceptance among entrepreneurs themselves and
ultimately may be left on the table.
In a conceptual paper, Lo and Rhee (2022) focus on the “boom and bust” trajectory of many
innovations and nascent industries and consider some of the unintended consequences of cultural
entrepreneurship on market emergence. They theorize how entrepreneurial framing activities that
can initially help to legitimate an innovation, attracting a diverse set of stakeholders with high
expectations of a new venture, can later inhibit further market development by making it
challenging to maintain resonance with them. The dynamic conceptual framework the authors
advance directs attention to some of the downsides of cultural entrepreneurship processes and
challenges a view of legitimation as a positive and stable outcome of such efforts.
In another conceptual paper, Verhaal and Pontikes (2022) consider how cultural
entrepreneurship enables wide-reaching market transformation, whereby novel cultural schemas
become the default in market categories. The authors theorize how market actors not only adopt a
position within an established market category but also contribute to shaping the category they

enter to their own advantage. By drawing new links between work on optimal distinctiveness and
category strategy, Verhaal and Pontikes offer insights into how cultural entrepreneurs
simultaneously fit in their category and stand out from other category members, and, in so doing,
shape the underlying meaning of the classification system in which they are embedded.
Durand and Gouvard (2022) link cultural entrepreneurship with purposefulness, that is, the
extent to which an audience perceives a firm as addressing issues that are both important and
impactful. The authors propose that perceptions of positive purposefulness increase audiences’
likelihood of devoting resources to support the firm, implying how cultural entrepreneurship
processes can influence such perceptions, and not just those related to legitimacy, and they offer
methodological suggestions for further inquiry to this end. In so doing, the authors lay the
groundwork for examining additional outcomes of cultural entrepreneurship and for linking work
in this vein with research on topics such as corporate social responsibility, meaningful work,
stakeholder theory, and more.
Hannigan, Pak, and Jennings (2022) round out Section B with a methodologically oriented
paper that supports a view of entrepreneurship that extends beyond new venture creation to
encompass the creation of a range of opportunities and possibilities. The authors advance a
“cultural cartographic” approach to identifying and following lines of possibility that entrepreneurs
pursue in real time. Their approach relies on rendering map-like artifacts which make visible the
cultural world and the possible courses of action one might follow, revealing several field events
that could evolve from a single entrepreneurial moment. In this way, Hannigan, Pak and Jennings’
approach accounts for the multiplicity of possible outcomes that cultural entrepreneurship enables,
and equips researchers to examine their trajectory and impact.

In sum, the papers in Section B of this volume all look beyond entrepreneurship strictly
defined and offer an expanded view of the ends and processes that cultural entrepreneurship entails
and explains. They emphasize how, by accounting for the cultural dynamics of entrepreneurial
action, scholars are well-positioned to offer a unique perspective on established topics of interest
in management research, such market emergence, collective identity, legitimacy, and optimal
distinctiveness, and to explore fresh constructs, such as market transformation, place identity,
purposefulness, and entrepreneurial possibilities. Taken together with the papers put forth in
Section A, the contributions comprising this volume offer a considerably expanded view of what
cultural entrepreneurship encompasses and contributes to. Notably, the papers in both sections are
marked by several common themes and areas of interest that suggest promising avenues for future
development, which we discuss next.
EMERGENT THEMES AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Looking across the papers comprising this volume, we identified four notable themes that
transcended our two goals of nurturing an expanded view of culture and entrepreneurship in
cultural entrepreneurship research. In their concluding remarks, Glynn and Lounsbury (2022) also
identify trends of their own and offer some reflections for future research, which we briefly
summarize below. All of these themes speak to additional emergent and promising areas of
interest, which we believe will invigorate conversations among cultural entrepreneurship scholars.
First, several papers consider the importance of temporality as well as the role of imagination
in interpreting the past and envisioning (and shaping) the future. Hilkamo and Granqvist (2022)
touch on the role of imagination and temporality in their study of the emergence of quantum
computing, highlighting how visual metaphors and analogies can help audiences imagine
otherwise unintelligible concepts and may alter the trajectory of computing and scientific inquiry

more broadly. Adopting a somewhat different lens on similar issues, Bacco and Dalpiaz (2022)
show how cultural entrepreneurship revives and reimagines elements of the past, tying new
products to a sense of history and place that elevates their cultural significance. Finally, Hjorth
(2022) looks both backward and forward in time to first situate current cultural entrepreneurship
research vis-à-vis Geertz (1973) and Greenblatt (1997), and then argue for a more cultural study
of entrepreneurship and a more entrepreneurial theorizing of such efforts. Taken together, these
papers illustrate the growing interest in issues of time and history in strategy and entrepreneurship
research (e.g., Greve & Rao, 2014; Hatch & Schultz, 2017), and point to the promise of viewing
time and history not only as means for charting unfolding events, but as rich cultural resources,
too (e.g., Dalpiaz, Rindova, & Ravasi, 2016; Reinecke & Ansari, 2015).
A second theme relates to the role of emotion in cultural entrepreneurship. Massa (2022)
points out how emotions, such as passion, greed, and pride, enable cultural entrepreneurs to pursue
new venture legitimation as well as cultural preservation. Attending to audiences, Bacco and
Dalpiaz (2022) similarly observe the role of emotional experience in motivating the revival and
enactment of extinct traditions. While they primarily emphasize cognitive processes, Durand and
Gouvard (2022) also allude to the role of emotion in linking cultural entrepreneurship and
purposefulness. They observe how audiences’ differential reactions to negative and positive firm
purposefulness can motivate active engagement or resistance, rather than just rendering passive
acceptance. Finally, Clarke and Healey (2022) touch on the theme of emotion but take a somewhat
different approach. They consider how the emotions conveyed in spoken entrepreneurial pitches,
such as passion, joy, or trepidation, may profoundly affect the cognition of listeners and guide
investment decisions and engagement with an entrepreneur. These papers highlight the promise of
systematically examining the manners in which emotions pervade processes of cultural

entrepreneurship to motivate (or deter) entrepreneurs and their audiences, and considering how
emotion may serve as a useful (or harmful) cultural resource.
Moreover, the papers in this volume evidence an interest in the “dark side” of cultural
entrepreneurship, looking beyond positive outcomes such as new venture legitimation and
resource acquisition to consider negative outcomes, whether they are intended or not. Gehman and
Wry (2022) make this focus explicit in their paper, as they consider how organizations’ attempts
to carve a space for their new ideas and products may have damaging effects on their stakeholders
or on other market players. Interestingly, the authors link these effects with concerns for
authenticity, rather than just legitimacy, suggesting that a focus on cultural entrepreneurship’s dark
sides may also pave the way for consideration of novel outcomes. Others, such as stigma, status,
and celebrity (or infamy) also come to mind as relevant and warranting scholarly attention. Lo and
Rhee (2022) also address the dark side of cultural entrepreneurship in their conceptual paper,
highlighting how early efforts to gain legitimacy and rally support can ultimately hamper the
emergence of nascent industries. Highlighting the role of motivational and relational framing in
these outcomes, the authors forge connections with scholarship on emotion, tying together two
emergent themes from this volume. Thus, it appears that consideration for the dark sides of cultural
entrepreneurship may also open numerous related avenues for future research, including the
examination of new mechanisms and outcomes.
Finally, many of the contributors to this volume are concerned with the cross-level dynamics
at play in processes of cultural entrepreneurship. This is reflected in several scholars’ implicit
recognition of the “twice-born” nature of culture (DiMaggio, 1997; Shore, 1991), whereby culture
serves as both an individual toolkit and an external framework (see, for instance, Massa, 2022).
Carlos and Hiatt (2022) engage with such ideas centrally as they consider how cultural holes shape

entrepreneurial entry choices, pointing out how entrepreneurs’ decisions to pursue an opportunity
are shaped mightily by their cultural context. Hannigan, Pak and Jennings (2022) unpack the
cultural embeddedness of the “entrepreneurial moment,” and advance new methodological tools
for identifying and mapping the range of possibilities that cultural entrepreneurship can open up
at any given point in time. Many contributors also view cultural entrepreneurship as a
simultaneously individual and collective endeavor (e.g., Bacco & Dalpiaz, 2022; Lo & Rhee,
2022). This is reflected perhaps most strongly in Verhaal and Pontikes’ (2022) articulation of
organizations’ concurrent contributions to both firm-level optimal distinctiveness and category-
level strategy. Thus, the papers in this volume pave the way for future research that considers the
multiple dualities that cultural entrepreneurship entails, as culture enables and constrains
entrepreneurial action, which unfolds individually and collectively, and may result in positive and
negative outcomes.
In their concluding remarks, Glynn and Lounsbury (2022) relay the origin story of their
seminal article (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001), which ambitiously set out to synthesize and foster
overlaps between the literatures on “culture” and “entrepreneurship.” Noting how their original
ideas had to be scaled back in their 2001 article, they observe how subsequent work has expanded
on their original conceptualization, “giving more flesh to the bones on culture” (Glynn &
Lounsbury, 2022: 243). Looking ahead, Glynn and Lounsbury highlight the promise in putting an
even stronger emphasis on culture and its multi-modal instantiations, on the many ways culture is
put to work and enables different possibilities to emerge, and on expanding the scope of cultural
entrepreneurship research to examine all aspects of socio-economic life.

CONCLUSION
Since Lounsbury and Glynn’s (2001) landmark paper on cultural entrepreneurship, interest
and research on the topic has flourished. Two decades later, a diverse community of scholars has
paid attention to the cultural dynamics that pervade entrepreneurship, strategic innovation, change,
and other cultural undertakings. In many ways, this diversity is productive: cultural
entrepreneurship provides a “big-tent” area of research that furnishes multiple points of entry to
scholars from a range of backgrounds and traditions, and that enables inquiry from a variety of
perspectives. At the same time, we see a need to more clearly establish how this community may
grow together and foster cumulative development.
This volume represents an effort at community building, one focused on deepening
understanding of culture in cultural entrepreneurship research, as well as broadening the scope of
our collective research agenda. We thank each and all of the authors that contributed to the volume
and whose ideas will undoubtedly serve as a springboard and inspiration for future scholarship on
cultural entrepreneurship. We hope that this volume encourages research in fruitful new directions,
and that our growing community of scholars will continue to thrive well into the future.
REFERENCES
Bacco, F., & Dalpiaz, E. 2022. The Perfume of Traditions: Cultural Entrepreneurship and the
Resurrection of Extinct Societal Traditions. In C. Lockwood & J.-F. Soublière (Eds.), Advances
in Cultural Entrepreneurship, vol. 80: 113–136. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. 1995. Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave. Harvard
Business Review, 73(1): 43–53.
Carlos, W. C., & Hiatt, S. R. 2022. From Surgeries to Startups: The Impact of Cultural Holes on
Entrepreneurship in the Medical Profession. In C. Lockwood & J.-F. Soublière (Eds.),
Advances in Cultural Entrepreneurship, vol. 80: 137–156. Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Clarke, J., & Healey, M. 2022. Giving Voice to Persuasion: Embodiment, The Voice and Cultural
Entrepreneurship. In C. Lockwood & J.-F. Soublière (Eds.), Advances in Cultural
Entrepreneurship, vol. 80: 37–55. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Dalpiaz, E., Rindova, V. P., & Ravasi, D. 2016. Combining Logics to Transform Organizational
Agency Blending Industry and Art at Alessi. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3): 347–
392.
David, R. J., Sine, W. D., & Kaehr Serra, C. N. 2017. Institutional Theory and Entrepreneurship:
Taking Stock and Moving Forward. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. E.
Meyer (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (2nd ed.): 671–688.
SAGE.
Deephouse, D. L. 2000. Media Reputation as a Strategic Resource: An Integration of Mass
Communication and Resource-Based Theories. Journal of Management, 26(6): 1091–1112.
Delmestri, G., & Greenwood, R. 2016. How Cinderella Became a Queen: Theorizing Radical
Status Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(4): 507–550.
Demetry, D. 2019. How Organizations Claim Authenticity: The Coproduction of Illusions in
Underground Restaurants. Organization Science, 30(5): 869–1123.
DiMaggio, P. J. 1997. Culture and Cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1): 263–287.
Durand, R., & Gouvard, P. 2022. An Audience-Based Theory of Firms’ Purposefulness. In C.
Lockwood & J.-F. Soublière (Eds.), Advances in Cultural Entrepreneurship, vol. 80: 193–
216. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Fisher, G. 2020. The Complexities of New Venture Legitimacy. Organization Theory, 1(2): 1–
25.
Fisher, G., Kotha, S., & Lahiri, A. 2016. Changing with the Times: An Integrated View of Identity,
Legitimacy and New Venture Life Cycles. Academy of Management Review, 41(3): 383–409.
Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. K. 2014. Entrepreneurial Storytelling, Future Expectations,
and the Paradox of Legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(5): 1479–1492.
Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gehman, J., & Soublière, J.-F. 2017. Cultural entrepreneurship: From making culture to cultural
making. Innovation: Organization & Management, 19(1): 61–73.
Gehman, J., & Wry, T. 2022. Cultural Entrepreneurship: Theorizing the Dark Sides. In C.
Lockwood & J.-F. Soublière (Eds.), Advances in Cultural Entrepreneurship, vol. 80: 97–110.
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Giorgi, S., Lockwood, C., & Glynn, M. A. 2015. The Many Faces of Culture: Making Sense of 30
Years of Research on Culture in Organization Studies. The Academy of Management Annals,
9(1): 1–54.
Giorgi, S., & Weber, K. 2015. Marks of Distinction: Framing and Audience Appreciation in the
Context of Investment Advice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2): 333–367.
Glynn, M. A., & Lounsbury, M. 2005. From the Critics’ Corner: Logic Blending, Discursive
Change and Authenticity in a Cultural Production System. Journal of Management Studies,
42(5): 1031–1055.
Glynn, M. A., & Lounsbury, M. 2022. Two Decades of The Theory of Cultural Entrepreneurship:
Recollection, Elaboration and Reflection. In C. Lockwood & J.-F. Soublière (Eds.), Advances
in Cultural Entrepreneurship, vol. 80: 241–251. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Greenblatt, S. 1997. The Touch of the Real. Representations, 59 (Summer): 14–29.
Greve, H. R., & Rao, H. 2014. History and the present: Institutional legacies in communities of
organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34: 27–41.
Grodal, S. 2018. Field Expansion and Contraction: How Communities Shape Social and Symbolic
Boundaries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(4): 783–818.

Hannigan, T. R., Pak, Y., & Jennings, P. D. 2022. Mapping the Multiverse: A Cultural
Cartographic Approach to Realizing Entrepreneurial Possibilities. In C. Lockwood & J.-F.
Soublière (Eds.), Advances in Cultural Entrepreneurship, vol. 80: 217–237. Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. 2017. Toward a Theory of Using History Authentically: Historicizing
in the Carlsberg Group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(4): 657–697.
Hedberg, L. M., & Lounsbury, M. 2021. Not Just Small Potatoes: Cultural Entrepreneurship in the
Moralizing of Markets. Organization Science, 32(2): 433–454.
Hilkamo, O., & Granqvist, N. 2022. Giving Sense to de novo Market Categories: Analogies and
Metaphors in the Early Emergence of Quantum Computing. In C. Lockwood & J.-F. Soublière
(Eds.), Advances in Cultural Entrepreneurship. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Hjorth, D. 2022. Towards a More Cultural Understanding of Entrepreneurship. In C. Lockwood
& J.-F. Soublière (Eds.), Advances in Cultural Entrepreneurship, vol. 80: 81–96. Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Jelinek, M., Smircich, L., & Hirsch, P. 1983. Introduction: A Code of Many Colors.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3): 331–338.
Jennings, P. D., Greenwood, R., Lounsbury, M. D., & Suddaby, R. 2013. Institutions,
entrepreneurs, and communities: A special issue on entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 28(1): 1–9.
Khaire, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. 2010. Changing Landscapes: The Construction of Meaning and
Value in a New Market Category—Modern Indian Art. Academy of Management Journal,
53(6): 1281–1304.
Lo, J. Y., & Rhee, E. Y. 2022. Too Much, Too Soon: A Framework for Understanding Unintended
Consequences of Cultural Entrepreneurship on Market Emergence. In C. Lockwood & J.-F.
Soublière (Eds.), Advances in Cultural Entrepreneurship, vol. 80: 157–178. Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Lounsbury, M., Cornelissen, J., Granqvist, N., & Grodal, S. 2018. Culture, innovation and
entrepreneurship. Innovation, 0(0): 1–12.
Lounsbury, M., Gehman, J., & Glynn, M. A. 2019. Beyond Homo Entrepreneurus: Judgment and
the Theory of Cultural Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 56(6): 1214–1236.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. 2001. Cultural Entrepreneurship: Stories, Legitimacy, and the
Acquisition of Resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7): 545–564.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. 2019. Cultural Entrepreneurship: A New Agenda for the Study
of Entrepreneurial Processes and Possibilities (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Martens, M. L., Jennings, J. E., & Jennings, P. D. 2007. Do the Stories They Tell Get Them the
Money They Need? The Role of Entrepreneurial Narratives in Resource Acquisition. Academy
of Management Journal, 50(5): 1107–1132.
Massa, F. G. 2022. Change-Maker and Culture-Bearer: Entrepreneurs as Evangelists and
Shepherds of Culture. In C. Lockwood & J.-F. Soublière (Eds.), Advances in Cultural
Entrepreneurship, vol. 80: 17–35. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Massa, F. G., Helms, W., Voronov, M., & Wang, L. 2017. Emotions Uncorked: Inspiring
Evangelism for the Emerging Practice of Cool Climate Winemaking in Ontario. Academy of
Management Journal, 60(2): 461–499.
Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. 2010. How New Market Categories Emerge: Temporal Dynamics of
Legitimacy, Identity, and Entrepreneurship in Satellite Radio, 1990–2005. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 55(3): 439–471.

Rao, H. 1994. The Social Construction of Reputation: Certification Contests, Legitimation, and
the Survival of Organizations in the American Automobile Industry: 1895–1912. Strategic
Management Journal, 15(S1): 29–44.
Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. 2003. Institutional Change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle Cuisine as
an Identity Movement in French Gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology, 108(4): 795–
843.
Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. 2015. When Times Collide: Temporal Brokerage at the Intersection of
Markets and Developments. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2): 618–648.
Rindova, V. P., Barry, D., & Ketchen, D. J. 2009. Entrepreneuring as Emancipation. Academy of
Management Review, 34(3): 477–491.
Rindova, V. P., Pollock, T. G., & Hayward, M. L. A. 2006. Celebrity Firms: The Social
Construction of Market Popularity. The Academy of Management Review, 31(1): 50–71.
Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2009. Constructing Markets and Shaping Boundaries:
Entrepreneurial Power in Nascent Fields. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(4): 643–
671.
Sasaki, I., Ravasi, D., & Micelotta, E. 2019. Family Firms as Institutions: Cultural reproduction
and status maintenance among multi-centenary shinise in Kyoto. Organization Studies, 40(6):
793–831.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. 2000. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research.
Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 217–226.
Shore, B. 1991. Twice-Born, Once Conceived: Meaning Construction and Cultural Cognition.
American Anthropologist, 93(1): 9–27.
Soublière, J.-F., & Gehman, J. 2020. The Legitimacy Threshold Revisited: How Prior Successes
and Failures Spill Over to Other Endeavors on Kickstarter. Academy of Management Journal,
63(2): 472–502.
Swidler, A. 1986. Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies. American Sociological Review,
51(2): 273–286.
Swidler, A. 2001. Talk of Love: How Culture Matters. University of Chicago Press.
Tracey, P., Dalpiaz, E., & Phillips, N. 2018. Fish out of Water: Translation, Legitimation, and New
Venture Creation. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5): 1627–1666.
Überbacher, F. 2014. Legitimation of New Ventures: A Review and Research Programme.
Journal of Management Studies, 51(4): 667–698.
Verhaal, J. C., & Pontikes, E. G. 2022. Shaping Cultural Meanings in Markets with Category
Strategy and Optimal Distinctiveness: An Agency-Based Perspective. In C. Lockwood & J.-F.
Soublière (Eds.), Advances in Cultural Entrepreneurship, vol. 80: 179–191. Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Wry, T., Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. 2011. Legitimating Nascent Collective Identities:
Coordinating Cultural Entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22(2): 449–463.
Zhao, E. Y., Ishihara, M., & Lounsbury, M. 2013. Overcoming the Illegitimacy Discount: Cultural
Entrepreneurship in the US Feature Film Industry. Organization Studies, 34(12): 1747–1776.
Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. 2007. How Entrepreneurs Use Symbolic Management to Acquire
Resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 70–105.