Entrepreneurial Framing: A Literature Review and Future Research Directions

Abstract

There is increasing recognition among scholars that entrepreneurs use framing to legitimize their ventures and the broader fields within which they operate. Yet, there is no unifying framework to bring together existing theoretical perspectives on entrepreneurial framing and to make sense of their underlying mechanisms. Based on an integrative review of prior studies, we propose a conceptual framework for organizing this important literature. Our review also suggests directions for future research on entrepreneurial framing.

Full text

ENTREPRENEURIAL FRAMING: A LITERATURE REVIEW AND FUTURE
RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Yuliya Snihur
Toulouse Business School, University of Toulouse
1, Place Jourdain
31068 Toulouse, France
E-mail: y.snihur@tbs-education.fr
Llewellyn D W Thomas
IESE Business School
08034 Barcelona
Spain
e-mail: lthomas@iese.edu
Raghu Garud
Pennsylvania State University
Smeal College of Business
University Park, PA 16802, USA
E-mail: rug14@psu.edu
Nelson Phillips
Imperial College Business Scool
South Kensington Campus
London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom
E-mail: n.phillips@imperial.ac.uk

1
ENTREPRENEURIAL FRAMING: A LITERATURE REVIEW AND FUTURE
RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Abstract
There is increasing recognition among scholars that entrepreneurs use framing
to legitimize their ventures and the broader fields within which they operate.
Yet, there is no unifying framework to bring together existing theoretical
perspectives on entrepreneurial framing and to make sense of their underlying
mechanisms. Based on an integrative review of prior studies, we propose a
conceptual framework for organizing this important literature. Our review also
suggests directions for future research on entrepreneurial framing.

2
“A notable example of framing is Intel’s Moore’s Law with regard to
advances in semiconductors. This roadmap was as much a shared human
vision as a law of physics. Framed to define both core issues and characteristic
solutions, […] serving the interests of both Intel and the business partners who
came to believe in it.” (Hung & Whittington, 2011, p. 528)
There is growing interest in understanding how entrepreneurs use framing to
legitimize their venture and the organizational field—the “recognized area of institutional life:
key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations
that produce similar services and products” (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, pp. 64–65)—within
which their entrepreneurial action unfolds (Clarke, Cornelissen, & Healey, 2019; Khaire,
2014; York, Hargrave, & Pacheco, 2016). Framing—“the use of rhetorical devices in
communication to mobilize support and minimize resistance” (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014,
p. 185)—is used by entrepreneurs to construct meaning around novel endeavors in an effort to
influence audience engagement by focusing attention on selected salient features of their
venture. Framing is particularly relevant for entrepreneurs seeking to shape the meaning of
their novel and impactful solutions for individuals, organizations, and broader society. For
example, entrepreneurial framing played a key role in the emergence of pay TV (Gurses &
Ozcan, 2015), satellite radio (Navis & Glynn, 2010), cloud software (Snihur, Thomas, &
Burgelman, 2018a) and sharing platforms (Garud, Kumaraswamy, Roberts, & Xu, 2020) by
engaging key audiences and overcoming regulatory resistance.
However, while several disciplines, including entrepreneurship, sociology, and
organization theory, have begun to shed light on entrepreneurial framing, there is no unifying
framework to help researchers coordinate and build upon existing efforts. The diversity of
theoretical approaches, methodologies, and research questions addressed adds richness but
also risks fragmentation. Given the growing recognition of entrepreneurial framing as a
domain of research in entrepreneurship, we believe there are opportunities to generate deeper

3
insights on entrepreneurial framing by taking stock of what we know and moving forward
with a focused research agenda.
To provide an up-to-date synthesis, we systematically reviewed the entrepreneurial
framing literature to examine how scholars have studied framing efforts by entrepreneurs. We
searched the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science Social Science Index for
all the papers that mentioned both “entrepreneur” and “framing” in their titles, abstracts, or
keywords. To ensure comprehensiveness, we also examined related research on
entrepreneurial storytelling, narratives, and symbolic action, and selected those papers that
substantively examined framing. We analyzed the papers to derive an integrative framework
that connects entrepreneurial framing with two main outcomes—legitimation of the venture
and legitimation of the field in which entrepreneurial actions unfold—and that underscores
the complicated and performative nature of framing.
We contribute to the literature on entrepreneurship in several ways. First, we identify
and integrate the relationships and links between framing and entrepreneurship, including a
classification of various framing content and processes and their outcomes. This synthesis
provides an inclusive view of the literature by integrating the different levels of analyses
across which audiences are involved in entrepreneurial framing. Second, we highlight
unexamined bridges and interplays between existing conversations, including a common
focus on distinctiveness, coherence, and resonance mechanisms across different studies and
theoretical approaches. Third, we build on our review to chart a course for future research on
the complications and performativity of entrepreneurial framing. In sum, our review not only
consolidates existing work in this area, but also provides scholars with directions in which to
take new research.

4
Entrepreneurial Framing
Framing is “the use of rhetorical devices in communication to mobilize support and
minimize resistance” (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014, p. 185).
1
Entrepreneurial framing can be
undertaken by an entrepreneur and their team,
2
or it can be a collective undertaking with
several entrepreneurs acting jointly across different ventures. Entrepreneurs use framing to
construct meaning around their novel endeavors and influence audience engagement by
focusing attention on selected salient features of their venture. For example, entrepreneurs can
draw attention to the distinctiveness of their offerings (McKnight & Zietsma, 2018), the
market leadership position of their venture (Snihur et al., 2018a), or the environmentally
friendly practices their ventures embrace (Weber, Heinze, & DeSoucey, 2008).
As part of their framing efforts, entrepreneurs leverage cultural resources to make “the
unfamiliar familiar by framing the new venture in terms that are understandable and
legitimate” (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001, p. 549; see also Rao, 1998).
3
Cultural resources are
useful to entrepreneurs when their ventures confront legitimacy challenges due to novelty
(Giorgi, Lockwood, & Glynn, 2015; Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001; Überbacher, 2014). Thus,
entrepreneurial frames typically originate within cultures; culture provides a treasure-trove of
resources for entrepreneurs to develop meaning and explain their actions to gain material
support, social acceptability, and credibility for their ventures and the field in which their
entrepreneurial actions unfold (Dalpiaz & Cavotta, 2019; Gehman & Soubliere, 2017;
Lounsbury & Glynn, 2019; Rao, 1998; Überbacher, Jacobs, & Cornelissen, 2015).
1
See Cornelissen and Werner (2014) for a broader discussion of the origins and use of framing across social
sciences, including sociology and social and cognitive psychology; and see Chong and Druckman (2007) for the
use of framing in political science.
2
In this review, we use the term “entrepreneurs” to cover both.
3
Entrepreneurial framing has been also studied from institutional and social movement perspectives, as detailed
below.

5
Storytelling is a key mechanism that entrepreneurs deploy to leverage cultural
resources. Storytelling involves a plot with “three time-based structural components—
beginning, middle, and end—with transitions and event sequences propelled by plot lines and
twists and shaped by defining characters” (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001, p. 549).
4
As part of
storytelling, entrepreneurs use a variety of rhetorical devices such as frames and symbols
(“something that stands for or suggests something else”, see Zott & Huy, 2007, p. 72).
However, frames can also be used as rhetorical devices independent of stories to mobilize
support and minimize resistance, such as when entrepreneurs use carefully selected frames in
press releases or company descriptions (e.g., Hiatt & Carlos, 2019; Snihur et al., 2018a).
Similarly, symbols can be part of a frame (Fisher, Kotha, & Lahiri, 2016), although this is not
always the case. Consequently, we include in our review research from storytelling,
narratives, and symbols that is pertinent to entrepreneurial framing.
A related literature on brands and brand positioning in marketing has some similarity
to entrepreneurial framing, but there are important differences. Both brand positioning and
framing draw attention to selectively constructed communications that differentiate an
organization and its offerings from competitors (Park, Jaworski, & MacInnis, 1986; Sujan &
Bettman, 1989). Yet entrepreneurial framing is different from branding. The objective of
branding is to reach out to and interact with audiences about a venture’s goods and services,
whereas the objective of framing is to mobilize support and minimize audience resistance for
the entire venture and its business model by explaining “who we are and what we do.”
5
For
example, when launching Amazon as a brand, Jeff Bezos simultaneously used a variety of
4
Narratives, or “temporal, discursive constructions that provide meaning” (Vaara et al., 2016, p. 496) are often
used interchangeably with stories (e.g., Martens et al., 2007). However, others have differentiated them as
separate components that can be articulated in fragments rather than told in full, like a story (see Vaara et al.,
2016, for a review). Similar to stories, frames can be used as parts of narratives, but frames can also be used
independently from narratives.
5
We thank Charlene Zietsma and Timo Mandler for their insights here.

6
frames such as “Earth’s biggest bookstore” and “the world’s most customer centric company”
during Amazon’s early years (Beunza & Garud, 2007; Thomas & Snihur, 2020).
Thus, entrepreneurial framing is more dynamic, fluid, contextual, and interactive
6
than
brand positioning in terms of content and communication goals. Brand positioning clarifies
the features and benefits of goods or services for consumers,
7
and the success of brand
positioning is usually evaluated through consumer purchasing intentions, real choices, and
brand loyalty (e.g. Paharia, Keinan, Avery, & Schor, 2011); in contrast, the success of
entrepreneurial framing is evaluated through the resonance of the frames with audiences
embedded in particular cultural contexts (Giorgi et al., 2015). Furthermore, while a brand
calls for a long-term investment to build “customer-based brand equity” (Keller, 1993, p. 17),
frames are typically used to meet short-term audience-specific needs, such as fundraising,
sales pitches, or project kickoffs, and can therefore change and evolve more often. Given
these differences and because of the focus of this paper on entrepreneurial framing, we have
not drawn on the literature on brands or brand positioning. In a future endeavor, it may be
useful to draw on articles, reviews, and related empirical work on branding (e.g. Fuchs &
Diamantopoulos, 2010; Keller, 1993; Keller & Lehmann, 2006) for potential cross-
fertilization.
Method and Scope of Review
We cast a wide net to identify research on framing by entrepreneurs as a basis for our
systematic review (Rauch, 2019). We undertook a keyword search in the ISI Web of Science
Social Science Index as it is generally considered the most comprehensive database for
scholarly work and includes many thousands of journals. Although not all journals are
included, ISI typically includes the most prominent journals from each discipline. We
6
We thank our editor, Jim Chrisman, for his insightful suggestions.
7
Note for instance that “what customers think and feel about the brand” is central to Keller and Lehmann’s
(2006) review of brands and branding (Figure 1, p. 753).

7
searched for entrepreneur* AND fram* in article titles, abstracts, or keywords, resulting in
4,312 journal articles published by the end of 2019.
8
We then excluded articles that were not relevant to our review. We first filtered for
duplicates (n = 3). Then, to ensure that only literature in the management discipline remained,
given the large number of articles, we considered journals listed by the Academic Journal
Quality Guide 2018 of the Association of Business Schools (n = 1,170 journals), reducing the
number to 2,903 articles. The Academic Journal Quality Guide provides a guide to the range,
subject matter, and relative quality of the journals in which business and management
academics publish.
9
We discarded articles that exclusively used the word “framework” (n =
2,551), resulting in 352 articles. We then reviewed the abstracts of the remaining articles, and
as a result excluded 141 articles that referred to “frames of analysis,” 31 that referred to
methods, such as “time frames” and “sampling frames,” and 120 that did not consider framing
in the context of entrepreneurship. We downloaded the 60 remaining articles for analysis.
To ensure comprehensiveness, we also examined adjacent research on entrepreneurial
storytelling, narratives, and symbolic action by searching for entrepreneur* AND story* (n =
487), entrepreneur* AND narrativ* (n = 625), entrepreneur* AND symbol* (n = 254) in
article titles, abstracts, or keywords. We filtered for duplicates (n = 192) and checked whether
framing was examined substantively in the remaining papers, adding 11 articles to our review.
This resulted in a final corpus of 71 articles, which the first two authors then read in detail,
sorted by discipline, method, data, and journal quality, producing tables and graphs of the
distinguishing characteristics, and mapping patterns, theories, key findings, and contexts. We
also undertook a co-citation analysis to identify the key referenced articles. This provided a
8
We complemented this set with articles we were able to identify on entrepreneurial framing published or
forthcoming during the review process, including Garud et al. (2020), Pan, Li, Chen, & Chen (2020), and
Thomas & Ritala (2021).
9
https://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-2018/

8
mechanism to highlight key concepts, theoretical bases, and invisible colleges (Gmur, 2003).
Table 1 presents the method and summary statistics.
[Insert Table 1 around here]
We took several steps to refine the focus of our review. First, we focused on studies of
entrepreneurship and excluded those that referred only indirectly to entrepreneurship (e.g.,
discussing policy entrepreneurs). Second, we focused on studies of framing by entrepreneurs
to audiences and excluded those that either mentioned framing to other audiences only
indirectly, or which did not consider audiences at all. For example, we excluded studies that
investigated how entrepreneurs cognitively framed their decisions where specific audiences
were not identified (e.g. McEnany & Strutton, 2015) and studies that examined how
entrepreneurs framed potential opportunities to themselves before deciding to start a new
venture (e.g. Barbosa, Fayolle, & Smith, 2019).
10
Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Framing
We based our framework (Figure 1) on the overall set of articles we identified. Our
framework connects entrepreneurial framing with important outcomes: the legitimation of the
venture and the legitimation of the field in which entrepreneurial actions unfold. It also
suggests that venture and field legitimation are ongoing, and that firms continue to (re)frame
their ventures over time.
[Insert Figure 1 around here]
Our framework shows that entrepreneurial framing consists of two interacting
dimensions—framing content and framing processes—that collectively constitute the
dynamics of entrepreneurial framing. In our analysis of framing content, we distinguish
between (a) framing mode, relating to written, verbal, or visual content of framing; (b)
10
Although we reviewed all articles carefully, we do not cite them all in this paper because the increase in length
would not bring corresponding increase in insight. The full list of papers reviewed is available in Tables 2 and 3.

9
framing language, relating to linguistic characteristics of frames, such as figurative, abstract,
or ambiguous; and (c) framing emphasis, relating to the focus of attention a frame seeks to
highlight, such as novelty or familiarity. For our analysis of framing processes, we distinguish
between processes involving (a) frame deployment, where entrepreneurs bring frame content
into action; (b) framing contests, where audiences react to an entrepreneur’s framing with
their own framing; and (c) complementary actions used by entrepreneurs to supplement
framing efforts.
Our framework also emphasizes the fundamental connections between the content and
process of entrepreneurial framing, and the legitimation of the new venture and its field. As
Lounsbury, Gehman, and Glynn (2019, p. 22) explain, framing can help legitimate “both the
firms themselves and the broader institutional milieu (e.g., market category) in which they are
embedded.” The legitimation process is aimed at fostering a belief among resource-holding
audiences that the new venture, its offering and business model, and its field and the related
practices and regulations, are desirable and congruent with social expectations, values, and
norms (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990; Etzioni, 1987; Überbacher, 2014). Often, as part of these
efforts, entrepreneurs also construct novel or alternative venture identities and broader
collective identities (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2019).
However, legitimation is not an inherent outcome of framing but a “culturally
mediated process” (Wry, Lounsbury, & Glynn, 2011, p. 456) that can be enhanced or
hindered by framing content and processes that strive for distinctiveness (to show how the
venture is distinguishable and differs from competitors); coherence (consistency between
framing content and processes); and resonance (framing alignment with audiences’ beliefs,
values, and aspirations). We include these three mechanisms as part of framing
performativity, where “to say something is to do something,” meaning that language can enact

10
reality rather than simply describe it (Austin, 1962, p. 12; cf. Garud, Gehman, & Giuliani,
2014).
In other words, by establishing distinctiveness, coherence, and resonance through
framing, entrepreneurs enact entrepreneurial opportunities (top right-facing arrow in Figure
1). Performativity unfolds within dynamically changing contexts of meaning, which in turn
temper what entrepreneurs can and cannot say and do (Garud, Gehman, & Tharchen, 2018).
Consequently, entrepreneurs may need to pivot, which involves making changes to the
entrepreneurial frames they have previously established (Grimes, 2018; McDonald & Gao,
2019). We represent this dynamic graphically in Figure 1 with the bottom left-facing arrow.
In sum, the process is recursive; in their attempts to gain legitimacy for their ventures and
fields entrepreneurs need to update and pivot their framing as the process unfolds (bottom
arrow in Figure 1).
We use our framework as an organizing heuristic to present the entrepreneurial
framing literature focused on venture legitimation and the literature focused on field
legitimation. We subsequently discuss the interplay between venture and field legitimation,
and then develop an agenda for future research around two undertheorized facets of our
framework—framing complications and performativity. Table 2 provides details about the
venture legitimation framing articles reviewed, and Table 3 provides details about the field
legitimation framing articles reviewed.
[Insert Tables 2 and 3 around here]
Venture legitimation framing
Venture legitimation, defined as gaining societal support for a venture (Zimmerman &
Zeitz, 2002), is a crucial framing outcome (Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010; Lounsbury & Glynn,
2001; Überbacher, 2014) for both for-profit and social entrepreneurs (Allison, Davis, Short, &
Webb, 2015; Allison, McKenny, & Short, 2013). Research on venture legitimation addresses

11
how entrepreneurs use cultural resources to convince audiences that their new venture offers
something distinctly new and valuable (Fisher, Kuratko, Bloodgood, & Hornsby, 2017;
McKnight & Zietsma, 2018; Navis & Glynn, 2010). For example, as well as using framing to
legitimate venture offerings with customers and investors (Ansari, Garud, & Kumaraswamy,
2016; McDonald & Gao, 2019; McKnight & Zietsma, 2018), entrepreneurs undertake framing
to legitimate their novel business models with investors, customers, partners, media, and
financial analysts (McKnight & Zietsma, 2018; Snihur et al., 2018a). Entrepreneurs also use
framing to legitimate the identity of the venture with investors and customers (Dalpiaz &
Cavotta, 2019; Lee & Huang, 2018; Manning & Bejarano, 2017).
Establishing the distinctiveness of offerings, business models, and venture identities
through framing is important to gain venture legitimation. In entrepreneurial contexts,
distinctiveness can be established by highlighting the innovativeness of the offerings or the
disruptiveness of the business model of the new venture (Ansari et al., 2016; McDonald &
Gao, 2019; McKnight & Zietsma, 2018; Snihur et al., 2018a). Distinctiveness is also often
associated with a venture’s legitimating identity, such as market leadership (Santos &
Eisenhardt, 2009; Snihur et al., 2018a).
Venture legitimation also requires framing to be coherent. Coherence is important
because entrepreneurs interact with various audiences, including investors, customers,
partners, or regulators, who might consider several issues around the new venture (Lee,
Ramus, & Vaccaro, 2018; McDonald & Gao, 2019). To be coherent, framing needs internal
consistency in the combination of the elements it comprises (Cornelissen, Holt, & Zundel,
2011; Fischer & Reuber, 2014; Manning & Bejarano, 2017; Snihur et al., 2018a).
Furthermore, venture legitimation only occurs if different audiences resonate with the
entrepreneurial framing in terms of their own ideas and expectations (Cornelissen et al., 2011;
Fisher et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2018).

12
Successful venture legitimation framing is performative in that it can result in access
to resources like financing (Allison et al., 2015; Clarke et al., 2019) or time available for
action (McDonald & Gao, 2019). McDonald and Gao (2019) show how skillful framing of an
entrepreneurial pivot is as much a cultural as an economic accomplishment. By successfully
anticipating, justifying, and staging the reorientation of their venture with audiences,
entrepreneurs can create additional time and resource leeway to pursue product-market fit.
Others have shown how successful framing is performative in addressing the competitive
challenges posed by incumbents (Ansari et al., 2016; Snihur et al., 2018a). For example,
TiVo’s framing was performative in gaining the support of the incumbents that it intended to
disrupt (Ansari et al., 2016).
Framing content. Entrepreneurs frame by using cultural resources through a variety of
modes, including written, verbal, and visual (Clarke, 2011; Clarke et al., 2019; Cornelissen,
Clarke, & Cienki, 2012; see also Meyer, Hollerer, Jancsary, & Van Leeuwen, 2013). Cultural
resources leveraged for entrepreneurial framing include endorsements by various audiences
(Navis & Glynn, 2010), cultural references about value propositions and business models
(Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001; Snihur et al., 2018a), and visual props and identities (Clarke,
2011). For instance, entrepreneurs can use setting, props, and dress to present an appropriate
and appealing scene to audiences, so as to create a professional identity and emphasize control
(Clarke, 2011).
The language used in framing also varies, with many studies analyzing entrepreneurial
framing using linguistic techniques (e.g. Allison et al., 2015; Clarke et al., 2019; Cornelissen
et al., 2011; Fischer & Reuber, 2014). In entrepreneurial framing, metaphors serve important
cognitive functions in reducing uncertainty about the predictability and control of the new
venture (Cornelissen et al., 2012). Other characteristics such as past, present, and future
orientation (Manning & Bejarano, 2017), abstraction and concreteness (McDonald & Gao,

13
2019), and figurativeness and literalness (Clarke et al., 2019) also have an effect. For
instance, the use of abstract, in contrast to concrete, language when describing a product
allows audiences to “see what they want to see” and makes it easier for entrepreneurs to
ensure that future frames are consistent with past frames (McDonald & Gao, 2019). In fact,
entrepreneurs can combine verbal tactics (such as literal and figurative frames) and hand
gestures in pitches to produce remarkably strong effects (Clarke et al., 2019).
A variety of emphasis frames focus on the attributes of the venture that distinguish it
from others (McKnight & Zietsma, 2018; Pan, Li, Chen, & Chen, 2020; Snihur et al., 2018a).
Here entrepreneurs endeavor to demonstrate the distinctiveness of their ventures through their
offerings, business models, or identity. For instance, entrepreneurs can emphasize both the
novelty and familiarity of their venture; Pan et al. (2020) have found that entrepreneurs may
need to use a combination of both to maximize resonance. Relatedly, a differentiation frame
can emphasize problems with current approaches, by, for instance, presenting a new business
model as different from those of incumbents (McKnight & Zietsma, 2018). Leadership
framing has also been shown to resonate with audiences (Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009; Snihur
et al., 2018a). For example, Salesforce drew on cultural resources from the Bible (e.g., David
and Goliath) to assert a differentiation frame, highlighting unique characteristics of its
business model, and a leadership frame, accentuating leadership of the new ecosystem, to
emphasize how it differed from the incumbent (Snihur et al., 2018a, 2018b). This use of
cultural resources is similar to the anti-leader framing that can be effective in nascent markets
(Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009).
To legitimize social business models, the emphasis tends to be more pragmatic and
solution-centric, leveraging less abstract language, than the framing used for conventional for-
profit ventures (Chandra, 2018). For instance, ventures that are framed as an opportunity to
help others are more likely to gain legitimacy than those that are framed as a straightforward

14
business opportunity (Allison et al., 2015). Interestingly, an emphasis on blame and concern
can lead to more rapid funding, while an emphasis on accomplishment, tenacity, and variety
leads to slower funding (Allison et al., 2013). Lee and Huang (2018) show that an emphasis
on social impact in framing business models by female-led ventures has a greater effect on
business evaluation than similar framing by male-led ventures. This effect enables female
entrepreneurs to shape perceptions of their ventures in alignment with gender stereotypes.
For frames to be coherent and to resonate, the emphasis needs to align with the
dominant conversations within the domain in which it is promulgated (Hartman & Coslor,
2019; Lee et al., 2018; McKnight & Zietsma, 2018). For example, Lee et al. (2018) show how
the framing of an Italian anti-racketeering organization resonated with tourists and tourism
service providers because it was consistent with the dominant narrative that responsible
tourism should empower and strengthen local communities. On a more cautionary note,
frames that draw on morally tainted cultural resources (for example, the Italian mafia) are a
double-edged sword for entrepreneurs as they may enhance the venture’s distinctive identity
among some audiences but spark fierce opposition among offended social groups (Dalpiaz &
Cavotta, 2019).
Framing processes. A common frame deployment process in venture legitimation is
reframing, where a frame is restated to emphasize different aspects of the venture to overcome
opposition (Tracey, Phillips, & Jarvis, 2011). For instance, to overcome resistance from
incumbents, TiVo reframed its innovation, changing the emphasis from the “disruptive”
aspect that upstaged established incumbents, to the “beneficial” aspect that enhanced the
value generated for and by various incumbents within the ecosystem (Ansari et al., 2016). In
their study of human egg donation, where there are contradictory meanings between gift-
giving and commodified market exchanges, Hartman and Coslor (2019) find that reframing
donation as a form of work, so that a woman would be paid for her “time and effort” rather

15
than for her eggs, neutralized opposition to the practice. Similarly, social entrepreneurs
combine existing development ideas and models but reframe them in new ways to address
complex development challenges (Chandra, 2018).
Another frame deployment process is frame transformation, which originates in
keying and lamination processes first identified by Goffman (1974). Keying is a process
where a given activity is transformed into “something quite different” (e.g., from play to
combat) (Goffman, 1974, pp. 43-44). When keying is successful—that is, a new interpretation
of an existing frame emerges—the new interpretation is laminated onto the original frame,
leading to frame transformation (Lee et al., 2018). If the process of keying is unsuccessful—
that is, no new interpretation of an existing frame emerges—entrepreneurs continue managing
the original frame by referring to it only selectively (Lee et al., 2018). Compiling these
processes, Lee et al. (2018) propose an interactive process of “strategic frame brokerage,”
comprising the ways frames are retained, managed, or transformed.
Frame deployment can also be sequential. For example, in its quest to disrupt the
incumbent, Salesforce used two different frames sequentially to facilitate optimal
distinctiveness and coherence, first claiming uniqueness, and subsequently asserting
ecosystem leadership (Snihur et al., 2018a). McDonald and Gao (2019) found that
entrepreneurs were more successful in pivoting their venture when they explained the
venture’s new business model in terms of its original aims, by using bridging “justifications”
to signal frame continuity and coherence. When entrepreneurs restated frames reactively with
a new business model without asserting temporal continuity, ventures were much less
successful.
Framing contests occur when there is a struggle over meaning between different
audiences (Fischer & Reuber, 2014). Cornelissen et al. (2011) suggest that metaphors and
analogies may be useful in securing support in framing contests and Kumaraswamy, Garud,

16
and Ansari (2018) note that incumbents and other audiences can play the framing game as
well as entrepreneurs. There are indirect empirical suggestions of framing contests in Ansari
et al. (2016) and Snihur et al. (2018a); however, most research on framing contests has been
conducted from the perspective of field legitimation rather than venture legitimation.
During the framing process, entrepreneurs can also undertake complementary action,
such as business model and technological adaptation, to ensure the coherence of the venture
and its framing over time. For example, TiVo continually adjusted its strategy, its technology
platform, and how it framed itself within the evolving U.S. television ecosystem to gain the
support of the incumbents it intended to disrupt (Ansari et al., 2016). Similarly, business
model changes need to be paired with appropriate language, and audiences need to be
prepared accordingly to ensure that such transformations seem coherent. McDonald and Gao
(2019) show that pairing strategic actions with conciliatory language softens the impact of an
unexpected deviation and engenders loyalty.
Field legitimation framing
Field legitimation is the process by which the field in which the new venture competes
garners societal support (Kim, Croidieu, & Lippmann, 2016), such as, for example, when a
collective of (often loosely coordinated) entrepreneurs enacts the legitimation of organic food
(Weber et al., 2008), satellite radio (Navis & Glynn, 2010), nanotechnology (Granqvist &
Laurila, 2011), or social entrepreneurship (Friedman & Desivilya, 2010; Hervieux & Voltan,
2018; Montgomery, Dacin, & Dacin, 2012). Entrepreneurial framing can foster the
legitimation of new or redefined practices (Chen & Sun, 2019; Elzen, Geels, Leeuwis, & van
Mierlo, 2011; Helms, Oliver, & Webb, 2012), regulations (Gurses & Ozcan, 2015; Merrie &
Olsson, 2014), or collective identities (Delmestri & Greenwood, 2016; Navis & Glynn, 2010;
Weber et al., 2008) within organizational fields.

17
Research on field legitimation framing is anchored theoretically in institutional theory,
with important connections to social movement theory. Entrepreneurs can become
institutional entrepreneurs progressively, through proactive framing that engages
organizational field participants such as regulators (Gurses & Ozcan, 2015), consumers
(Weber et al., 2008), or media (Hervieux & Voltan, 2018; Hiatt & Carlos, 2019; Navis &
Glynn, 2010) to promote and construct meaning around their (new) field’s practices,
regulations, and collective identities. It is particularly efficient when entrepreneurs act jointly.
Framing is thus a critical process of institutional work undertaken for purposes of institutional
change or transformation.
Social movement research studies how collective mobilization, often undertaken by
low-powered actors, can transform institutions through frames that offer new alternatives
(Benford & Snow, 2000; Sine & Lee, 2009). These insights are transferable to the context of
new ventures, which often aim to challenge existing arrangements. Entrepreneurial framing
research anchored in the social movement literature (e.g., Martin, 2016; Montgomery et al.,
2012; Weber et al., 2008) studies the ways in which collective entrepreneurial action in
various fields uses framing to create a sense of unity and belonging that results in collective
identities formed around new interpretations of problems or solutions (Arbuthnott, Eriksson,
& Wincent, 2010; see also Thomas & Ritala, 2021).
Similar to venture legitimation, field legitimation is enabled through distinctiveness,
coherence, and resonance. Distinctiveness in field legitimation framing is focused on how a
field is distinct and where its boundaries lie. For instance, Delacour and Leca (2017) showed
how framing and celebrating distinctiveness was an effective way to attract attention and
legitimize controversial practices in emerging fields. Coherence in field legitimation involves
ensuring the consistency of different framing within a field. For example, frames that were
coherent with notions of authenticity, sustainability, and naturalness (as opposed to

18
manipulative, exploitative, and artificial practices) contributed to the legitimation of the new
field of grass-fed meat production as distinct from conventional production methods (Weber
et al., 2008). Resonance with the beliefs, values, and aspirations held in common between the
entrepreneurs and consumers, other producers, or regulators is also vital for successful field
legitimation framing. For instance, the strong political resonance of entrepreneurial framing
led to the legitimation of the U.S. nanotechnology field (Granqvist & Laurila, 2011).
Field legitimation framing is performative in that it provides the basis for subsequent
choices, and venture and field development, by offering new vocabularies and cognitive
understanding that enable additional opportunities for entrepreneurs. For instance, the original
framing of grass-fed meat and dairy products motivated both entry and commitment from
entrepreneurs, ascribed value to new organic practices, provided a basis for product valuation
(at a price premium), and established physical and cultural exchange, resulting in consumer
adoption (Weber et al., 2008). Garud, Lant, and Schildt (2019) show how the performative
contexts of technology ventures in Manhattan (i.e., Silicon Alley) changed with the rise, fall,
and re-stabilization of discursive contexts within which ventures operate. Ventures initially
engaged in “generative imitation” during a growth phase, and then “strategically distanced”
themselves from cultural resources that lost legitimacy (such as dot.com and e-tailing), and
finally engaged in efforts to generate optimal distinctiveness from one another once the field
had stabilized.
Framing content. Most research has considered the written mode of framing rather
than verbal or visual modes, and thus have examined the language characteristics of framing
(Figure 1), drawing inspiration from linguistics (Slager, Gond, & Moon, 2012; Werner &
Cornelissen, 2014). For field legitimation, metaphors are viewed as a powerful framing
resource that helps anchor unfamiliar concepts in more familiar terms (see also Markowitz,
Cobb, & Hedley, 2012; Navis & Glynn, 2010; Perretti, Negro, & Lomi, 2008), and analogies

19
can also serve a similar function (Slager et al., 2012). Ambiguity can also be a useful
linguistic technique, as “a balance between enough ambiguity to invite participation, and
enough specification to regulate the understanding of the problem, promote[s] the
experimentation of new practices, and clarif[ies] the impetus for action” (Feront & Bertels,
2019, p. 1). However, the danger of using ambiguous language is that it might hinder
comprehension and make field legitimation more difficult.
Emphasis in field legitimation framing highlights novelty, leadership, and public
interest. Navis and Glynn (2010) show how novelty can be used to distinguish an emerging
field and shape its identity. The construction of the “modern” physician as a professional, and
the association of new work practices with the new profession, were driven by proactive and
emphatic framing of physicians as leaders who work across disciplinary and organizational
boundaries, enabling practice change in terms of decentralization and integration of care
(Berghout, Oldenhof, Fabbricotti, & Hilders, 2018). Framing a new technology in terms of the
public interest (i.e., the dominant frame of the regulator) enables entrepreneurs to gain
regulatory support (Gurses & Ozcan, 2015). Similar framing by Marconi of its wireless
telegraphy technology’s “utility” for the U.S. Navy during World War I helped the company
legitimize the field and maintain a central field position for a number of years (Kim, Croidieu,
et al., 2016).
Culture and history have been integral to these emphasis frames as resources for
developing framing content. As Rao (1998, p. 917) puts it, entrepreneurs “create frames by
selecting items from a pre-existing cultural menu.” Thus, in addition to purely economic or
technological motivations for change, entrepreneurial framing relies on a repertoire of cultural
skills and resources (e.g., Delmestri & Greenwood, 2016; Giorgi, Bartunek, & King, 2017;
Khaire, 2014; Rao, 1998; Rao & Giorgi, 2006). For example, early designers of Indian high-
fashion framed national heritage and the revival of craftsmanship and traditions as part of the

20
value of the Indian high-fashion field (Khaire, 2014).
11
In a similar manner, science fiction
publications have provided cultural resources for framing the emerging nanotechnology field
(Granqvist & Laurila, 2011), while an authenticity and naturalness framing helped ranchers
develop novel, environmentally friendly, production practices when legitimizing grass-fed
meat production in the U.S. (Weber et al., 2008).
Framing processes. Various frame deployment processes can transform frame content
as frames travel through an organizational field. Such processes are usually undertaken
intentionally by entrepreneurs. For example, by renaming unlicensed “black” mobile phones
as “shan-zhai” (after the mountain fortress for revolutionaries), illegal vendors helped to
legitimate their field in China through references to meaning “beyond illegality and
inferiority” (Lee & Hung, 2014). Similarly, Ferran Adria, the head chef of the famed El Bulli
restaurant in Catalonia, subverted the classical meaning of the chef as artist by reframing
chefs as scientists conducting laboratory experiments with food in what became known as
molecular gastronomy (Rao & Giorgi, 2006). This suggests that framing content interacts
dynamically with framing processes over time (Figure 1), which has been conceptualized as
“reinforcing loops” (see, e.g. Weber et al., 2008).
Frames can also be reframed by other field participants (see also “redefinition” in
Giorgi et al., 2017; Martin, 2016; York et al., 2016). For example, Martin (2016) documents
how the sharing economy has been reframed as an “economic opportunity” to open new
marketplaces. This reframing (similar to the “frame shifting” proposed by Werner &
Cornelissen, 2014) made it less likely that the sharing economy would be perceived as a threat
to consumption-centered (rather than sharing-centered) business models of existing
incumbents. Related processes include shifting and blending (see also “bricolage” in Rao,
11
See also McGaughey (2013) on the use of history in framing.

21
1998; Werner & Cornelissen, 2014), bridging, or transforming (Hiatt & Carlos, 2019),
processes with roots in social movement theorizing.
Framing can also be openly contested by other entrepreneurs (Gurses & Ozcan, 2015;
Rao, 1998) or other actors (Hiatt & Carlos, 2019; Martin, 2016). For instance, new
organizational forms can arise as an “insurrection against the prevailing frame” (Rao, 1998).
In the context of the emergence of pay TV in the U.S., framing contests between
entrepreneurs and incumbents resulted in frame multiplicity, characterized by multiple
interpretations of the notion of “public interest” promulgated by the entrepreneurs (Ansari,
Wijen, & Gray, 2013). After several battles around establishing regulations, a consensus
favorable to entrepreneurs was reached, enabling field legitimation. Interestingly, framing
contests that involve collective negotiation can also result in consensus (Ansari et al., 2013;
Helms et al., 2012; Merrie & Olsson, 2014), convergence of meaning (Forbes, 2012; Khaire,
2014), or industrial renewal (Arbuthnott et al., 2010).
As an example, consensus was achieved during negotiations for new corporate social
responsibility (CSR) standards by an ISO standard-setting body comprised of 130 diverse
organizations due to successful framing based on proactive engagement with opponents rather
than through normative pressure or coercive imposition of the frames (Helms et al., 2012).
Similarly, when discussing global climate change issues over 40 years of negotiation, the
frame shifts that occurred during contestation enabled actors with different logics to reach
consensus (Ansari et al., 2013). Frame consensus in fields can be attained either from the
bottom-up or from the top-down. Merrie and Olsson (2014) depict a top-down negotiation
process where international-level articulation and framing of ecological tools for marine
preservation enabled adoption of the tool in policy frameworks at local and regional levels.
Forbes (2012) documents a bottom-up process, where civil servants in Scotland loosened

22
institutional inertia and, through framing, enabled new practice implementation in urban
healthcare.
Framing alone might not be sufficient to enable field legitimation, and entrepreneurs
may need to undertake complementary action to build cooperation and support from other
participants in the field (Hung & Whittington, 2011; Mayer & Knox, 2010; Rao & Giorgi,
2006; Slager et al., 2012; Woolthuis, Hooimeijer, Bossink, Mulder, & Brouwer, 2013). For
instance, Taiwanese entrepreneurs mobilized local and overseas networks to support their
framing of a new vision for professionalized Taiwanese IT firms (Hung & Whittington,
2011). Similarly, support from elite allies helped Ferran Adria to introduce his new way of
cooking (Rao & Giorgi, 2006).
Interplay between venture and field legitimation
Our framework (Figure 1) also illustrates the interplay between venture and field
legitimation suggested by the research reviewed. One important interplay is the impact the
field has on the venture when entrepreneurs depend heavily on audiences’ understanding of
the broader field structures in which they operate, in terms of existing practices, regulations,
or collective identities (see also Lee et al., 2018). For instance, entrepreneurs must consider
the institutional logics of different audiences that may come from different fields, as the
legitimacy criteria for a new technology venture vary depending on the institutional logics of
distinct investors (Fisher et al., 2017). Relatedly, entrepreneurs may need to navigate
simultaneous adversarial logics in a field. Hartman and Coslor (2019), for example, show how
entrepreneurs in the market for human egg donation successfully navigated oppositional
market and altruism logics.
However, entrepreneurs must not only comply with existing field practices or
regulations for venture framing (c.f. DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), but must also be aware of
their ability to shape them (see also Autio & Thomas, 2018; Gurses & Ozcan, 2015; Rindova

23
& Courtney, 2020). Thus, a second interplay concerns the impact of ventures on the field, as
entrepreneurs move between legitimizing their venture and legitimizing the field sequentially
or simultaneously. This is particularly relevant for new ventures competing in nascent fields
that still lack legitimacy.
For example, Navis and Glynn (2010) examine how two firms, Sirius and XM, first
framed their ventures using futuristic language about their new market category (satellite
radio), and then emphasized the distinctiveness of each venture. Their research, covering the
period 1990–2005, suggests that, early on, satellite radio entrepreneurs focused on
legitimizing the field and only later shifted their focus to differentiating venture identities and
business models. In contrast, Uber’s entry into multiple cities across different countries
illustrates how entrepreneurs might simultaneously undertake framing for venture and field
legitimation (Garud, Kumaraswamy, Roberts, & Xu, 2020). Uber framed its ride-sharing
services to build legitimacy for its venture, i.e., to attract investors, users, and drivers. At the
same time, it engaged in field framing by positioning itself between existing taxi and
limousine market categories. In addition, Uber engaged in “regulatory entrepreneurship”
(Pollman & Barry, 2016) to change the regulations that governed its operations. Similarly,
Chinese businessman Huang Fajing, motivated by economic self-interest, undertook
regulatory entrepreneurship to address field-level concerns about child-safety regulations of
cigarette lighters and coordinated Chinese officials’ interaction with the European
Commission to shape the field (Mertha, 2009).
Future Research Directions
Our conceptual framework (Figure 1) highlights the links between entrepreneurial
framing and venture and field legitimation, where framing aimed at distinctiveness,
coherence, and resonance fosters legitimation of new venture offerings, business models, and
identities, as well as field practices, regulations, and collective identities. We now bring into

24
sharper focus some of the key complications concerning entrepreneurial framing, which
represent gaps in our understanding. Complications arise when framing is considered across
time and across different audiences and geographies. These complications suggest promising
directions to advance understanding of (1) the dynamics of framing by studying framing
complications, and (2) the issues around framing performativity and the wider implications of
entrepreneurial framing. We present these, summarized as questions for future research, in
Table 4.
[Insert Table 4 around here]
Drilling deeper into framing complications
First, research needs to probe deeper into framing complications across audiences,
time, and geographies. Here we echo calls in the entrepreneurship literature for additional
emphasis on time and process research (Davidsson & Gruenhagen, 2020; Lévesque &
Stephan, 2020).
Complications across audiences. Framing complications can arise when there is a
multiplicity of framing audiences with divergent interests. For instance, Granqvist and Laurila
(2011), studying the emergence of nanotechnology in the U.S., find that confusion about
where to draw the boundaries of nanotechnology led to a framing confrontation between
futurist engineers highlighting the perils of nanotechnology and scientists trying to defend it.
Faling and Biesbroek (2019) show how entrepreneurs had to frame their message in multiple
ways to address different audiences when pushing for climate-smart agriculture in Kenya.
These findings suggest that entrepreneurial framing might need to be adjusted depending on
the types of audiences targeted, such as city versus national regulators or private versus public
investors. However, past research mostly assumes that new ventures seek similar legitimacy
judgments from regulators, investors, consumers, journalists, etc. (Überbacher, 2014). At the
same time, empirical research on entrepreneurial framing often focuses on one specific type

25
of audience, such as investors (e.g. Allison et al., 2013) or customers (e.g. Hartman & Coslor,
2019). As a result, there is only limited research on how the attributes of different audiences
might necessitate different, potentially multi-layered, framing approaches to address such
plurality (for an exception see Fisher et al., 2017).
Another under-explored area concerns emotions: what is the role of emotions for
effective entrepreneurial framing across audiences? How does emotional resonance with a
new venture’s offering, business model, or field amplify or detract from cognitive resonance?
For instance, the enthusiasm that entrepreneurs feel for their ventures is often projected onto
their audiences, who become stakeholders to the extent that they, too, become enthusiastic.
Furthermore, there is insufficient research on what happens when ventures encounter negative
events. Does enthusiasm give way to despair for the entrepreneurs and/or their audiences?
And, as a result, do they pivot or stay the course?
Given the variety of audiences that entrepreneurs target (e.g., employees, customers,
partners, investors, and analysts), it is less well-understood how frames might resonate
differently with distinct audiences and how framing coherence can be maintained across
audiences. For instance, Uber’s framing generated tensions between audiences (Garud et al.,
2020). On the one hand, Uber had to gain cognitive and pragmatic legitimacy in the eyes of
users and drivers. However, this came at the price of deepening a socio-political legitimacy
crisis with respect to policy makers. To deal with this situation, Uber challenged policy
makers in the courts and galvanized its growing support among users and drivers to lobby
policy makers on its behalf. What made the challenge even more difficult for Uber was that
the various strategies had to be deployed rapidly and in sequence (cf. Snihur et al., 2018a).
This suggests that framing effects with different audiences must be studied in the context of
institutional complexity, where some audiences might be more opposed than others to a new
venture or have different expectations of it. Future research could evaluate how entrepreneurs

26
frame their ventures differently for different audiences, and the effectiveness of their
strategies. Other questions concern the possible contributions different audiences, such as
investors, customers, or competitors, make to entrepreneurial framing; these can be
potentially salient over time as amplifiers or detractors.
Complications across time. An important aspect of entrepreneurial framing and
legitimation is time and temporality. Research suggests that framing the new venture as a bold
and distinctive leader early on is important to generate a perception of distinctiveness, and
acquire support and media resonance, particularly when building new ecosystems (Snihur et
al., 2018a). Fisher et al. (2016) argue that such framing might be more important for
entrepreneurs to acquire legitimacy early in the venture life cycle, before tangible
performance metrics become available and uncertainty decreases. But what happens when
initial promises cannot be met? Garud, Schildt, and Lant (2014) argue that entrepreneurs will
have to reframe, but this process of maintaining legitimacy in light of unfulfilled promises has
received little attention, despite its ubiquity (although see Thomas & Ritala, 2021).
Similarly, as the new venture becomes more established and needs to scale, framing
might need to change to emphasize cooperation with established players and potential
ecosystem partners, rather than continuously emphasizing novelty and disruptive innovation,
as illustrated by the case of TiVo (Ansari et al., 2016). In other words, there is a risk that an
early entrepreneurial framing of novelty and disruption may backfire by generating resistance
from established players and unwillingness to cooperate from ecosystem partners. Here, more
complex approaches involving sequences of framing that emphasize or downplay
disruptiveness successively may be necessary to ensure legitimation. Additional quantitative
research is needed to verify and potentially generalize the insights from existing single case
studies on this topic (i.e. Ansari et al., 2016; Snihur et al., 2018a).

27
Other interesting questions concern the potential lasting effects of entrepreneurial
framing: even when using a sequential approach, do original frames persist over time,
imprinting audiences or even fields with specific references?
12
How are different audiences
likely to react when entrepreneurs strategically shift the emphasis of their framing over time?
And what effect might this have on their venture’s resonance and legitimacy?
Complications across geography. Further complications arise when we consider
geographical contexts. In prior work, scholars have argued that contexts matter for
entrepreneurial innovation and activities (Autio, Kenney, Mustar, Siegel, & Wright, 2014).
Indeed, entrepreneurs contextualize their narratives (Garud, Gehman, et al., 2014) when they
enter and operate in different geographical locales, each with its own cultural and regulatory
structures. We will use Uber’s entry into multiple markets (Garud et al., 2020) as an example
to highlight the kinds of questions that researchers could pursue, noting that the issues that
Uber confronted apply in various ways to other kinds of products and services.
We begin with the physical characteristics of specific locales. Clearly, from a
transportation point of view, New York City (NYC) is very different from San Francisco,
Portland, or Austin. This was a reality that Uber had to confront when entering these cities.
Uber dealt with these differences by subtly shaping the messages it communicated to multiple
constituents in each city. For instance, in NYC, Uber framed its ride-sharing services as
offering busy Wall Street executives an opportunity to get rides in a densely populated city. In
Portland, it stressed the availability of rides in underserved areas. Cultural differences across
geographical settings are also implicated here. While Uber emphasized convenience and
immediacy for Wall Street executives needing rides late in the evening in Manhattan, it
simultaneously stressed the greenness of its ride-sharing offering in San Francisco. In Austin,
12
Marketing research suggests that branding efforts can have long-lasting effects, particularly if brand image is
carefully managed and maintained (Park et al., 1986). These insights can be useful to research on entrepreneurial
framing, which might be considered in some cases as an antecedent to branding.

28
Uber framed its offering as a way for people to attend evening parties without having to
identify designated drivers.
These observations raise questions about how practices, regulations, and collective
identities across geographic contexts influence a venture’s framing strategies when it enters
and continues to operate in a new locale. The questions become more complicated when we
consider regulations. For instance, the local city and state regulations in place across NYC,
San Francisco, Portland, and Austin all differ, requiring companies like Uber to tailor their
framing strategies to each locale. Dealing with multiple sites with different physical, cultural,
and regulatory structures complicates matters, leading to questions about how ventures can
maintain distinctiveness and coherence through their framing efforts across locales while
responding to the opportunities and threats that they pose.
Further, given variations in culture around the world, entrepreneurial framing might
refer to local individual, industry, or national myths that might be less well understood in
other locations (c.f. Uzunca, Rigtering, & Ozcan, 2018). This raises questions about how well
entrepreneurial framing can be translated across different contexts and locations—for
instance, by platform ventures that attempt to scale quickly globally. Are there universal
mechanisms that make entrepreneurial framing resonate in different contexts and to what
degree do entrepreneurs have to tailor their framing to specific locations? Even more
fundamentally, can findings from North American or Western European countries (which
dominate our review) be replicated in Asian, African, or other contexts? Finally, can
entrepreneurs do too much in terms of framing by over-zealously pursuing legitimation,
leading either to interpretations of self-serving or manipulative motives (Ashforth & Gibbs,
1990) or to raised expectations that are difficult to fulfill (Garud, Schildt, et al., 2014)? And is
this particularly dangerous when venturing into countries very different from their own? We

29
believe that the study of such “multi-yet-coherent” framing strategies offers a particularly rich
avenue for exploration.
Performativity and wider implications of entrepreneurial framing
An emerging strand of research in entrepreneurial framing is based on performativity
(Garud et al., 2018; Snihur et al., 2018b). While there are different ways of understanding
performativity, for the purposes of this review we begin with Austin’s (1962) insight that
language is not just a passive instrument describing reality, but instead a constitutive force
that can enact reality. For instance, a priest constitutes a “new reality” for a couple in the
pronouncement that the couple is married when felicitous conditions hold, such as when the
wedding unfolds in a church and when the individuals getting married also agree by saying “I
do.” In a similar fashion, entrepreneurs are performative when they imagine a business model
that they pitch to various audiences in that they bring about the “realities” that they envision
(Doganova & Eyquem-Renault, 2009).
An understanding of entrepreneurial framing through performativity raises a puzzle—
“saying is doing” holds when the agents doing the saying have a voice. However, to the extent
that entrepreneurs lack credibility, and their ideas and the venture lack legitimacy, how do
they gain legitimacy for their nascent ideas from audiences? The top performativity arrow
connecting entrepreneurial framing to entrepreneurial legitimation in Figure 1 reflects this
question, and possible answers. One answer is the use of various framing devices by
entrepreneurs to establish distinctiveness, coherence, and resonance for their entrepreneurial
initiatives. Paradoxically (from a performativity perspective), there is utility in entrepreneurs
saying only so much and no more to their audiences and future stakeholders through their
frames and stories (see Bartel & Garud, 2009 for specific arguments). Indeed, what is left
unsaid is as important as what is said, as the former allows, and even invites, audiences to
imagine what the venture can accomplish from their vantage points. As they engage with the

30
venture, these audiences then become stakeholders through this framing process. This socio-
psychological mechanism for gaining legitimacy and participation through framing raises
questions about what is said and what is left unsaid.
While these observations serve as a useful starting point on performativity and
entrepreneurship, they do not fully explain what happens during entrepreneurial journeys. For
that, we make a distinction between illocutionary and perlocutionary performativity (Garud &
Gehman, 2019). Illocutionary performativity refers to felicitous conditions already in
existence for statements to have effects. But such pre-existing conditions rarely exist for
entrepreneurial ventures, which brings us to perlocutionary performativity, or speech acts that
set in motion a chain of events that brings about the felicitous conditions needed for the
entrepreneurial frame to have effects.
When we take such a process perspective, it is evident that entrepreneurial journeys
seldom unfold as initially proposed. More often, expected and unexpected events emerge
during an entrepreneurial journey, requiring entrepreneurs to update their ideas and frames
(bottom arrow in Figure 1). Such updating, which has come to be known as pivoting in the
literature (Grimes, 2018; Hampel, Tracey, & Weber, 2020; McDonald & Gao, 2019; Ries,
2011), generates a tension for entrepreneurs. On the one hand, entrepreneurs may need to
change course to address the positive and negative events they confront; but on the other,
there is value in persevering, as entrepreneurs have to fulfill the promises that they originally
made. In short, entrepreneurs confront a tension between continuity and change as their
journeys unfold.
How this tension is addressed raises important questions for entrepreneurial framing
that go beyond those that arise around how frames might need to change when entrepreneurs
encounter different audiences as the entrepreneurial process unfolds (Fisher et al., 2017). For
instance, how can entrepreneurs pivot or persevere without losing legitimacy? While

31
McDonald and Gao (2019) show the types of actions entrepreneurs should undertake while
pivoting, questions remain for serial entrepreneurs who realize they will probably have to
pivot in the future. For instance, how might they frame their pitches and business models in
the first place, knowing that there will be accountability and the need for change later as their
journeys unfold? Other questions have to do with how far “fake it till you make it” can take
ventures with questionable practices, as was the case with Theranos, a firm that attained a
peak valuation of $9 billion in 2014 and subsequently ceased operations in 2018 (Carreyrou,
2018).
These questions can be addressed in multiple contexts. One is sustainability
transitions. How can framing and legitimation help entrepreneurs to constitute new meanings
for sustainability-oriented ventures in diverse fields such as energy or transportation?
Answers to this question are important if we are to address the ongoing climate crisis.
Another context is the digital data-driven economy. How can entrepreneurial framing and
legitimation be enhanced using machine learning and other data analysis tools? Indeed, the
digital economy offers an important empirical setting for conducting such research.
Conclusion
Entrepreneurship scholars are well-positioned and suitably equipped to advance the
study of entrepreneurial framing. We believe our conceptual framework and the varied and
interrelated theoretical approaches outlined in this paper offer great potential for future
research. Entrepreneurship scholars seeking to understand framing should build new
connections with research on entrepreneurial cognition, emotions, passion, and affect
(Shepherd, Wennberg, Suddaby, & Wiklund, 2019). Scholars should also investigate the
framing of female entrepreneurs and within family firms (Chrisman, Chua, Pearson, &
Barnett, 2012) and link framing with entrepreneurial orientation (Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin,
& Frese, 2009). There also are opportunities to consider organizational growth in different

32
institutional contexts (Nason & Wiklund, 2018). We hope our review and suggestions for
future research will inspire scholars to continue investigating this area and build on our
conceptual framework.

33
References
Allison, T. H., Davis, B. C., Short, J. C., & Webb, J. W. (2015). Crowdfunding in a Prosocial
Microlending Environment: Examining the Role of Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Cues.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 53-73.
Allison, T. H., McKenny, A. F., & Short, J. C. (2013). The effect of entrepreneurial rhetoric
on microlending investment: An examination of the warm-glow effect. Journal of
Business Venturing, 28(6), 690-707.
Ansari, S., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2016). The disruptor's dilemma: TiVo and the
U.S. television ecosystem. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9), 1829-1853.
Ansari, S., Wijen, F., & Gray, B. (2013). Constructing a Climate Change Logic: An
Institutional Perspective on the "Tragedy of the Commons". Organization Science,
24(4), 1014-1040.
Arbuthnott, A., Eriksson, J., & Wincent, J. (2010). When a new industry meets traditional and
declining ones: An integrative approach towards dialectics and social movement
theory in a model of regional industry emergence processes. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 26(3), 290-308.
Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation.
Organization Science, 1(2), 177-194.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. The William James Lectures Delivered at
Harvard University in 1955. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Austin, J. L. (2000). Performative utterances. In R. J. Stainton (Ed.), Perspectives in the
Philosophy of Language: A Concise Anthology (pp. 239-252). Toronto, ON:
Broadview Press.
Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial
innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097-1108.
Autio, E., & Thomas, L. D. W. (2018). Tilting the playing field: Towards an endogenous
strategic action theory of ecosystem creation. In S. Nambisan (Ed.), Open Innovation,
Ecosystems and Entrepreneurship: Issues and Perspectives (pp. 111-140). New
Jersey, NJ: World Scientific Publishing.
Barbosa, S. D., Fayolle, A., & Smith, B. R. (2019). Biased and overconfident, unbiased but
going for it: How framing and anchoring affect the decision to start a new venture.
Journal of Business Venturing, 34(3), 528-557.
Bartel, C. A., & Garud, R. (2009). The Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational
Innovation. Organization Science, 20(1), 107-117.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An
overview and assesment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.
Berghout, M. A., Oldenhof, L., Fabbricotti, I. N., & Hilders, C. (2018). Discursively framing
physicians as leaders: Institutional work to reconfigure medical professionalism.
Social Science & Medicine, 212, 68-75.
Beunza, D., & Garud, R. (2007). Calculators, lemmings or frame-makers? The intermediary
role of securities analysts. The Sociological Review, 55(2_suppl), 13-39.
Carreyrou, J. (2018). Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup. New York, NY:
Knopf.
Chandra, Y. (2018). New narratives of development work? Making sense of social
entrepreneurs' development narratives across time and economies. World
Development, 107, 306-326.
Chen, V. Z., & Sun, S. L. (2019). Barbarians at the Gate of the Middle Kingdom: The
International Mobility of Financing Contract and Governance. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 43(4), 802-837.

34
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science,
10(1), 103-126.
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Pearson, A. W., & Barnett, T. (2012). Family Involvement,
Family Influence, and Family–Centered Non–Economic Goals in Small Firms.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 267-293.
Clarke, J. S. (2011). Revitalizing Entrepreneurship: How Visual Symbols are Used in
Entrepreneurial Performances. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1365-1391.
Clarke, J. S., Cornelissen, J. P., & Healey, M. P. (2019). Actions speak louder than words:
How figurative language and gesturing in entrepreneurial pitches influences
investment judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 335-360.
Cornelissen, J. P., & Clarke, J. S. (2010). Imagining and rationalizing opportunities: Inductive
reasoning and the creation and justification of new ventures. Academy of Management
Review, 35(4), 539-557.
Cornelissen, J. P., Clarke, J. S., & Cienki, A. (2012). Sensegiving in entrepreneurial contexts:
The use of metaphors in speech and gesture to gain and sustain support for novel
business ventures. International Small Business Journal-Researching
Entrepreneurship, 30(3), 213-241.
Cornelissen, J. P., Holt, R., & Zundel, M. (2011). The Role of Analogy and Metaphor in the
Framing and Legitimization of Strategic Change. Organization Studies, 32(12), 1701-
1716.
Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of
framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. The
Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181-235.
Dalpiaz, E., & Cavotta, V. (2019). A double-edged sword: cultural entrepreneurship and the
mobilisation of morally tainted cultural resources. Innovation-Organization &
Management, 21(1), 214-228.
Davidsson, P., & Gruenhagen, J. H. (2020). Fulfilling the Process Promise: A Review and
Agenda for New Venture Creation Process Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 1042258720930991.
Delacour, H., & Leca, B. (2017). The Paradox of Controversial Innovation: Insights From the
Rise of Impressionism. Organization Studies, 38(5), 597-618.
Delmestri, G., & Greenwood, R. (2016). How Cinderella Became a Queen: Theorizing
Radical Status Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(4), 507-550.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,
48(2), 147-160.
Doganova, L., & Eyquem-Renault, M. (2009). What do business models do? Innovation
devices in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 38(10), 1559-1570.
Elzen, B., Geels, F. W., Leeuwis, C., & van Mierlo, B. (2011). Normative contestation in
transitions 'in the making': Animal welfare concerns and system innovation in pig
husbandry. Research Policy, 40(2), 263-275.
Essen, A., & Varlander, S. W. (2019). How Materiality Enables and Constrains Framing
Practices: Affordances of a Rheumatology E-Service. Journal of Management Inquiry,
28(4), 458-471.
Etzioni, A. (1987). Entrepreneurship, adaptation and legitimation. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, 8(2), 175-189.
Faling, M., & Biesbroek, R. (2019). Cross-boundary policy entrepreneurship for climate-
smart agriculture in Kenya. Policy Sciences, 52(4), 525-547.
Feront, C., & Bertels, S. (2019). The Impact of Frame Ambiguity on Field-Level Change.
Organization Studies, 31.

35
Fischer, E., & Reuber, A. R. (2014). Online entrepreneurial communication: Mitigating
uncertainty and increasing differentiation via Twitter. Journal of Business Venturing,
29(4), 565-583.
Fisher, G., Kotha, S., & Lahiri, A. (2016). Changing with the times: An integrated view of
identity, legitimacy, and new venutre life cycles. Academy of Management Review,
41(3), 383-409.
Fisher, G., Kuratko, D. F., Bloodgood, J. M., & Hornsby, J. S. (2017). Legitimate to whom?
The challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business
Venturing, 32(1), 52-71.
Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavorial Scientist,
40(4), 397-405.
Forbes, T. (2012). Institutional entrepreneurship in hostile settings: health and social care
partnerships in Scotland, 2002-05. Environment and Planning C-Government and
Policy, 30(6), 1100-1115.
Friedman, V. J., & Desivilya, H. (2010). Integrating social entrepreneurship and conflict
engagement for regional development in divided societies. Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 22(6), 495-514.
Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of brand‐positioning
strategies from a consumer perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11/12),
1763-1786.
Garud, R., & Gehman, J. (2019). Performativity: Not a destination but an ongoing journey.
Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 1-5.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Giuliani, A. P. (2014). Contextualizing entrepreneurial innovation:
A narrative perspective. Research Policy, 43(7), 1177-1188.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Tharchen, T. (2018). Performativity as ongoing journeys:
Implications for strategy, entrepreneurship, and innovation. Long Range Planning,
51(3), 500-509.
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., Roberts, A., & Xu, L. (2020). Liminal movement by digital
platform‐based sharing economy ventures: The case of Uber Technologies. Strategic
Management Journal.
Garud, R., Lant, T. K., & Schildt, H. A. (2019). Generative imitation, strategic distancing and
optimal distinctiveness during the growth, decline and stabilization of Silicon Alley.
Innovation-Organization & Management, 21(1), 187-213.
Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. K. (2014). Entrepreneurial Storytelling, Future
Expectations, and the Paradox of Legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(5), 1479-
1492.
Gehman, J., & Soubliere, J. F. (2017). Cultural entrepreneurship: from making culture to
cultural making. Innovation-Organization & Management, 19(1), 61-73.
Giorgi, S., Bartunek, J. M., & King, B. G. (2017). A Saul Alinsky primer for the 21st century:
The roles of cultural competence and cultural brokerage in fostering mobilization in
support of change. In B. M. Staw & A. P. Brief (Eds.), Research in Organizational
Behavior (Vol. 37, pp. 125-142). New York: Elsevier.
Giorgi, S., Lockwood, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2015). The Many Faces of Culture: Making Sense
of 30 Years of Research on Culture in Organization Studies. Academy of Management
Annals, 9(1), 1-54.
Gmur, M. (2003). Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological
evaluation. Scientometrics, 57(1), 27-57.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay On The Organization Of Experience.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

36
Granqvist, N., & Laurila, J. (2011). Rage against Self-replicating Machines: Framing Science
and Fiction in the US Nanotechnology Field. Organization Studies, 32(2), 253-280.
Grimes, M. G. (2018). The Pivot: How Founders Respond to Feedback through Idea and
Identity Work. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1692-1717.
Gurses, K., & Ozcan, P. (2015). Entrepreneurship in Regulated Markets: Framing Contests
and Collective Action to Introduce Pay TV in the U.S. Academy of Management
Journal, 58(6), 1709-1739.
Hampel, C. E., Tracey, P., & Weber, K. (2020). The Art of the Pivot: How New Ventures
Manage Identification Relationships with Stakeholders as They Change Direction.
Academy of Management Journal, 63(2), 440-471.
Hartman, A. E., & Coslor, E. (2019). Earning while giving: Rhetorical strategies for
navigating multiple institutional logics in reproductive commodification. Journal of
Business Research, 105, 405-419.
Heimstadt, M., & Reischauer, G. (2019). Framing innovation practices in interstitial issue
fields: open innovation in the NYC administration. Innovation-Organization &
Management, 21(1), 128-150.
Helms, W. S., Oliver, C., & Webb, K. (2012). Antecdents of settlement on a new institutional
practice: Negotiation of the ISO 26000 on social responsibility. Academy of
Management Journal, 55(5), 1120-1145.
Hervieux, C., & Voltan, A. (2018). Framing Social Problems in Social Entrepreneurship.
Journal of Business Ethics, 151(2), 279-293.
Hiatt, S. R., & Carlos, W. C. (2019). From farms to fuel tanks: Stakeholder framing contests
and entrepreneurship in the emergent US biodiesel market. Strategic Management
Journal, 40(6), 865-893.
Hung, S. C., & Whittington, R. (2011). Agency in national innovation systems: Institutional
entrepreneurship and the professionalization of Taiwanese IT. Research Policy, 40(4),
526-538.
Jones, J., York, J., Vedula, S., Conger, M., & Lenox, M. (2019). The Collective Construction
of Green Building: Industry Transition Toward Environmentally Beneficial Practices.
Academy of Management Perspectives.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand
Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future
Priorities. Marketing Science, 25(6), 740-759.
Khaire, M. (2014). Fashioning an Industry: Socio-cognitive Processes in the Construction of
Worth of a New Industry. Organization Studies, 35(1), 41-74.
Kim, P. H., Buffart, M., & Croidieu, G. (2016). TMI: Signaling Credible Claims in
Crowdfunding Campaign Narratives. Group & Organization Management, 41(6),
717-750.
Kim, P. H., Croidieu, G., & Lippmann, S. (2016). Responding from that Vantage Point: Field
Position and Discursive Strategies of Legitimation in the US Wireless Telegraphy
Field. Organization Studies, 37(10), 1417-1450.
Kumaraswamy, A., Garud, R., & Ansari, S. (2018). Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations.
Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1025-1042.
Langenohl, A. (2008). How to change other people's institutions: discursive entrepreneurship
and the boundary object of competition/competitiveness in the German banking
sector. Economy and Society, 37(1), 68-93.
Lee, C. K., & Hung, S. C. (2014). Institutional Entrepreneurship in the Informal Economy:
China's Shan-Zhai Mobile Phones. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(1), 16-36.

37
Lee, M., & Huang, L. (2018). Gender Bias, Social Impact Framing, and Evaluation of
Entrepreneurial Ventures. Organization Science, 29(1), 1-16.
Lee, M., Ramus, T., & Vaccaro, A. (2018). From protest to product: Strategic frame
brokerage in a commercial social movement organization. Academy of Management
Journal, 61(6), 2130-2158.
Lévesque, M., & Stephan, U. (2020). It’s Time We Talk About Time in Entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(2), 163-184.
Lounsbury, M., Gehman, J., & Glynn, M. A. (2019). BeyondHomo Entrepreneurus: Judgment
and the Theory of Cultural Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and
the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 545-564.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2019). Cultural Entrepreneurship: A New Agenda for the
Study of Entrepreneurial Processes and Possibilities.
Manning, S., & Bejarano, T. A. (2017). Convincing the crowd: Entrepreneurial storytelling in
crowdfunding campaigns. Strategic Organization, 15(2), 194-219.
Markowitz, L., Cobb, D., & Hedley, M. (2012). Framing ambiguity: insider/outsiders and the
successful legitimation project of the socially responsible mutual fund industry.
Organization, 19(1), 3-23.
Martens, M. L., Jennings, J. E., & Jennings, P. D. (2007). Do the stories they tell get them the
money they need? The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource acquisition.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1107-1132.
Martin, C. J. (2016). The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form
of neoliberal capitalism? Ecological Economics, 121, 149-159.
Mayer, H., & Knox, P. (2010). Small-Town Sustainability: Prospects in the Second
Modernity. European Planning Studies, 18(10), 1545-1565.
McDonald, R., & Gao, C. (2019). Pivoting Isn't Enough? Managing Strategic Reorientation in
New Ventures. Organization Science, 30(6), 1289-1318.
McEnany, R., & Strutton, D. (2015). Leading the (r)evolution: Succession and leadership
rules for re-entrepreneurs. Business Horizons, 58(4), 401-410.
McGaughey, S. L. (2013). Institutional entrepreneurship in North American lightning
protection standards: Rhetorical history and unintended consequences of failure.
Business History, 55(1), 73-97.
McKnight, B., & Zietsma, C. (2018). Finding the threshold: A configurational approach to
optimal distinctiveness. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(4), 493-512.
Merrie, A., & Olsson, P. (2014). An innovation and agency perspective on the emergence and
spread of Marine Spatial Planning. Marine Policy, 44, 366-374.
Mertha, A. (2009). “Fragmented Authoritarianism 2.0”: Political Pluralization in the Chinese
Policy Process. The China Quarterly, 200, 995-1012.
Meyer, R. E., Hollerer, M. A., Jancsary, D., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2013). The Visual
Dimension in Organizing, Organization, and Organization Research: Core Ideas,
Current Developments, and Promising Avenues. Academy of Management Annals,
7(1), 489-555.
Montgomery, A. W., Dacin, P. A., & Dacin, M. T. (2012). Collective Social
Entrepreneurship: Collaboratively Shaping Social Good. Journal of Business Ethics,
111(3), 375-388.
Nason, R. S., & Wiklund, J. (2018). An Assessment of Resource-Based Theorizing on Firm
Growth and Suggestions for the Future. Journal of Management, 44(1), 32-60.
Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2010). How new market categories emerge: Temporal dynamics
of legitimacy, identity, and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990-2005.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(3), 439-471.

38
Paharia, N., Keinan, A., Avery, J., & Schor, J. B. (2011). The Underdog Effect: The
Marketing of Disadvantage and Determination through Brand Biography. Journal of
Consumer Research, 37(5), 775-790.
Pan, L., Li, X., Chen, J., & Chen, T. (2020). Sounds novel or familiar? Entrepreneurs' framing
strategy in the venture capital market. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(2), 105930.
Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic Brand Concept-Image
Management. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135-145.
Perretti, F., Negro, G., & Lomi, A. (2008). E pluribus unum: Framing, matching, and form
emergence in US television broadcasting, 1940-1960. Organization Science, 19(4),
533-547.
Pollman, E., & Barry, J. M. (2016). Regulatory entrepreneurship. Southern California Law
Review, 90, 383.
Rao, H. (1998). Caveat emptor: The construction of nonprofit consumer watchdog
organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 912-961.
Rao, H., & Giorgi, S. (2006). Code breaking: How entrepreneurs exploit cultural logics to
generate institutional change. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational
Behavior (Vol. 27, pp. 269-304). San Diego: Jai-Elsevier Science Inc.
Rauch, A. (2019). Opportunities and Threats in Reviewing Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1042258719879635.
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial Orientation and
Business Performance: An Assessment of past Research and Suggestions for the
Future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761-787.
Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to
create radically successful businesses. New York, NY: Crown Business.
Rindova, V., & Courtney, H. (2020). To Shape or Adapt: Knowledge Problems,
Epistemologies, and Strategic Postures under Knightian Uncertainty. Academy of
Management Review, 45(4), 787-807.
Ronnberg, L. (2017). From national policy-making to global edu-business: Swedish edu-
preneurs on the move. Journal of Education Policy, 32(2), 234-249.
Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Constructing markets and shaping boundaries:
Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 643-
671.
Scarbrough, H., Robertson, M., & Swan, J. (2015). Diffusion in the Face of Failure: The
Evolution of a Management Innovation. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 365-
387.
Shepherd, D. A., Wennberg, K., Suddaby, R., & Wiklund, J. (2019). What Are We
Explaining? A Review and Agenda on Initiating, Engaging, Performing, and
Contextualizing Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 45(1), 159-196.
Sine, W. D., & Lee, B. H. (2009). Tilting at windmills? The environmental movement and the
emergence of the U.S. wind energy sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1),
123-155.
Slager, R., Gond, J. P., & Moon, J. (2012). Standardization as Institutional Work: The
Regulatory Power of a Responsible Investment Standard. Organization Studies, 33(5-
6), 763-790.
Snihur, Y., Thomas, L. D. W., & Burgelman, R. A. (2018a). An Ecosystem-Level Process
Model of Business Model Disruption: The Disruptor's Gambit. Journal of
Management Studies, 55(7), 1278-1316.
Snihur, Y., Thomas, L. D. W., & Burgelman, R. A. (2018b). The performative power of
words: How business model innovators use framing for strategic advantage. In S.

39
Brusoni, K. J. Sund & R. J. Galavan (Eds.), Innovation and Cognition (pp. 13-44).
Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Sujan, M., & Bettman, J. R. (1989). The Effects of Brand Positioning Strategies on
Consumers’ Brand and Category Perceptions: Some Insights from Schema Research.
Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4), 454-467.
Thomas, L. D. W., & Ritala, P. (2021). Ecosystem Legitimacy Emergence: A Collective
Action View. Journal of Management, in press.
Thomas, L. D. W., & Snihur, Y. (2020). Framing ecosystem leadership: The case of Amazon.
Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging Institutional Entrepreneurship and the
Creation of New Organizational Forms: A Multilevel Model. Organization Science,
22(1), 60-80.
Überbacher, F. (2014). Legitimation of new ventures: A review and research programme.
Journal of Management Studies, 51(4), 667-698.
Überbacher, F., Jacobs, C. D., & Cornelissen, J. P. (2015). How Entrepreneurs Become
Skilled Cultural Operators. Organization Studies, 36(7), 925-951.
Uzunca, B., Rigtering, J. P. C., & Ozcan, P. (2018). Sharing and Shaping: A Cross-Country
Comparison of How Sharing Economy Firms Shape Their Institutional Environment
to Gain Legitimacy. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(3), 248-272.
Vaara, E., Sonenshein, S., & Boje, D. (2016). Narratives as Sources of Stability and Change
in Organizations: Approaches and Directions for Future Research. Academy of
Management Annals, 10(1), 495-560.
Weber, K., Heinze, K. L., & DeSoucey, M. (2008). Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in
the movement for grass-fed meat and dairy products. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 53(3), 529-567.
Werner, M. D., & Cornelissen, J. P. (2014). Framing the Change: Switching and Blending
Frames and their Role in Instigating Institutional Change. Organization Studies,
35(10), 1449-1472.
Woolthuis, R. K., Hooimeijer, F., Bossink, B., Mulder, G., & Brouwer, J. (2013). Institutional
entrepreneurship in sustainable urban development: Dutch successes as inspiration for
transformation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 91-100.
Wry, T., Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimating Nascent Collective Identities:
Coordinating Cultural Entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22(2), 449-463.
York, J. G., Hargrave, T. J., & Pacheco, D. F. (2016). Converging winds: Logic hybridization
in the Colorado wind energy field. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 579-610.
Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beoynd Survival: Achieving New Venture Growth
by Building Legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414.
Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire
resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 70-105.

40
Table 1. Research Protocol and Summary Results.
Protocol
a) Search for: TOPIC: (entrepreneur*) AND TOPIC: (fram*) (from ISI Web of
Science SSCI Core Collection)
Results: 4,312 papers
b) Remove duplicates
Results: 4,309 papers
c) Remove non-ABS listed journals
Results: 2,903 papers
d) Remove papers that only mention “framework”
Results: 352 papers
e) Remove papers that do not discuss phenomenon of interest
Results: 60 papers
f) Add papers from adjacent literatures that substantively discuss framing
Results: 11 papers
g) In-depth analysis: 71 papers
Sum of times cited by year, as at Dec. 31, 2019.
Top ten journals, as at Dec. 31, 2019.
Journal
Papers
Organization Studies
8
Academy of Management Journal
6
Journal of Business Venturing
5
Organization Science
4
Administrative Science Quarterly
3
Journal of Management Studies
3
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice
2
Research Policy
2
Strategic Management Journal
2
Journal of Business Ethics
2
ABS Journal Quality, as on Dec. 31, 2019.
Top ten cited papers, as on Dec. 31, 2019.
Paper
Cited
Fligstein (1997)
487
Weber et al. (2008)
326
Rao (1998)
256
Mertha (2009)
240
Navis & Glynn (2010)
221
Martin (2016)
201
Martin et al. (2013)
160
Allison et al. (2015)
111
Slager et al. (2012)
97
Elzen et al. (2011)
79
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1997
1998
2006
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
1
3%
2
12%
3
25%
4
32%
4*
28%

41
Table 2. Summary of Venture Legitimation Framing Articles.
Author (Year)
Method
Framing Characteristic Focus
Venture Legitimation Focus
Allison et al. (2013)
Quantitative hypotheses testing
Content (emphasis)
Offering
Allison et al. (2015)
Quantitative hypotheses testing
Content (emphasis)
Offering
Ansari et al. (2016)
Qualitative
Process (complementary actions)
Business model
Chandra (2018)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis)
Offering
Clarke (2011)
Visual ethnography
Content (mode, emphasis)
Identity
Clarke et al. (2019)
Mixed method; qualitative and
experiment
Content (mode, language)
Offering
Cornelissen et al. (2011)
Conceptual
Content (language)
Offering
Cornelissen et al. (2012)
Conceptual
Content (language)
Offering
Dalpiaz and Cavotta (2019)
Conceptual
Content (emphasis)
Offering
Fischer and Reuber (2014)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis)
Offering
Fisher et al. (2017)
Conceptual
Content (language)
Offering and business model
Garud et al. (2020)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis) and process (deployment,
complementary actions)
Business model
Hartman and Coslor (2019)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis)
Offering
Kim, Buffart, and Croidieu (2016)
Quantitative hypotheses testing
Content (emphasis, language)
Offering
Kumaraswamy et al. (2018)
Conceptual
Content (emphasis) and process (contests)
Offering
Lee and Huang (2018)
Mixed method; qualitative and
experiment
Content (content)
Business model
Lee et al. (2018)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis) and process (deployment)
Identity
Manning and Bejarano (2017)
Qualitative
Content (language) and process (deployment)
Offering
McDonald and Gao (2019)
Qualitative
Content (language) and process (complementary
actions)
Offering and business model
McKnight and Zietsma (2018)
Configurational approach; QCA
Content (emphasis)
Offering (technology) and
business model
Meyer et al. (2013)
Conceptual
Content (mode)
Offering
Pan et al. (2020)
Quantitative hypotheses testing
Content (emphasis)
Offering and business model
Santos and Eisenhardt (2009)
Qualitative
Content (language, emphasis) and process
(complementary actions)
Business model
Snihur et al. (2018a)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis) and process (deployment,
complementary actions)
Offering (technology) and
business model
Überbacher et al. (2015)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis, language)
Offering

42
Table 3. Summary of Field Legitimation Framing Articles.
Author (Year)
Method
Framing Characteristic Focus
Field Legitimation Focus
Ansari et al. (2013)
Qualitative
Process (contest)
Practices
Arbuthnott et al. (2010)
Qualitative
Process (deployment, complementary action)
Practices, collective identity
Berghout et al. (2018)
Qualitative
Content (written mode, emphasis)
Practices, collective identity
Chen and Sun (2019)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis)
Practices, regulation
Delacour and Leca (2017)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis) and process (complementary action)
Practices
Delmestri and Greenwood
(2016)
Qualitative
Content (visual mode, emphasis)
Practices, regulation
Elzen et al. (2011)
Qualitative
Content (language) and process (contest)
Regulation, practices
Essen and Varlander (2019)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis)
Practices
Faling and Biesbroek (2019)
Qualitative
Content (complementary action)
Practices, regulation
Feront and Bertels (2019)
Qualitative
Content (language)
Regulation, practices
Fligstein (1997)
Conceptual
Content (emphasis)
Practices, field emergence
Forbes (2012)
Qualitative
Process (deployment)
Practices, regulation
Friedman and Desivilya (2010)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis)
Practices, collective identity
Garud et al. (2019)
Qualitative
Process (deployment)
Field collapse, practices,
collective identity
Giorgi et al. (2017)
Conceptual
Content (emphasis) and process (deployment, complementary
action)
Practices, collective identity
Granqvist and Laurila (2011)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis) and process (contests)
Field emergence
Gurses and Ozcan (2015)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis) and process (contests)
Regulation
Heimstadt and Reischauer
(2019)
Qualitative
Process (deployment)
Practices
Helms et al. (2012)
Quantitative
hypotheses-testing
Content (written mode) and process (contests and
negotiations)
Practices
Hervieux and Voltan (2018)
Qualitative
Content (written mode)
Practices
Hiatt and Carlos (2019)
Mixed method,
qualitative and
quantitative
Process (deployment, contest)
Creation of market categories
Hung and Whittington (2011)
Qualitative
Process (complementary actions)
Practices
Jones, York, Vedula, Conger,
and Lenox (2019)
Qualitative
Process (deployment)
Practices

43
Khaire (2014)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis)
Field emergence, collective
identity
Kim, Croidieu, et al. (2016)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis) and process (deployment)
Field emergence, regulation
Langenohl (2008)
Qualitative
Content (written mode)
Regulation
Lee and Hung (2014)
Qualitative
Process (deployment, complementary action)
Practices, collective identity
Markowitz et al. (2012)
Qualitative
Content (language) and process (deployment)
Practices, collective identity
Martin (2016)
Qualitative
Content (written mode) and process (deployment, contest)
Practices
Mayer and Knox (2010)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis, language) and process (complementary
actions)
Practices
McGaughey (2013)
Qualitative
Process (deployment)
Regulation
Merrie and Olsson (2014)
Qualitative
Process (deployment, contest)
Practices
Mertha (2009)
Qualitative
Content (language)
Regulation
Montgomery et al. (2012)
Conceptual
Process (deployment)
Field emergence
Navis and Glynn (2010)
Qualitative
Content (language, emphasis)
Creation of market categories
Perretti et al. (2008)
Quantitative
hypotheses testing
Content (written mode, language, emphasis)
Collective identity
Rao and Giorgi (2006)
Conceptual
Content (emphasis) and process (deployment, complementary
action)
Practice change
Rao (1998)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis) and process (deployment, contest)
Field emergence
Ronnberg (2017)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis) and process (complementary action)
Practices, regulation
Scarbrough, Robertson, and
Swan (2015)
Qualitative
Process (deployment)
Practices
Slager et al. (2012)
Qualitative
Content (language) and process (complementary action)
Regulation, practices
Thomas and Ritala (2021)
Conceptual
Content (emphasis) and process (deployment)
Collective (ecosystem) identity
Weber et al. (2008)
Qualitative
Content (emphasis) and process (deployment, complementary
actions)
Field emergence, practices
Werner and Cornelissen
(2014)
Conceptual
Content (language), and process (deployment)
Practices
Woolthuis et al. (2013)
Qualitative
Content (language) and process (complementary action)
Practices, regulation
York et al. (2016)
Qualitative
Process (deployment and contests)
Practices

44
Table 4. Research Agenda.
Key Areas
Research Questions
Research Design and Methodology
Recommendations
Better understand
framing
complications
across audiences,
time, and
geographies
Framing across audiences
- How can attributes of different audiences necessitate different, potentially multi-layered
framing approaches?
- What is the role of emotions for effective entrepreneurial framing across audiences to enable
not only cognitive but also emotional resonance with the new venture or its field?
- How can framing coherence be maintained across audiences (as well as time and
geographies)?
- What are the possible contributions of different audiences such as investors, customers, or
competitors to entrepreneurial framing, potentially salient over time as amplifiers or
detractors of entrepreneurial framing?
Framing across time
- Can original frames persist over time, imprinting audiences or fields with specific references?
- How are different audiences likely to react when entrepreneurs strategically shift the
emphasis of their framing over time, and with what effects for their venture’s resonance and
legitimacy?
Framing across geographies
- How do practices, regulations, and collective identities in place across geographic contexts
influence a venture’s framing strategies when it enters and continues operating there?
- Are there universal mechanisms that make entrepreneurial framing resonate in different
contexts and to what degree do entrepreneurs have to tailor their framing to specific
locations?
New conversations about framing in the
digital and increasingly data-driven
economy are needed, for instance, to
examine how digitalization impacts
entrepreneurial framing content or processes
in terms of language and emphasis, as well
as frequency and sequencing of frames used
across audiences, time, and geographies.
Experiments, little used in the reviewed
framing research, could be developed to
comparatively evaluate framing
effectiveness with different audiences,
across time, or geographies.
Develop
understanding of
performativity and
wider implications
of entrepreneurial
framing
- How could entrepreneurs balance between what is said and what is left unsaid during
entrepreneurial framing from a performativity perspective?
- How might entrepreneurs be able to pivot or persevere without losing legitimacy during
entrepreneurial journey? For serial entrepreneurs who realize that they will probably have to
pivot in the future, a question is how they could frame their pitches and business models in
the first place, knowing that changes will be called for later as their journeys unfold.
- How far can “fake it till you make it” take ventures with questionable practices?
- How can entrepreneurial framing and legitimation help enable and constitute new meanings,
for instance needed for sustainability transitions in diverse industries such as energy or
transportation?
The use of artificial intelligence for
entrepreneurial framing could be a new
empirical setting for future research.
Need for theory testing in larger samples
with quantitative analysis of entrepreneurial
framing, pivoting, and their outcomes.

45
Figure 1. A Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Framing.
* Black arrows and shapes indicate existing conversations. Grey arrows and shapes indicate emerging research and future research directions.