Micro-context and institutional entrepreneurship: multiple case studies of innovative start-ups

Observing and studying the performance of firms is an important part of entrepreneurship research (Cooper and Gimeno-Gascon,1992; Boden and Nucci, 2000; van Gelderen et al., 2001). Many pieces of research have focused on the success of existing firms. However, the first success of a firm is its creation (van Gelderen et al., 2008). This paper contributes to the empirical research on the dynamic interplay between micro-context and entrepreneurship, focusing on the creation of firms and their early development. Context is a rich concept and an elusive one to define (Wan, 2009). Even if a wide variety of scientific disciplines have started paying more and more attention to context in recent decades, its precise meaning and role often remain undefined. If we narrow down the field of enquiry to entrepreneurship research, the importance of context has been increasingly considered (Zahra et al., 2014; Welter, 2011; Zahara and Wright, 2011; van Gelderen et al. 2012). With regard to context, it is possible to find, as we stated above, several definitions and classifications (e.g. inner/outer, Pettigrew, 1992). Beyond the traditional distinction of classic dimensions of context - business, social, spatial and institutional – (Welter, 2011) it seems useful to introduce a further, meaningful distinction between the narrow and the wide context, or more generally to state that context can be considered and studied at different levels (Van Gelderen et al., 2012), from the micro to the macro level. The level of interest here is the micro one, because interlinks between the entrepreneurs and their narrow context are more visible and “self-evident” at this level. In this case, context is inseparable from the players involved and – at the same time – it is created or almost affected by individual action (Albertini and Muzzi 2014). The role of context strongly emerges starting from the earliest entrepreneurial stage and it is crucial to transform the “intention of entrepreneurship”into the actual start-up (Davidsson et al., 2009). On the other hand, research on institutional entrepreneurship shows how new entrepreneurs leverage resources to create new institutions or transform existing ones. In other words, when new entrepreneurs are radical innovators, they must interact with existing institutions, to obtain identity and legitimacy, and, at the same time, change the institutional environment to create the new context for growth of the venture. Briefly, the research question inspiring this chapter can be stated as: RQ1- What is the role of micro-context in the creation and early development of innovative firms? And, as a corollary of this RQ, as stated in the literature, RQ1b- Do start-ups contribute to institutional innovation? A qualitative approach, involving multiple case studies, was employed. The work contributes to existing studies on the relation between context and entrepreneurship focusing on the narrow dimension and excluding the macro-context influence (e.g. national and regional policies for new companies). The case studies to be included in the analysis were selected from the biomedical sector of the province of Brescia (northern Italy) according to the following criteria: - four cases analysed (a “good number” for multiple case studies, as stated by Yin, 2003); - cases from the biomedical sector, which differ in terms of genesis, based on the assumption that firms which master radically new products and technologies matter more than those operating in traditional industries. (Piccaluga and Chiesa, 2000; Zott et al., 2011). Rather than drawing a heterogeneous sample to answer the above research question, we followed Baron et al.’ s (1999) recommendation and deliberately selected a more restricted yet theoretically relevant sample. Such an approach offers the advantage of greater homogeneity.