IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/amsrev/v8y2018i3d10.1007_s13162-017-0109-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Constructing a theoretical framework for the process of innovation legitimation

Author

Listed:
  • Anastasia Thyroff

    (Clemson University)

  • Jennifer Christie Siemens

    (Clemson University)

  • Jeff B. Murray

    (University of Arkansas)

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to provide a framework for studying the key stakeholders who play a role in the process legitimation of an innovation. Specifically, we combine Foucault’s discourse on power, Latour’s Actor Network Theory and Goffman’s frame analysis to present a theoretical framework for the process of innovation legitimation (PIL). To demonstrate its usefulness, we apply the PIL framework to the context of nanotechnology. We ultimately determine that there are four key stakeholders trying to frame nanotechnology: 1) Advancement (i.e., government), 2) Management (i.e., industry), 3) Development (i.e., academia), and 4) Reflection (i.e., NGOs). The trajectory of market formation and legitimation for nanotechnology will depend largely on the cultural discourses that are disseminated by these four actors and the way other peripheral actors interpret the dominant frames. By conceptualizing the current frames for an innovation in the process of legitimizing, the future of each key discourse can be envisioned.

Suggested Citation

  • Anastasia Thyroff & Jennifer Christie Siemens & Jeff B. Murray, 2018. "Constructing a theoretical framework for the process of innovation legitimation," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 8(3), pages 180-194, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:amsrev:v:8:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s13162-017-0109-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s13162-017-0109-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13162-017-0109-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13162-017-0109-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tandy Chalmers Thomas & Linda L. Price & Hope Jensen Schau, 2013. "When Differences Unite: Resource Dependence in Heterogeneous Consumption Communities," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(5), pages 1010-1033.
    2. Abhishek Mishra & Satyabhushan Dash & Naresh Malhotra, 2015. "An integrated framework for design perception and brand equity," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 5(1), pages 28-44, June.
    3. Robin Canniford & Avi Shankar, 2013. "Purifying Practices: How Consumers Assemble Romantic Experiences of Nature," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(5), pages 1051-1069.
    4. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    5. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2011. "Labeling of Nanotechnology Consumer Products Can Influence Risk and Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1762-1769, November.
    6. Abhishek Mishra & Satyabhushan Dash & Naresh K. Malhotra, 2015. "An integrated framework for design perception and brand equity," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 5(1), pages 28-44, June.
    7. G. Tomas M. Hult & Jeannette A. Mena & O. C. Ferrell & Linda Ferrell, 2011. "Stakeholder marketing: a definition and conceptual framework," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 1(1), pages 44-65, March.
    8. Rita Di Mascio, 2016. "Firms’ adoption of self-service technology: how managerial beliefs shape co-production decisions," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 6(1), pages 79-97, June.
    9. Diane M. Martin & John W. Schouten, 2014. "Consumption-Driven Market Emergence," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(5), pages 855-870.
    10. Ashlee Humphreys & Kathryn A. Latour, 2013. "Framing the Game: Assessing the Impact of Cultural Representations on Consumer Perceptions of Legitimacy," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(4), pages 773-795.
    11. Bettany, Shona M. & Kerrane, Ben & Hogg, Margaret K., 2014. "The material-semiotics of fatherhood: The co-emergence of technology and contemporary fatherhood," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(7), pages 1544-1551.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bajde, Domen & Chelekis, Jessica & van Dalen, Arjen, 2022. "The megamarketing of microfinance: Developing and maintaining an industry aura of virtue," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 134-155.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eric Arnould & David Crockett & Giana Eckhardt, 2021. "Informing marketing theory through consumer culture theoretics," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, June.
    2. repec:oup:jconrs:v:49:y:2023:i:5:p:904-925. is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Elif Idemen & Ayse Banu Elmadag & Mehmet Okan, 2021. "A qualitative approach to designer as a product cue: proposed conceptual model of consumers perceptions and attitudes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 1281-1309, July.
    4. Justyna Kramarczyk & Mathieu Alemany Oliver, 2022. "Accumulative vs. Appreciative Expressions of Materialism: Revising Materialism in Light of Polish Simplifiers and New Materialism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(4), pages 701-719, February.
    5. Hope Jensen Schau & Melissa Archpru Akaka, 2021. "From customer journeys to consumption journeys: a consumer culture approach to investigating value creation in practice-embedded consumption," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 11(1), pages 9-22, June.
    6. Suvi Nenonen & Kaj Storbacka & Charlotta Windahl, 2019. "Capabilities for market-shaping: triggering and facilitating increased value creation," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 617-639, July.
    7. Biraghi, Silvia & Gambetti, Rossella & Pace, Stefano, 2018. "Between tribes and markets: The emergence of a liquid consumer-entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 392-402.
    8. Ferreira, Marcia Christina & Scaraboto, Daiane, 2016. "“My plastic dreams”: Towards an extended understanding of materiality and the shaping of consumer identities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 191-207.
    9. Thomas, Tandy Chalmers & Epp, Amber M. & Price, Linda L., 2020. "Journeying Together: Aligning Retailer and Service Provider Roles with Collective Consumer Practices," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 9-24.
    10. Candi, Marina & Jae, Haeran & Makarem, Suzanne & Mohan, Mayoor, 2017. "Consumer responses to functional, aesthetic and symbolic product design in online reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 31-39.
    11. Bettany, Shona M. & Kerrane, Ben & Hogg, Margaret K., 2014. "The material-semiotics of fatherhood: The co-emergence of technology and contemporary fatherhood," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(7), pages 1544-1551.
    12. Casidy, Riza & Wymer, Walter, 2016. "A risk worth taking: Perceived risk as moderator of satisfaction, loyalty, and willingness-to-pay premium price," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 189-197.
    13. Walther, Luciana & Schouten, John W., 2016. "Next stop, Pleasure Town: Identity transformation and women's erotic consumption," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 273-283.
    14. Heiko Wieland & Nathaniel N. Hartmann & Stephen L. Vargo, 2017. "Business models as service strategy," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 925-943, November.
    15. Diaz Ruiz, Carlos & Makkar, Marian, 2021. "Market bifurcations in board sports: How consumers shape markets through boundary work," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 38-50.
    16. Burnes, Bernard & Choi, Hwanho, 2021. "Hybrid economy in the digital age: The case of the independent music community in Korea," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    17. Donna L Hoffman & Thomas P Novak & Eileen FischerEditor & Robert KozinetsAssociate Editor, 2018. "Consumer and Object Experience in the Internet of Things: An Assemblage Theory Approach," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(6), pages 1178-1204.
    18. Zanette, Maria Carolina & Scaraboto, Daiane, 2019. "“To Spanx or not to Spanx”: How objects that carry contradictory institutional logics trigger identity conflict for consumers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 443-453.
    19. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    20. Filippo Corsini & Rafael Laurenti & Franziska Meinherz & Francesco Paolo Appio & Luca Mora, 2019. "The Advent of Practice Theories in Research on Sustainable Consumption: Past, Current and Future Directions of the Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, January.
    21. Kazadi, Kande & Lievens, Annouk & Mahr, Dominik, 2016. "Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 525-540.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:amsrev:v:8:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s13162-017-0109-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.