Degrees of integration: how a fragmented entrepreneurial ecosystem promotes different types of entrepreneurs

Scheidgen, Katharina

doi:10.4324/9781003244967-5

Cited by 7 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We identify three complementary dimensionsinstitutional, cultural and relationalof legitimacy within EE, which add to the understanding of the evolution of actors within EE and the roles and interactions between them (Brown and Mason, 2017;Stam and Van de Ven, 2021;Wurth et al, 2022). We also inform existing legitimacy research, which generally relies on stable environments, by investigating such dynamics in an evolving EE context, where institutions and actors co-evolve in a social process (Adams, 2021;Johnson et al, 2006;Scheidgen, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…They distinguish themselves by their missions with respect to the entrepreneurial performance of the territory (Kansheba and Wald, 2020). Among these actors, incubators offer support which encompasses providing legitimacy to start-ups facing liability of newness (Kuratko et al, 2017;Scheidgen, 2021;Woolley and MacGregor, 2022). This is only possible if these incubators themselves are perceived as legitimate by their EE.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Entrepreneurial ecosystems and actor legitimacy

Lechner

Delanoë‐Gueguen

Gueguen

2022

IJEBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis study contributes to a better understanding of the important actor-specific, micro-level legitimacy dimensions in dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs).Design/methodology/approachUsing an embedded case study approach and rich longitudinal data collected over 16 years within a French EE, the study analyzes the legitimacy gaining process of two actors coming from opposite founding conditions.FindingsThree dimensions of legitimacy (3L) are necessary to be accepted as functional actors within EEs: institutional legitimacy (IL) refers to the EE's acceptance of an actor as an institution active in the field of entrepreneurship; cultural legitimacy (CL) means that the actor is recognized as possessing and promoting values considered appropriate by the entrepreneurial community; relational legitimacy (RL) relates to the willingness of the entrepreneurial community to interact with the actor. These are complementary dimensions that members of EEs need to possess to acquire full legitimacy. Different paths are possible to achieve this full legitimacy.Research limitations/implicationsReplicating the study with a comparative approach including more actors could represent an interesting avenue for research.Practical implicationsThis research provides insights into the underlying dimensions of legitimacy in EEs, how various actors gain legitimacy in such contexts and how this influences the dynamics of EEs.Originality/valueThe results provide novel insights into the issue of legitimacy in EEs and legitimacy theory in general.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Entrepreneurial ecosystems and actor legitimacy

Lechner

Delanoë‐Gueguen

Gueguen

2022

IJEBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The interview outline consisted of 25 open questions. The outline focused on the analysis of attitudes to formal institutions, mechanisms of cooperation with formal and/or informal institutions, and the level of institutional trust with supporting examples or a detailed explanation of the interviewee's views (Scheidgen, 2021;Harima et al, 2021;Ivy and Perényi, 2020;Ivy, 2013). The data was collected between 2018-2019, and fieldwork included travelling to the selected cities where the targeted participants were located.…”

Section: Qualitative Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards the regional aspects of institutional trust and entrepreneurial ecosystems

Khlystova

Kalyuzhnova

Belitski

2022

IJEBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeInstitutional trust is vital for social and economic activity and crucial in reducing uncertainty for entrepreneurs and society. To shed light on the role of institutional trust on productive entrepreneurial activity, this paper analyses the impact of six urban entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) using the contexts of the transition economies of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia. This study aims to pursue the research question: what role does institutional trust play in the relationship between formal institutions and productive entrepreneurship in the EEs of transition economies? This paper aims to posit that the development and enforcement of formal institutions and institutional trust enhance productive entrepreneurship.Design/methodology/approachIn this study, the authors apply a mixed-method approach. The authors’ dataset includes 657 respondents (ecosystem stakeholders) from six city-level entrepreneurial ecosystems in the transition economies of Georgia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, as well as 51 semi-structured interviews from EE representative stakeholders to examine the validity of the findings.FindingsInstitutional trust in many cities has been negatively affected by institutionalised corruption and continuous non-transparent reforms, furthering prior research in developing and transition economies. The authors’ findings suggest that institutional trust can be investigated not as a country phenomenon but as a regional phenomenon extending prior research towards understanding the institutional trust – productive entrepreneurship research domain at the city EE level.Originality/valueThe authors apply the institutional trust perspective to the EEs in cities in order to examine how institutional trust affects productive entrepreneurship in challenging institutional environments. The authors contribute to the literature on institutions and entrepreneurship by using a mixed-method analysis to examine the relationship between formal institutions and institutional trust in the context of EEs in transition economies.

show abstract

“…Fewer entrepreneurial ecosystem interactions as a result of entrepreneurs deciding to leverage AI means that entrepreneurs have fewer opportunities to exchange entrepreneurship-related knowledge. Reducing informal ecosystem interactions also decreases the meta-knowledge about who are the most valuable sources of knowledge in an Artificial intelligence ecosystem because such knowledge is often shared during informal interactions and conversations (Scheidgen, 2021). Decreasing interactions with other community members also prevents entrepreneurs from sharing their differentiated knowledge with other ecosystem participants, thus reducing shared knowledge.…”

Section: Ai Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial intelligence and entrepreneurial ecosystems: understanding the implications of algorithmic decision-making for startup communities

Roundy

2022

JEET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Entrepreneurs are increasingly relying on artificial intelligence (AI) to assist in creating and scaling new ventures. Research on entrepreneurs’ use of AI algorithms (machine learning, natural language processing, artificial neural networks) has focused on the intra-organizational implications of AI. The purpose of this paper is to explore how entrepreneurs’ adoption of AI influences their inter- and meta-organizational relationships. Design/methodology/approach To address the limited understanding of the consequences of AI for communities of entrepreneurs, this paper develops a theory to explain how AI algorithms influence the micro (entrepreneur) and macro (system) dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Findings The theory’s main insight is that substituting AI for entrepreneurial ecosystem interactions influences not only entrepreneurs’ pursuit of opportunities but also the coordination of their local entrepreneurial ecosystems. Originality/value The theory contributes by drawing attention to the inter-organizational implications of AI, explaining how the decision to substitute AI for human interactions is a micro-foundation of ecosystems, and motivating a research agenda at the intersection of AI and entrepreneurial ecosystems.

show abstract

Degrees of integration: how a fragmented entrepreneurial ecosystem promotes different types of entrepreneurs

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Entrepreneurial ecosystems and actor legitimacy

Entrepreneurial ecosystems and actor legitimacy

Towards the regional aspects of institutional trust and entrepreneurial ecosystems

Artificial intelligence and entrepreneurial ecosystems: understanding the implications of algorithmic decision-making for startup communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About