Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Entrepreneurship in Innovation Communities pp 35–67Cite as

Theorizing Innovation Communities

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 965 Accesses

Part of the book series: Contributions to Management Science ((MANAGEMENT SC.))

Abstract

This chapter connects directly to the current state of research on innovation communities and discusses their institutional foundations, their implementation in the context of fields, as well as their practical implications in terms of agency and entrepreneurship. Against this background, I attempt to grasp innovation communities as a distinct type of meso-level order. Here, the general conflicts that shape the institutional foundations of collective innovation play out in the context of gradually settled fields, where community and business logics compete over the legitimate ways to shape the particular innovation at stake. Consequently, the resulting fields reflect an ambiguous institutional environment that affects not only the general conditions under which innovation communities create and develop potentially innovative artifacts (like 3D printers), but also the particular opportunities and struggles that accompany corresponding approaches for commercial exploitation. As the dilemma of entrepreneurship in open hardware usually refers to community members that develop entrepreneurial ambitions to commercialize community-based innovations, Chap. 3 also emphasizes the micro level of individual actors and their agentic capacities to relieve tensions within a complex and potentially contradictive institutional environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the additional notes to the introductory chapter of “The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis”, DiMaggio and Powell specify their understandings on both, cognition and action as follows: “By cognition we refer to both reasoning and the preconscious grounds of reason: classifications, representations, scripts, schemas, production systems, and the like. […] We use the term action throughout to refer to social behavior, without any of the muscular, rational, or individual reductionist connotations that some have associated with this term.” (DiMaggio and Powell 1991, 35).

  2. 2.

    As I have shown before and will elaborate further later (see Sect. 3.2), this traditional notion of community differs considerably from my understanding of communities as distinct contexts for innovation.

  3. 3.

    In Weber’s theoretical corpus, Rationalization describes historical processes of systematization, in which ideas (containing certain values and worldviews) transform into relative persistent capacities which influence social action, or, as Swidler (1973) puts it, “the process by which ideas develop their own internal logic” (ibid. 36). Rationalization therefore rather resembles a general and processual pattern, which can occur in many different spheres of life without being restricted to any unique types of institutions or modes of social action: “There is, for example, rationalization of mystical contemplation, that is of an attitude which, viewed from other departments of life, is specifically irrational, just as much as there are rationalizations of economic life, of technique, of scientific research, of military training, of law and administration. Furthermore, each one of these fields may be rationalized in terms of very different ultimate values and ends, and what is rational from one point of view may well be irrational from another.” (Weber 2005, xxxvii–xxxix).

  4. 4.

    Besides his notion of communism, Merton explicates three other imperatives—universalism, desinterestedness, and organized skepticism—in order to demarcate specific sets of institutionalized values and norms widely legitimized in scientific communities.

  5. 5.

    Cohen and Levinthal first coined this approach in terms of “absorptive capacity”, defined as “the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends is critical to its innovative capabilities” (Cohen and Levinthal 1990, 128).

  6. 6.

    It has to be mentioned that other interpretations assess the entanglement of capitalism and science consider related implications less critical. Especially authors like Etzkowitz acknowledge that “[academia] has become entrepreneurial” (Etzkowitz 2003, 109) emphasize the upside of these tendencies in terms of “a significant productive force of economy” (Etzkowitz 2003, 552).

  7. 7.

    Although Thornton and Ocasio’s effort to expand the institutional logics framework often remains vague in terms of definitions, references and applications, they explicate pretty clear that “institutional logics do not emerge from organizational fields—they are locally instantiated and enacted in organizational fields” (Thornton et al. 2012, 119).

  8. 8.

    Indeed, DiMaggio and Powell’s definition of organizational fields as consisting of “those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life” resembles some of Bourdieu’s thoughts about fields and its boundaries: “The limits of the field are situated at the point where the effects of the field cease.” (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, 100).

  9. 9.

    Bourdieu generally distinguishes between three “fundamental guises” (Bourdieu 2010 [1986], 82): economic capital like e.g. money or property rights, cultural capital like educational qualifications, and social capital acquired by formal titles or nobility.

  10. 10.

    See also Bourdieu’s references in the Marxist notion of class struggles reflecting unequally distributed power in the context of capitalist labor (Marx 1973 [1887]) as well as in Weber’s conceptualization of markets as power arenas (Weber 1968).

  11. 11.

    In one of his more recent papers, Hoffman suggests that researches who address (organizational) fields should embrace questions on how collective rationalities emerge rather than asking what impacts collective rationality has on a given field: “[…] how it is developed, which field members contribute to its development, and maintenance, how it is transmitted to other actors, and how it changes over time” (Wooten and Hoffman 2008, 138).

  12. 12.

    While this perspective generally suggests that any layer of meso-level order like e.g. organizations, social movements, or governmental systems are themselves made up of strategic action fields (see ibid. 9), constellations in which the relationship between nested fields resembles hierarchical traits resemble a system that looks like “a traditional Russian doll: with any number of smaller fields nested inside larger ones” (ibid.).

  13. 13.

    Regarding the dimension of horizontal relationships, Fligstein and McAdam distinguish between two qualities of correlation. While proximity refers to the degree to which SAFs maintain recurring ties of mutual affection, the distinction between dependent and interdependent fields measures aspect of power as it captures the extent and direction of influence that characterizes the relationship between any two fields (Fligstein and McAdam 2012, 18). The authors believe that “[a]rmed with these distinctions, it is now easier to appreciate just how complicated and potentially consequential are the ties that link any given strategic action field to its broader field environment” (ibid. 19).

References

  • Adler PS (2001) Market, hierarchy, and trust: the knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organ Sci 12(2):215–234. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.2.215.10117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich HE, Yang T (2012) Lost in translation: cultural codes are not blueprints. Strateg Entrep J 6(1):1–17. doi:10.1002/sej.1125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich HE, Yang T (2014) How do entrepreneurs know what to do? Learning and organizing in new ventures. J Evol Econ 24(1):59–82. doi:10.1007/s00191-013-0320-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: Nelsen RR (ed) The rate and direction of inventive activity: economic and social factors. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 609–626

    Google Scholar 

  • Barley SR, Tolbert PS (1997) Institutionalization and structuration: studying the links between action and institution. Organ Stud 18(1):93–117. doi:10.1177/017084069701800106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu P (2010) The forms of capital. In: Szeman I, Kaposy T (eds) Cultural theory: an anthology. Wiley, Madden, MA, pp 81–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu P, Wacquant L (1992) An invitation to reflexive sociology. Polity Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinks V, Ibert O (2015) Mushrooming entrepreneurship: the dynamic geography of enthusiast-driven innovation. Geoforum 65:363–373. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.01.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brint S, Karabel J (1991) Institutional origins and transformations: the case of American community colleges. In: Powell W, Dimaggio P (eds) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 337–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson N (1982) The irrationality of action and action rationality: decisions, ideologies and organizational actions. J Manag Stud 19(1):29–44. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1982.tb00058.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casson M (1982) The entrepreneur: an economic theory. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128–152. doi:10.2307/2393553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander L, Magnusson MG (2005) Relationships between open source software companies and communities: observations from Nordic firms. Res Policy 34(4):481–493. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David PA (2007) The historical origins of “open science. Stanford. http://www-siepr.stanford.edu/papers/pdf/06-38.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2016

  • Demil B, Lecocq X (2006) Neither market nor hierarchy nor network: the emergence of bazaar governance. Organ Stud 27(10):1447–1466. doi:10.1177/0170840606067250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demil B, Lecocq X (2010) Business model evolution: in search of dynamic consistency. Long Range Plann Bus Models 43(2–3):227–246. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2010.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio PJ (1988) Interest and agency in institutional theory. Inst Patterns Organ Culture Environ 1:3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio PJ (1997) Culture and cognition. Annu Rev Sociol 23(1):263–287. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48(2):147–160. doi:10.2307/2095101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1991) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobusch L, Kapeller J (2013) Open strategy between crowd and community: lessons from Wikimedia and creative commons. Acad Manag Proc 2013(1):15831. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2013.15831abstract

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolata U, Schrape J-F (2016) Masses, crowds, communities, movements: collective action in the internet age. Soc Mov Stud 15(1):1–18. doi:10.1080/14742837.2015.1055722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi G (1988) Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. J Econ Lit 26(3):1120–1171

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker P (2014) Innovation and entrepreneurship. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz H (2003) Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Res Policy 32(1):109–121. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00009-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fecher B, Friesike S (2014) Open science: one term, five scools of thought. In: Bartling S, Friesike S (eds) Opening Science. Springer, New York, pp 17–48

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald B (2006b) The transformation of open source software. Manag Inf Syst Q 30(3):587–598. http://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol30/iss3/3

    Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein N (2001a) The architecture of markets: an economic sociology of twenty-first-century capitalist societies, 2nd printing. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein N (2001b) Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociol Theory 19(2):105–125. doi:10.1111/0735-2751.00132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein N, McAdam D (2012) A theory of fields. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Friedland R (2013) God, love, and other good reasons for practice: thinking through institutional logics. In: Institutional logics in action, Part A, Research in the sociology of organizations, vol 39 Part A. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 25–50

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Friedland R, Alford R (1991) Bringing society back in: symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In: Powell W, Dimaggio P (eds) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University Of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 232–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Garud R, Jain S, Kumaraswamy A (2002) Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: the case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Acad Manag J 45(1):196–214. doi:10.2307/3069292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society. University of California Press, Berkley

    Google Scholar 

  • Gläser J (2001) Producing communities’ as a theoretical challenge. Proceedings of the Australian Sociological Association, pp 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood R, Meyer RE (2008) Influencing ideas a celebration of DiMaggio and Powell (1983). J Manag Inq 17(4):258–264. doi:10.1177/1056492608326693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood R, Suddaby R (2006) Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: the big five accounting firms. Acad Manag J 49(1):27–48. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn J (2002) Inter-firm R&D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Res Policy 31(4):477–492. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00120-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn J (2003) Sharing intellectual property rights—an exploratory study of joint patenting amongst companies. Ind Corp Chang 12(5):1035–1050. doi:10.1093/icc/12.5.1035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckscher C, Adler PS (eds) (2006) The firm as a collaborative community: the reconstruction of trust in the knowledge economy. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hienerth C (2006) The commercialization of user innovations: the development of the Rodeo Kayak INDUSTRY. R&D Manag 36(3):273–294. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00430.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman AJ (1997) From heresy to dogma: an institutional history of corporate environmentalism. New Lexington Press, San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman AJ (1999) Institutional evolution and change: environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Acad Manag J 42(4):351–371. doi:10.2307/257008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman AJ (2001) Linking organizational and field-level analyses the diffusion of corporate environmental practice. Organ Environ 14(2):133–156. doi:10.1177/1086026601142001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holck J, Jörgensen N (2005) Do not check in on red: control meets anarchy in two open source projects. In: Koch S (ed) Free/open source software development. Idea Group Inc (IGI), Hershey, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutter M, Knoblauch H, Rammert W, Windeler A (2011) Innovation society today: the reflexive creation of novelty. Technical University Technology Studies Working Papers, no. TUTS-WP-4-2011 (engl.). http://www.innovation.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/i62_ifsgktypo3/en_TUTS_WP_4_2011_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2016

  • Hwang H, Powell WW (2005) Institutions and entrepreneurship. In: Alvarez SA, Agarwal R, Sorenson O (eds) Handbook of entrepreneurship research, International handbook series on entrepreneurship, vol 2. Springer, New York, pp 201–232

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kalberg S (1980) Max Weber’s types of rationality: cornerstones for the analysis of rationalization processes in history. Am J Sociol 85:1145–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knuuttila T (2012) Contradictions of commercialization: revealing the norms of science? Philos Sci 79(5):833–844. doi:10.1086/667844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut B, Metiu A (2001) Open-source software development and distributed innovation. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 17(2):248–264. doi:10.1093/oxrep/17.2.248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence TB, Suddaby R (2006) Institutions and institutional work. In: Clegg S et al (eds) The SAGE handbook of organization studies, 2nd edn. Sage, London, pp 215–254

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence TB, Suddaby R, Leca B (2009) Institutional work, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire S, Hardy C, Lawrence TB (2004) Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: Hiv/Aids treatment advocacy in Canada. Acad Manag J 47(5):657–679. doi:10.2307/20159610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis C, Battilana J (2009) Acting globally but thinking locally? The enduring influence of local communities on organizations. Res Organ Behav 29:283–302. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis C, Glynn MA, Davis GF (2007) Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Acad Manag Rev 32(3):925–945. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.25275683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx K (1973) Outlines of the critique of political economy. Penguin Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK (1973) The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer JW (2010) World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annu Rev Sociol 36:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer JW, Boli J, Thomas GM, Ramirez FO (1997) World society and the nation-state. Am J Sociol 103(1):144–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer JW, Richard Scott W (1983) Organizational environments: ritual and rationality. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer JW, Rowan B (1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am J Sociol 83:340–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer RE, Sahlin K, Ventresca MJ, Walgenbach P (2009) Institutions and ideology. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Molm LD, Collett JL, Schaefer DR (2007) Building solidarity through generalized exchange: a theory of reciprocity. Am J Sociol 113(1):205–242. doi:10.1086/517900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay MJ, Gilbert GN, Woolgar S (1975) Problem areas and research networks in science. Sociology 9(2):187–203. doi:10.1177/003803857500900201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony S (2003) Guarding the commons: how community managed software projects protect their work. Res Policy 32(7):1179–1198. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00048-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony S, Bechky B (2008) Boundary organizations: enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Adm Sci Q 53(3):422–459. doi:10.2189/asqu.53.3.422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony S, Lakhani KR (2011) Organizations in the shadow of communities. Res Sociol Organ 33:3–36. doi:10.1108/S0733-558X(2011)0000033004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakes G (2003) Max Weber on value rationality and value spheres critical remarks. J Class Sociol 3(1):27–45. doi:10.1177/1468795X03003001693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi M (2000) The republic of science: its political and economic theory. Minerva 38(1):1–21. doi:10.1023/A:1026591624255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell WW (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. Res Organ Behav 12:295–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm Sci Q 41(1):116–145. doi:10.2307/2393988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell WW, Sandholtz KW (2012) Amphibious entrepreneurs and the emergence of organizational forms. Strateg Entrep J 6(2):94–115. doi:10.1002/sej.1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond ES (2001) The Cathedral & the Bazaar: musings on Linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary. O’Reilly Media Inc, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond ES (2003) The Halloween documents: an appreciation. http://www.catb.org/~esr/not-the-osi/halloween-rant.html. Accessed 5 May 2016

  • Rolandsson B, Bergquist M, Ljungberg J (2011) Open source in the firm: opening up professional practices of software development. Res Policy 40(4):576–587. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarason Y, Dean T, Dillard JF (2006) Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and opportunity: a structuration view. J Bus Ventur 21(3):286–305. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter JA (1939) Business cycles: a theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter JA (2000) Entrepreneurship as innovation. In: Swedberg R (ed) Entrepreneurship: the social science view. University Press, Oxford, pp 51–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter JA (2003) Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott WR (2001) Institutions and organizations. SAGE, Los Angeles, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott WR (2013) Institutions and organizations: ideas, interests, and identities, 4th edn. SAGE, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel M-DL, Stewart KJ (2011) An initial description of the C-form. Res Sociol Organ 33:37–72. doi:10.1108/S0733-558X(2011)0000033005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah S, Tripsas M (2007) The accidental entrepreneur: the emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship. Strateg Entrep J 1(1–2):123–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman MC (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):571–610. doi:10.2307/258788

    Google Scholar 

  • Swidler A (1973) The concept of rationality in the work of Max Weber. Sociol Inq 43(1):35–42. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1973.tb01149.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi N (2000) The emergence of generalized exchange. Am J Sociol 105(4):1105–1134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton PH, Lounsbury M, Ocasio W (2012) The institutional logics perspective: a new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Townley B (2002) The role of competing rationalities in institutional change. Acad Manag J 45(1):163–179. doi:10.2307/3069290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1949) ‘Objectivity’ in social science and social policy. In: Shils EA, Finch HA (eds) The methodology of the social sciences. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1968) Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology, vol 1. Univ of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1978) Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber S (2004) The success of open source. Harvard Univ Pr, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooten M, Hoffman AJ (2008) Organizational fields: past, present and future. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, Los Angeles, pp 130–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Zott C, Amit R (2007) Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organ Sci 18(2):181–199. doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker LG (1977) The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. Am Sociol Rev 42(5):726–743. doi:10.2307/2094862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker LG (1983) Organizations as institutions. Res Sociol Organ 2(1):1–47

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität, Berlin, Germany

    Jan-Peter Ferdinand

Authors
  1. Jan-Peter Ferdinand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ferdinand, JP. (2018). Theorizing Innovation Communities. In: Entrepreneurship in Innovation Communities. Contributions to Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66842-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation