We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

Entrepreneurship and Regional Development

Special Issue

Deadline: 1 December 2019

Entrepreneurship and Embeddedness

Dynamic, Processual and Multi-layered Perspectives

Contemporary research offers rich and convincing evidence to the importance of embeddedness for entrepreneurs (M. T. Dacin, Ventresca, & Beal, 1999; Thornton, 1999). Entrepreneurial activities are embedded, meaning that they are situated in contexts that enable and/or constrain certain activities, actions and strategies. Accordingly, entrepreneurship is a fundamentally contextualised phenomenon (Thornton, 1999; Zahra, 2007) and will unfold differently in different contexts.

The earliest notions of embeddedness in entrepreneurship research related to the social networks of entrepreneurs. Drawing on sociological theories that have pointed to the general embeddedness of economic activity (Burt, 2004; Granovetter, 1985; Polanyi, 1957; Swedberg, 2000; Uzzi, 1996), entrepreneurship researchers have shown how interpersonal relationships (ties) can enhance an entrepreneur’s ability to succeed by e.g. gaining access to idiosyncratic information, access to resources on favorable terms, and legitimize the entrepreneur and the venture (cf. Baum, Calabrese, & Silverman, 2000; Burt, 2000, 2004; Gnyawali & Madhavan, 2001; Thornton, 1999). The entrepreneur thus derives advantages from a beneficial position in social structures.

The notion of embeddedness has been used to explain the importance of other forms of context than the social (Welter, 2011; Welter, Baker, & Wirsching, 2018). Institutional and spatial contexts can also serve as a source of information, resources and legitimacy, if the entrepreneur is embedded in multiple such contexts (Kloosterman, 2010; Kloosterman, Van Der Leun, & Rath, 1999; Müller & Korsgaard, 2018; Ram, Jones, & Villares-Varela, 2017; Vannebo & Grande, 2018).

A prominent example of this kind of mechanism is the important research on mixed embeddedness, where studies have found that immigrant entrepreneurs are able to leverage their embeddedness in both the origin and destination contexts. Mixed embeddedness affords advantages if the entrepreneur is able to access resources and markets in multiple contexts, which would explain e.g. the general overrepresentation in numbers and better overall economic performance of in-migrant entrepreneurs in rural areas (Kalantaridis & Bika, 2006; Kloosterman, 2010; Kloosterman et al., 1999). Marti and colleagues (2013) identified a similar bridging mechanism in play at the community level where “known strangers” bridging the boundaries between a local impoverished community and outside resources enabled community development that would have been impossible through the agency of the locals alone.

Overall, the entrepreneurship field is rich with contextualized descriptions of embeddedness in specific contexts. Studies of family entrepreneurship (e.g. Alsos, Carter, & Ljunggren, 2014; Arregle et al., 2015), rural entrepreneurship (e.g. Gaddefors & Anderson, 2018; McElwee, Smith, & Somerville, 2018), academic entrepreneurship (e.g. Rasmussen, 2011; Wright, 2014), gendered structures and dynamics of entrepreneurship (e.g. Marlow & Patton, 2005; Minniti & Naudé, 2010), social entrepreneurship (e.g. P. A. Dacin, Dacin, & Matear, 2010; Vannebo & Grande, 2018), community entrepreneurship (e.g. Haugh, 2007; Johannisson, 1990; Vestrum & Rasmussen, 2013), and entrepreneurship in emerging economies (e.g. Pasillas, Brundin, & Markowska, 2017) have all illustrated the importance of the context and increased our understanding of its peculiarities. 

Further, the study of the social, spatial and institutional embeddedness of entrepreneurship has enhanced our general understanding of the heterogeneity of entrepreneurial responses to external conditions, as well as demonstrated how structural factors influence entrepreneurial processes at the micro-level (cf. Thornton, 1999; Welter, 2011; Welter & Smallbone, 2011). Such studies thus constitute a vital element for entrepreneurship theorizing (Zahra, 2007), by making the theorizing sensitive, in several ways, to the social and institutional contexts in which entrepreneurship occurs (Welter, 2011; Welter et al., 2018). Firstly, this has helped researchers explore, on the one hand how economic rationality and optimization is often compromised by social and institutional embeddedness, and on the other hand how this enables entrepreneurial activities for individuals with privileged positions in networks and institutions. Secondly, it has demonstrated the importance of bridging or connecting activities in enabling entrepreneurial activity, be it bridging or connecting across social or institutional boundaries (cf. Anderson, Dodd, & Jack, 2012).

Despite the extensive coverage of the importance of embeddedness for entrepreneurial activities, the research predominantly relies on somewhat static, single layered, and binary notions of embeddedness. Predominantly the research i) considers embeddedness as a stable state of an individual entrepreneur or the entrepreneurial venture, i.e. the entrepreneur is embedded in the local social context in which she lives and operates the business; ii) considers embeddedness within only one form of context, i.e. either the social, institutional or spatial context; iii) considers embedded as something that the entrepreneur either is or is not, so that different levels of embeddedness are not considered, despite the possibility that even entrepreneurs that have operated in a rural village for the same time period may be embedded to very different extents (Korsgaard, Ferguson, & Gaddefors, 2015).

Furthermore, there has been a very strong tendency to consider primarily the enabling and positive consequences of embeddedness, with very few studies exploring notions of over-embeddedness or the advantages of not being embedded. Indeed, embeddedness involves at least two paradoxes.

Firstly, embeddedness enables entrepreneurship, yet may also lead to conformity and stasis. Entrepreneurship therefore requires an element of provocation, misfit or tension with the established norms, practices and routines of the context(s) (Berglund, Gaddefors, & Lindgren, 2016) – oftentimes introduced by outsiders. As a consequence, entrepreneurial processes must involve delicate balances between conformity and provocation e.g. through blending local involvement and outside influences (Dubois, 2016; Gaddefors & Cronsell, 2009; Müller & Korsgaard, 2018).

Second, the entrepreneurial act, while relying on embeddedness, inevitably alters the fabric of the context. Entrepreneurs, even if they seek to preserve the heritage, values, life style or norms of a context, will have a transformative and disruptive effect that can lead to the destruction as well as creation of value in context. As entrepreneurs transform contexts others may become disembedded or alienated from the context. 

Following the general calls for entrepreneurship research to become more sensitive to contextual issues (Welter, 2011; Welter et al., 2018; Zahra, Wright, & Abdelgawad, 2014) and the ever-present need for deeper explorations into the intricacies of entrepreneurial processes (McMullen & Dimov, 2013), we argue that there is a strong need for studies that problematize embeddedness and the relationship between entrepreneur and context (cf. Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011). Can we explore embeddedness as dynamic, processual and multi-layered, as well as elaborating on the paradoxes of embeddedness?

So how do entrepreneurs become embedded and/or disembedded in processes that unfold over time with the configurations of entrepreneurial identities, ventures and contexts in constant change? How do different layers (social, spatial, institutional, gendered, class) of context relate and interchange to influence entrepreneurial activities? What intersectional effects of embeddedness in context enable and constrain entrepreneurs?

Explore Author Services

We aim to make publishing with Taylor & Francis a rewarding experience for all our authors. Please visit our Author Services website for more information, guidance, FAQs and to contact us directly.
Read more

Guest Editor Information

Caroline Wigren-Kristofersen, Lund University, School of Economics and Management 

Steffen Korsgaard, University of Southern Denmark

Ethel Brundin, Jönköping International Business School 

Karin Hellerstedt, Jönköping International Business School

Gry Agnete Alsos, Nord University Business School

Jorunn Grande, Nord University Business School 

Submission Guidelines

The deadline for paper submission is the 1st of December 2019. Full papers should be submitted to Steffen Korsgaard. Please indicate in the headline that the submission is for the special issue. The papers must be prepared in accordance with ERD’s style guide, as available at the journal’s website. Please make sure to submit both a version including a title page with author information, and a version without author information for double blind review. We expect the special issue to be published in 2020 or early 2021.

To fulfill the potential of such important questions we may need to leverage new theories of embeddedness from outside the entrepreneurship field, thereby limiting our dependence on e.g. sociological theories of networks and structure (as in e.g. Hite & Hesterly, 2001; Hoang & Antoncic, 2003; Jack & Anderson, 2002), deploy new and innovative methods that allow for going beyond traditional cross-sectional approaches and adopt the strong processual perspectives needed for multi-layered accounts of embeddedness, temporal processes of embedding and disembedding, or multi-level analysis of the recursive relationship between entrepreneurial activity and embeddedness.

Potential topics and research questions can include, but are not limited to:

  • New conceptualizations of embeddedness and disembeddedness
  • Processes of embedding and disembedding and their effect on entrepreneurial activities
  • Studies of the recursive effect of embeddedness and entrepreneurial activities considered as an agency-structure problem
  • Discussions of new and emerging theories of embeddedness and their importance for our understanding of entrepreneurship
  • Multi-layered studies of simultaneous embeddedness in multiple forms of context
  • Studies seeking to understand the gendered aspects of embeddedness
  • Studies of intersectional effects of embeddedness and identities including both privilege of social, spatial or institutional embeddedness and discrimination of enforced embeddedness upon exposed groups.
  • New innovative methods to uncover embeddedness dynamics in entrepreneurship

 

Latest Tweets

References

Alsos, G. A., Carter, S., & Ljunggren, E. (2014). Kinship and business: how entrepreneurial households facilitate business growth. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 26(1-2), 97-122. doi:10.1080/08985626.2013.870235
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247-271.
Anderson, A. R., Dodd, S. D., & Jack, S. L. (2012). Entrepreneurship as connecting: some implications for theorising and practice. Management Decision, 50(5), 958-971. doi:10.1108/00251741211227708
Arregle, J. L., Batjargal, B., Hitt, M. A., Webb, J. W., Miller, T., & Tsui, A. S. (2015). Family ties in entrepreneurs’ social networks and new venture growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(2), 313-344.
Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. S. (2000). Don't go it alone : Alliance network composition and startups' performance in canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 267-294.
Berglund, K., Gaddefors, J., & Lindgren, M. (2016). Provoking identities: entrepreneurship and emerging identity positions in rural development. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(1-2), 76-96. doi:10.1080/08985626.2015.1109002
Burt, R. S. (2000). The Network Entrepreneur. In R. Swedberg (Ed.), Entrepreneurship: The Social Science View. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural Holes and Good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349-399.
Dacin, M. T., Ventresca, M. J., & Beal, B. D. (1999). The Embeddedness of Organizations: Dialogue & Directions. Journal of Management, 25(3), 317-356. doi:10.1177/014920639902500304
Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. (2010). Social Entrepreneurship: Why We Don't Need a New Theory and How We Move Forward From Here. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37-57. doi:10.5465/amp.2010.52842950
Dubois, A. (2016). Transnationalising entrepreneurship in a peripheral region – The translocal embeddedness paradigm. Journal of Rural Studies, 46, 1-11. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.05.003
Gaddefors, J., & Anderson, A. R. (2018). Romancing the rural: Reconceptualizing rural entrepreneurship as engagement with context (s). The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 1465750318785545.
Gaddefors, J., & Cronsell, N. (2009). Returnees and Local Stakeholders Co-producing the Entrepreneurial Region. European Planning Studies, 17(8), 1191-1203.
Gnyawali, D. R., & Madhavan, R. (2001). Cooperative Networks and Competitive Dynamics: A Structural Embeddedness Perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 431-445.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
Haugh, H. (2007). Community‐led social venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(2), 161-182.
Hite, J. M., & Hesterly, W. S. (2001). The Evolution of Firm Networks: From Emergence to Early Growth of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 275-286.
Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165-187. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(02)00081-2
Jack, S. L., & Anderson, A. R. (2002). The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5), 467-487.
Johannisson, B. (1990). Community entrepreneurship - cases and conceptualisation. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 2, 71-88.
Kalantaridis, C., & Bika, Z. (2006). In-migrant entrepreneurship in rural England: beyond local embeddedness. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 18(2), 109-131. doi:10.1080/08985620500510174
Kloosterman, R. (2010). Matching opportunities with resources: A framework for analysing (migrant) entrepreneurship from a mixed embeddedness perspective. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(1), 25-45. doi:10.1080/08985620903220488
Kloosterman, R., Van Der Leun, J., & Rath, J. (1999). Mixed Embeddedness: (In)formal Economic Activities and Immigrant Businesses in the Netherlands. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(2), 252-266. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.00194
Korsgaard, S., Ferguson, R., & Gaddefors, J. (2015). The Best of Both Worlds: How Rural Entrepreneurs Use Placial Embeddedness and Strategic Networks to Create Opportunities. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(9-10), 574-598.
Marlow, S., & Patton, D. (2005). All credit to men? Entrepreneurship, finance, and gender. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6), 717-735.
Marti, I., Courpasson, D., & Dubard Barbosa, S. (2013). “Living in the fishbowl”. Generating an entrepreneurial culture in a local community in Argentina. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1), 10-29. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.09.001
McElwee, G., Smith, R., & Somerville, P. (2018). Conceptualising animation in rural communities: the Village SOS case. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(1-2), 173-198. doi:10.1080/08985626.2017.1401122
McMullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the Entrepreneurial Journey: The Problems and Promise of Studying Entrepreneurship as a Process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481-1512. doi:10.1111/joms.12049
Minniti, M., & Naudé, W. (2010). What Do We Know About The Patterns and Determinants of Female Entrepreneurship Across Countries? The European Journal of Development Research, 22(3), 277-293. doi:10.1057/ejdr.2010.17
Müller, S., & Korsgaard, S. (2018). Resources and bridging: the role of spatial context in rural entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(1-2), 224-255.
Pasillas, M. R., Brundin, E., & Markowska, M. (2017). Contextualizing entrepreneurship in emerging economies and developing countries: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Polanyi, K. (1957). The great transformation (Vol. 45). Boston: Beacon Press.
Ram, M., Jones, T., & Villares-Varela, M. (2017). Migrant entrepreneurship: Reflections on research and practice. International Small Business Journal, 35(1), 3-18. doi:doi:10.1177/0266242616678051
Rasmussen, E. (2011). Understanding academic entrepreneurship: Exploring the emergence of university spin-off ventures using process theories. International Small Business Journal, 29(5), 448-471.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Swedberg, R. (2000). Entrepreneurship: The Social Science View. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thornton, P. H. (1999). The Sociology of Entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 19-46. doi:10.2307/223496
Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 674-698.
Vannebo, B. I., & Grande, J. (2018). Social entrepreneurship and embedded ties-a comparative case study of social entrepreneurship in Norway. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 33(3), 417-448.
Venkataraman, S. (1997). The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: An Editor's Perspective. In J. Katz & R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship (Vol. 3, pp. 119-138). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Vestrum, I., & Rasmussen, E. (2013). How community ventures mobilise resources: Developing resource dependence and embeddedness. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 19(3), 283-302.
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing Entrepreneurship—Conceptual Challenges and Ways Forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165-184. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x
Welter, F., Baker, T., & Wirsching, K. (2018). Three waves and counting: the rising tide of contextualization in entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics, 1-12.
Welter, F., & Smallbone, D. (2011). Institutional Perspectives on Entrepreneurial Behavior in Challenging Environments. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 107-125. doi:10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00317.x
Wright, M. (2014). Academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and society: where next? The journal of technology transfer, 39(3), 322-334.
Zahra, S. A. (2007). Contextualizing Theory Building in Entrepreneurship Research. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(3), 443-452. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.04.007
Zahra, S. A., Wright, M., & Abdelgawad, S. G. (2014). Contextualization and the advancement of entrepreneurship research. International Small Business Journal. doi:10.1177/0266242613519807